Talk:The Venus Project/Archive 1

For Sale Claim

I added the claim that the property is for sale this time citing thevenusproject.com, Equazcion is right in that the website where the actual sale of the property is described flalandsale.com does not reference the venus project, but it is linked to from the venus project website.

Paglew (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I understand the need for neutral wording. However, saying explicitly that the information comes from the organization's own published information is redundant. If we simply say we're describing their proposal, this in itself conveys the fact that the information came from the organization itself rather than from a third party. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:40, 24 Nov 2008 (UTC)

The information did come from the org. itself... that is why the article is tagged for sources and references in third party sources... whether they also describe themselves or their project as Utopian is unknown... but it may be an opinion. It is inappropriate in a encylcopedia to just supply the phrasing of a party line of information that an org passes out as truth or interpret that information to an opinion by an editor ... but it its better to present information in a neutral manner, which your edit did not do. skip sievert (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I said that the organization made a proposal and proceeded to explain that proposal. What exactly is not neutral or truthful about that? We need to specifically say that the proposal comes from the organization's published information? Saying that it's their proposal isn't enough? That's ridiculous. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:41, 25 Nov 2008 (UTC)

You called them Utopian... Is that your opinion? The article is not really sourced except for their own sourcing... do they claim to be Utopian also? Do they also claim that they are going to free the world as that edit said.... come on... none of that is neutral and sounds like a blog advertisement writing of something. skip sievert (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I called the proposal utopian. It's a method of describing it. It could be interpreted as an opinion, but so could any rewording of a topic's description. We're supposed to reword things and sum them up for the article. Unless there's some conflict of opinion that their proposal is to create a utopian society, I don't see any issue with using that word. Same goes for "freeing the world". If you demand that all words used in the article appear in the source material, you ask too much, to the point of being contrary to the goal on Wikipedia.

The proposal is to free the world of issues the organization sees as detrimental. That is their proposal. I have not used any wording that said they're right. I only described what they have said. So tell me again if there's another problem here cause I'm about to revert you again. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:51, 25 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you can do as you please but you seem to be not following wikipedia guidelines as to the information and wording you are doing. It is not up to you to describe what they said... it is up to you to quote what they said exactly the way they said it... and also by calling them Utopian... this is a value judgment on your part apparently... unless claimed by them... which I have never seen... so you are doing original research and interpreting them in my opinion unless you give a direct source... and better yet an outside source... which the article lacks in general because mostly primary sources are used. reliable, published source You may firmly believe them to be Utopian... and they are planning to free the world in your words.... could you please source all that? If not it probably should not be included in the information which people rely on to be accurate as much as it can be made accurate.skip sievert (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a value judgemnt. I didn't say they are utopian. I didn't say that their proposal will work in creating a utopian society. I said they propose to create a utopian society. Because that is what they aim to do, is it not? That's not a value judgment. It's simply stating their goal.

Again the same goes for "freeing the world". I didn't say their proposal would free the world from anything. Their proposal, however, does state this, albeit in different words. They aim to free the world from those things which they deem to be detrimental to society.

And yes it is up to me to describe what they said, and no it is definitely not up to us to quote them exactly, see WP:CV. We're supposed to describe and paraphrase, not copy. Quoting a source exactly gets your content deleted. That's the policy here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:03, 25 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Really... what you are saying does not make a lot of sense to me. You are not supposed to quote a quote exactly? That is what a quote is... which is not at issue here... what is at issue is this...reliable, published source You are trying to introduce this group as being Utopian in the edit, and saying their plan is to free the world. Is that fair to them? Do they claim this? Do they claim that themselves for their proposal? Is that an interpretation by and editor? We are supposed to not copy word for word things... but that is a different issue, like documents and phrasing etc. You are apparently injecting your opinion of these people and it is not sourced. skip sievert (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh... my... god.

I'm gonna try to explain this one last time. I'm describing their goal. Let's start with a simpler paraphrasing. Their goal is to make society better. Is it not? Would you accept that? Their aim is to improve society. They've proposed methods for this goal as well, but their stated end goal IS to improve society. Do you agree there? Equazcion •✗/C • 02:14, 25 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Could be... probably better to source the information than to express an opinion though. It is only an opinion as you are expressing an interpretation of them above. How is it that using their information or some notable cited information is not the way to go here. Calling them Utopian or saying objectively what you may think they are doing does not really work. We are non notable grunt workers interested in neutrality and presenting un biased info. That is all. This is not a speculative enterprise. Plain old information can be cleverly presented, but original research or opinion is not really the idea. skip sievert (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're misinterpreting Wikipedia's rules. Your interpretation of what is considered an "opinion" is far too strict. According to your definition, any rewording of source material can be considered an opinion. That's not how it is. We have a source and we're supposed to reword it for the article. Let me repeat that: WE HAVE A SOURCE for what I've said. It might be a primary source, but primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia. The source might not say exactly that the organization's goal is to improve society, but that is a perfectly accurate rephrasing. Your personal requirement of a source that says exactly what we say in the article is not a requirement of Wikipedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:35, 25 Nov 2008 (UTC)

The Venus Project is an organization that proposes to improve society by correcting certain global issues, mainly in the area of economy, that they see as a hindrance to true societal growth and advancement...... Ok.. that seems better. I guess I would wonder a little about the end of it though....that they see as a hindrance to true societal growth and advancement because what is societal growth or advancement... that is opinion again... is it yours or theirs? Perhaps you can clarify that? Or source it in a quote or context they give? skip sievert (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's their opinion, not mine. They aim to improve society. They aim to allow for more unhindered growth. No I don't have a source that says exactly that, and I don't need one.Equazcion •✗/C • 02:50, 25 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it is uncited also... and looks like an opinion. that they see as a hindrance to true societal growth and advancement because what is societal growth or advancement... that is opinion again... is it yours or theirs? Perhaps you can clarify that? Or source it, in a quote or context they give, so that you can put in a citation for that? Otherwise it may be better because of other issues discussed but it is still reliable, published source and looks like an opinion. that they see as a hindrance to true societal growth and advancement because what is societal growth or advancement... that is opinion again... is it yours or theirs? Perhaps you can clarify that? Or source it, in a quote or context they give, so that you can put in a citation for that?

They aim to allow for more unhindered growth.... really not sure about your point on that... but this is not really an issue as to the discussion unless it is sourced somehow. This may be your personal opinion of them... but that should not translate into the article. skip sievert (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to link to the verifiability policy doesn't help your argument sir. I've been here a lot longer than you and I know the policy well, thanks. There was a time when I had the patience to go through the bureaucratic system of dealing with people like you, bringing in third parties and starting cases in the appropriate forums and such, but that time is sadly past. I'm sick of you and I'm now going to let you do whatever the hell you want with this article. Toodles. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:07, 25 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

You might want to put quotes around that piece of text you took from the source. You're not supposed to directly copy text and present it as original wording in the article. That;s called plagiarism or "copyright violation". A small direct quote might be okay if you present it as a quote, by putting quotation marks around it. I don't want to argue about this though, so if you're gonna give me an argument that says something retarded about a some policy that doesn't exist again, I'm not interested. It's just advice from someone experienced here. Take it or leave it. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:27, 25 Nov 2008 (UTC)

I changed it slightly when I copied it. At least the citation goes to their information now and not an interpretation, which I really could not see as being viable or neutral. But... if you wish to do what your saying ... then go ahead.. that is easily done. skip sievert (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to paraphrased wording

I've gone back to the paraphrased wording. The direct copied text has garnered this article an advertisement tag. Which was to be expected, since the text had been copied from the website that advertised the project. Sorry to continue this when I said I wouldn't, but if I allow the article to remain worded as the primary source it'll just end up getting deleted. This is an encyclopedia article and we describe and sum things up here. We don't copy. Anyone who objects to this is welcome to complain to the powers that be.Equazcion •✗/C • 08:04, 26 Nov 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the advert tag. I currently see this article as self-promotional due to the lack of 3rd party refs. The main problem being that of notability, which I think needs establishing. Widefox (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the advert tag is for. We've already got a tag for lack of 3rd party refs, and another for the notability issue. We don't need another one. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:36, 26 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Actually we may need another one and I would support the advert tag. The Venus project has not been seriously written about except in blogs and Myspace and things like that,and they are trying to sell to the public any number of books and tapes etc. - It also seems to revolve around one person that has promoted himself to his current position of expertise. skip sievert (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes the project might be that, nothing but a money-making ploy, with a founder that has no actual power, if you like. But that doesn't mean the article reads like an advertisement. All the problems you mentioned are described by the notability and primary source tags. No one's yet to defend the actual advert tag.

I've also changed the intro yet again, to brand-new wording, which will hopefully be acceptable. The intro you wrote didn't make any sense because it referred to things not yet presented, such as saying "Fresco see's the alternative of a resource based economy..." Who the hell is Fresco? And what's a resource-based economy? It's a confusing sentence to have in the intro. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:27, 26 Nov 2008 (UTC)

It is an encyclopedia... with multiple linked articles as to who is Fresco and what a resource based economy is. skip sievert (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, later in the article. But you can't say Fresco said something in the first line before saying who Fresco is. It's like saying "The Acme Company is really good. Sam says they've done a good job." Who's Sam? Why should anyone care what he said? What's his relation to the subject of the article? We need to explain the significance of a person's name before telling people what they said. The same goes for "resource-based economy", since that's a term Fresco made up, so no one can be expected to know what it is yet, and the information would bear no significance to them. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:55, 27 Nov 2008 (UTC)

The advert tag is justified - please read Wikipedia:NOT#SOAPBOX Advertising. I quote "Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." - I think it would be helpful if you could try to add 3rd party refs before removing this tag, or by reaching consensus here on the talk page. Widefox (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but the line before that reads "Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style." The article isn't biased and it doesn't read like an advertisement. If you're saying more third-party sources would fix the problem, then I agree, but we already have a tag for that. There are lots of tags that could apply to a given issue, but that doesn't mean we use all of them. Tags are meant to communicate a problem, and as long as one tag is up that adequately describes the problem, we don't need others that describe the same one. One tag per issue is plenty. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:02, 28 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Even attempting to talk about objectivity and bias is moot considering notability has not been established. Please help establish notability, which is the central problem with the article. Without notability, this article can be considered promotion/advert, especially when coupled with claims that publicity in a conspiracy film is used so prominently, and guarded so closely. Widefox (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"coupled with claims that publicity in a conspiracy film is used so prominently, and guarded so closely." -- Mind elaborating on that? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Unless you mean to say that I have personally taken in interest in keeping the "conspiracy film" statement in the intro to establish notability. Firstly I have repeatedly simplified the statement to say only "The Venus Project is featured prominently in the film, Zeitgeist: Addendum." You have continually added the whole "conspiracy film" thing. Second, yes, I do feel it is important to keep in the intro, since notability for this topic is so tenuous, and the film is the "best we got" at the moment, so to speak. I'm not sure why you would advocate its removal from the intro just because of that -- unless you have a personal interest in making the topic seem as non-notable as possible. Everyone agrees there's a notability issue here. Organizing the article to make that fact as apparent as possible doesn't help anyone. If you want to help, either nominate the article for deletion or search for more sources. Prominent mention of a topic in a film is normally something put in article intros and it should stay there. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:02, 30 Nov 2008 (UTC)

publicity in a viral internet movie does not advance notability. Simple. Widefox (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's hardly a rule on Wikipedia, but rather your personal opinion. And once again, it's not the point. Just because you see the fact of its inclusion in the movie as some kind of false proof of notability does not mean it can't be included in the intro and instead must be placed in a separate section. It's a single fact, and by your own admission, of marginal interest, and doesn't merit its own section. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 1 Dec 2008 (UTC)

maybe there is a confusion here. I am talking about WP:Notability. Widefox (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No confusion. Notability is irrelevant. A fact does not need to demonstrate notability in order to be included in the intro of an article. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:48, 1 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I am confused. I was replying to you Equazcion! you said "Second, yes, I do feel it is important to keep in the intro, since notability for this topic is so tenuous, and the film is the "best we got" at the moment, so to speak." , when I reply to you saying it does not help notability you then say notability is irrelevant. Widefox (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about notability since you were, but I also said that was beside the point. So tell me why this fact can't be in the intro, keeping in mind that a fact does not need to demonstrate notability in order to be in the intro of an article. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:48, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Jacque Fresco

Most of the Jacque Fresco article just describes the Venus Project. That's all he's notable for. The two articles should be merged, with Jacque Fresco redirecting to The Venus Project.Equazcion •✗/C • 04:12, 29 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. But, The Venus project itself is iffy though as to notability. Mostly it is self generated by Fresco... and not written about critically by outsiders to itself... although the Zeitgeist movie obviously has made Fresco more notable recently. It becomes iffy now because the Venus project is up for sale... as far as where the guy lives... and the Venus Project may not translate beyond them selling the place. Maybe therefore it is better to leave them separate... as Fresco... and elderly man... may ultimately be known for being Fresco... when the Venus Project comes to an end. skip sievert (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The place being up for sale has nothing to do with anything. The Venus Project and Fresco's home aren't synonymous, and there's no reason to say the Venus Project is coming "to an end". Venus is basically nothing more than an idea at the moment so it can't exactly "end". And you're saying that after he dies, Fresco might "be known for being Fresco"? What the hell does that mean? Fresco's article is basically about the Venus Project and nothing more, because that's all he's notable for. Being elderly or dead doesn't add notability to a person.

Even if the argument could be made that Wikipedia technically allows for notability of Fresco, there's isn't enough material there on him to warrant a separate article, cause again, it's all about the Venus Project. Whatever little else there is on him could fit nicely in a section of this article instead.

Besides which, your points aren't for this discussion. This is about whether or not the articles should be merged, and you're giving an argument for deletion. If you think the articles need to be deleted, you should nominate them and offer your argument there. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:14, 29 Nov 2008 (UTC)

I do not really have a dog in this fight... only tried to point out a few things in my p.o.v. - I thought that since the Venus project is based in Venus Florida and if they leave the area ... that might be the end of it. But... as you say... maybe it is also a thought construct beyond location? skip sievert (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. Yes, it's a thought construct. But the point is more that the origin of something's name doesn't necessarily have any further effect on it. If I come up with a product, an organization, or an idea, and I name it based on where I live, and then I move to another location, that doesn't necessarily have any effect on the existence of the thing. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:17, 29 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah... unless one is selling mountain spring water from some particular gurgling stream... or selling some religious idea that has a holey place that is part of the sales pitch, as to location. Not really sure about the Venus project... from the pictures it looks like a few buildings built Florida.... some written material given in a philosophical way, and lots of drawings of possible future buildings skip sievert (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and again you're arguing against this topic meriting an article, and not against the merge. You've spent much of this talk page presenting similar doubts. This suggests you certainly do have "a dog in this fight", to use your words. You want someone else to confirm your doubts? The project consists of nothing more than essays, pretty pictures, and one man's vision for the future. There you go. Does that negate the topic's merit as an article? Not according to Wikipedia's rules. Notability has nothing to do with those things. The lack of third-party sources is the only true problem, and that is something to be taken up in a deletion discussion, which I think it would do you well to start, so that you don't keep bringing up these problems in other irrelevant discussions. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:05, 29 Nov 2008 (UTC)

The article previously contained a clear real-estate advert, which is why I am so keen to monitor and prevent such abuses of WP. Promotion in a conspiracy film without 3rd party references does not notability make. Repeatedly reverting edits indicates other problems here, which I am happy to help resolve. Let's move this article forward. Thanks, Widefox (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, repeatedly reverting edits is a problem. You could solve it by not doing it. You were just as much a participant in that as anyone else. You told others to discuss while you continued to revert and didn't start a discussion yourself. Again I'll say this particular discussion is not about notability. If you feel the article lacks notability, you have two options: Nominate the article for deletion, or find more third-party sources. If you are going to allow the article to stay, though, you must allow people to discuss other aspects of it without interruption. Such as this merge proposal. If you have an opinion on that, I'm listening. But don't demand the notability issue get dealt with prior to discussing a merge, because you haven't done anything to solve that problem yourself, other than telling everyone else to solve it. Nominate for deletion or find sources, but if not, don't demand others make it their top priority. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:16, 30 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Merge I agree with the argument that Fresco, if notable at all, "might" (as yet unproven) only be notable for The Venus Project. (see below for revert topic) Widefox (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY STRONGEST KEEP!!! – Jacque Fresco is (IMHO) one of the greatest and most influential men in the world history, the New Leonardo!!! The Venus Project is a creation by Fresco, and a merge is not a solution. To write Fresco's biography, inventions, career, works, ideas, etcetera into The Venus Project article is a nonsense. Both articles need work so, please, help to expand and improve them giving more detailed information and sources, and be bold. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You say he's great and yet the only evidence you've presented to back that up is the venus project. People who are only notable for a single thing aren't considered notable enough for their own article. What else ya got? Has he done anything else? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:03, 2 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The Venus Project is growing at a very fast rate and has become quite well known around the internet, particularly due to the ever-broadening publicity of the Zeitgeist movies. In terms of an article, Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project are not the same topic, as the Project has become more than just his work alone and has been integrated with many other similar ideas, spawning an activist arm for itself - the Zeitgeist Movement. Fresco himself is becoming more of a public figure recently and therefore it would make more sense, especially to help inform those unfamiliar with him or The Venus Project, to keep these articles seperate. -Itachi007 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP JACQUE FRESCO - Merging the Jacque Fresco page with the Venus Project page would highlight Wikipedia's inconsistencies and erode it's credibility. If Jacque Fresco is merged on the basis he is only known for the Venus Project (which is merely an unsubstantiated opinion), then many other Wikipedia entries should be merged. It may be that he best known for the Venus Project.

Jacque Fresco is known as an inspiring public speaker, covering a range of topics / ideas. He has appeared at numerous universities including Columbia University, University of Miami, Princeton University, University of Southern California, Dade Junior College, Queens College, Presbyterian College, University of Southern Florida, Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey in Monterrey, Mexico, Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria, City University, London and others. He is known for his appearences in the Zeitgeist films. He is know as the author of numerous books. He is know for producing several films. He is known for patenting inventions. He is known for his design work. Many newspapers, periodicals, magazines have published articles by Jacque Fresco. Many newspapers, periodicals, magazines have published articles about Jacque Fresco. He has appeared on or has been featured in many radio and television shows. Removing Jacque Fresco is simply an act of denial, requiring all the people who are aware of Jacque Fresco and his work to pretend he never existed. That is fantastical nonsense and without merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.226 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated reverting

Please note that repeatedly reverting my edits without discussing here first is not helping this article progress. I have removed the advert tag, as the current wording is more acceptable, and I am making a compromise to prevent edit-warring. Please everyone, discuss changes before reverting edits. Widefox (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if the Venus Project considers itself a Utopia movement.?.. and if the Utopia link should be in the see other section as it is presently. Is this a label that has been put on them and if so who says they are Utopic? I was thinking about removing the Utopia tag. Any thoughts? skip sievert (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion about the Utopia, Jacque Fresco clearly states that his vision is not Utopic, but the reasons why seem to be one of perception of the system and projection rather than accepting the system for what it is. The Utopia article refers to a number "perfect states" or "ideal states" of society. I have contacted many times and ask them if they wish to actually achieve their ideal state or that is their goal. They usually state that they do want to achieve their ideal state, but would be fine if it doesn't turn out the way they want and if it just becomes better than what they proposes. So you can categorize them as "semi-Utopian" in vision, but not as an ultimate goal.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Please note that repeatedly reverting my edits without discussing here first is not helping this article progress." -- I could say the same to you. You've reverted as many times as I. If you want to discuss, begin discussing. Don't continue reverting while demanding the other person discuss. I'll hold off reverting your little publicity section for now, if you can tell me why it's necessary to have a separate section for a single fact. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:55, 30 Nov 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a technicality, I made edit changes to move mention of the movie to a publicity section. That edit has been reverted several

times. I do not wish to participate in an edit-war, so I would appreciate you talking about why you wish to revert it before you do it. Thank you, Widefox (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, "as a technicality" (???), I made "edit changes" as well. You see, calling it something else doesn't change anything. You reverted my edit several times. Your participation in the edit war was equal to mine. I would appreciate you talking about why you wish to revert my edits before you do it as well, so I suppose it's a good thing we're doing so above. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:49, 1 Dec 2008 (UTC)

please can you show me which of your edits I have reverted, and I will look at them. Widefox (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oy gevalt. You said I kept reverting your edits, so doesn't it make sense that you needed to revert me each of those times, to get your changes back? It was an edit war. Each time I reverted you, it was when you reverted me previously. But anyway, you want the edits, here you go: [1][2][3]. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:28, 1 Dec 2008 (UTC)

These 3 reverts restored my edits after being reverted. They do not revert edits you have made. In particular my edit to create a publicity section. Can you detail why you do not consider it appropriate to create a new section with one line when there are other sections with one line? I do not understand, and have restored my edit, and advanced the article. Widefox (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

When you restore your edits after someone reverts them, that's also called reverting. I've explained it already. The publicity a topic receives is normally placed in the intro. There's no need for a separate section for a single fact. I'd be fine with other tiny sections' content being placed in the intro as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:55, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

POV

Revision by Widefox - "The Venus Project" is an group of two people". Edit summary: "as far as I can see, it is a group of 2 people".

As far as you can see?? Since when do such things get included in articles? You don't have a source for that, even a primary one.

I'm sorry to anyone who judges this project to be inconsequential and would like the article to reflect that, but we're not here to make such judgments. If you think the topic is not notable, nominate it for deletion. I might do it myself at this point, since everyone who has a problem with the article would rather continue complaining than actually do anything about it.

But if not deleted, you have to accept the fact that you can't inject your personal opinion about the project into its article. The Venus Project could very well be just a big nothing, and furthermore, readers might even make the false assumption that it's more significant than it is (or at least, more significant than we think it is). This is a risk we're forced to take. It's not our job to "set" the reader "straight" by pointing out everything we feel is "wrong" or "lacking" or "small" about any topic. We have tags that question its notability and its source material, and that will have to be enough. We might have lots of good reasons for thinking the project is a scam or simply inconsequential, but these things stay out of the article until a source states them. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:08, 1 Dec 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are abiding by the same level of proof for making any edit on this article? Do you have a ref for verifying that it is a "group"? In fact, "The Venus Project, Inc" is a corporation (as seen when clicking on items to purchase from http://www.thevenusproject.com/shop/ ). Please could you discuss before reverting my edits in future. Thank you, Widefox (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone sells something doesn't make it a corporation. A corporation is a specific legal entity. I don't see anything in the website that says it's a corporation. Please provide a specific quote that says this. We don't need a ref to say something is a group. A group is just more than one person. I'm trying to discuss but you take a long time to respond. It takes at least 24 hours for you to respond to anything here which is frustrating, and it took even longer than that this last time, so I assumed you were conceding and I proceeded to revert. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:58, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

It would have to be a corporation or they could not make this claim on their donate page... Donations are used to help promote the direction of Future By Design, the nonprofit sector of The Venus Project. www.TheVenusProject.com

Supporters can make a quick and easy gift of cash. Donate online over our secure website. Future By Design is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization. Contributions to Future By Design are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law. That is a corporation.

It could be that they do not like the baggage of being a corporation ... or at least not in print and prefer to characterize themselves as a group... which I am sure there is not problem with.. but for the sake of accurate reporting... they are a corporation.

Forming a new non-profit is a process that involves two distinct steps. Generally, interested parties that are not yet a 501(c)3 will need to file articles of incorporation with the appropriate agency in their state (usually the state's secretary of state). Next, they will also need to secure federal income tax exemption by filing the appropriate forms with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Local bar associations may be able to direct Councils to "pro bono" or reduced-cost legal services from lawyers experienced in the non-profit sector. Please be aware that it usually takes 4 to 6 months to go through the process.

When in the process of procuring and filing the appropriate forms required to apply for non-profit incorporation, interested parties may want to contact the state charity registration office. Be aware that procedures vary from state to state; so each party should consult with an attorney. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/ezec/toolbox/501c3factsheet.html - skip sievert (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Venus Project itself seems to be neither a non-profit organization nor a corporation. We don't know exactly what it is yet, based on the sources. Future By Design is their affiliated non-profit organization.

If anything, there's no reason to say it's a corporation. If we were writing an article on The United Way, would we say it's a corporation? No, because it's more accurate to say it's a non-profit organization. Just because non-profits are also technically corporations doesn't mean we say that instead. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:17, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

It should have its own organization box describing exactly what it is. It is a corporation... so it should be described as such... and also it infers itself to be something else previously...and organization does not mean to much... as to type. It is a specific type of corporation though. You said previously to do this Just because someone sells something doesn't make it a corporation. A corporation is a specific legal entity. I don't see anything in the website that says it's a corporation. Please provide a specific quote that says this.... this is the result. skip sievert (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you keep saying that, but show me a source. The Venus Project itself is neither, as far as I can see. Again we don't call non-profits "corporations" generally. You want to call it a non-profit corporation? Be my guest. But the fact that it's non-profit will need to be stated. Furthermore, again, The Venus Project itself is not the non-profit or the corporation. Future By Design is. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:23, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

?... I gave you the quote from the Venus Project website on their donation page. I cut and pasted from them that info here... that they are a 501(c)3 Corporation... that means they are Incorporated. Here is the page that says so http://www.thevenusproject.com/donate.html skip sievert (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your quote says "Future By Design" is the non-profit organization, NOT The Venus Project. Show me a source that says The Venus Project is a non-profit organization or a corporation, if you want the article to state that. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:29, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Any one can call themselves any thing as long as they are not breaking the law. That is a fact. I am sure it would be tough to sort out exactly who is who and what is what in this regard. That is the whole purpose of most non-profits, and to protect the people involved by creating a fictitious person or Corporation. I am sure more particulars could be tracked down. Venus project is a business... and any business is in the business to make money. Sorry if that sounds like commentary... but that is the reality of non profit groups. skip sievert (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's commentary and it's original research, so it doesn't belong in the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:36, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, I showed you the source above - go to the link I posted and go to purchase an item. It will show you the corporation name on paypal. Please refraid from immediately editing away my edits. I am finding your immediate edits of my edits to be very aggressive. Also, I do not need to respond to you within a timeframe dictated by you, and you cannot infer that if I do not reply immediately, that I or others agree with you. I have repeated my edit that it is a corporation, and I ask you once again to refrain from reverting my edits, thank you, Widefox (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You really need to understand that reverting my reverts is still reverting. You're doing the same thing as me. You might think your edits are "justified" and the other person's are not, but he considers your edits unjustified. That's what a revert war is. You think your edits are justified, the other person thinks theirs are justified, and you keep reverting back and forth.

So, please refrain from immediately editing away my edits. I am finding your immediate edits of my edits to be very aggressive. Also please take a look at WP:3RR for some clarification on the subject, and kindly try a little objective thinking. Remember, you're not right; you merely have an opinion. Just like me.

I see a single link back to the venus project website from the paypal page, that has "inc" after the name. That's the only spec of evidence anywhere that it's a corporation, and I don't think it's enough, although I'm fine keeping it in the article. It just needs to be moved somewhere else. The Venus Project is a project, according to the source material. It may also be a corporation (maybe), but what kind of legal entity an organization is doesn't need to be in the first sentence of the article.

You're frankly just trying to emphasize your opinion that it's a money-making scheme, and that really needs to stop. The Venus Project is a project, and that definition is much more prominent in the source material than its "corporate" status, and I am editing the article to reflect that. The statement will be moved elsewhere. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:36, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

I have added a second reference to the use of the term corporation (as in it is "The Venus Project, Inc"). I will ignore your other comments. I ask you again to refrain from reverting my edits, thank you, Widefox (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

break

←If you're ignoring my comments then I see no reason to stop reverting you. You're supposed to discuss. If you ignore the discussion and edit the article as you see fit, you can expect to get reverted quite often.

And adding another reference doesn't mean the legal status can't be in a separate section, which I plan to reinstate as soon as you're done here. Unless you want to discuss it, rather than ignore me. As I said in my edit summary, if publicity is to be a separate section, then so can this. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:32, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

PS. The discrepancy between the time an organization forms and the time it chooses to file as a corporation is irrelevant, and I plan to remove it. This isn't an investigative report. I realize you don't hold a high opinion of the Venus Project, but this is an encyclopedia article, not an exposé. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:14, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Is there an argument that the Venus project is a corporation or not? and Future by design not connected to Venus project and part of the corporation? This is the information on their page and it answers that question. Really a sidebar box should have all that information listed for convenience.

Donations are used to help promote the direction of Future By Design, the nonprofit sector of The Venus Project. wwwDisable.TheVenusProject.com

Supporters can make a quick and easy gift of cash. Donate online over our secure website. Future By Design is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization. Contributions to Future By Design are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law. Source http://www.thevenusproject.com/donate.html

That is the fact according to their self primary sources of which the article is mostly made of. This is their info and how is this open to interpretation? skip sievert (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it is. The word didn't belong in the defining first sentence. There are lots of topics that are corporations, but that's not how we define them. The Pirate Bay is probably a corporation, but do we start their article by saying "The Pirate Bay is a corporation?" No, that would be silly. Same here. I've revamped the article, and included the fact that they are incorporated, but not in the first line. Cause that would be stupid. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:36, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my words - I am ignoring your comments like "try a little objective thinking". I think that is healthy, ok. You forced me to spell it out. Widefox (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I said much more than that. You responded to none of my main points. This is not discussing. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:39, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion can you briefly summarise what you wish discussed?...simply as the page is getting long! I shall simply point out that looking at a random goodish article... e.g. American Broadcasting Company talks about "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc" . Your version does not define what the The Venus Project is, which is clearly sub-optimal, as you say for an encyclopaedia. Widefox (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I will not summarize what I wish to discuss, as I've already done so in that long comment I provided, to which you said you were ignoring me. Re-read it if you'd like that information. Yes, my version does not define what The Venus Project is, because no source describes that either (I said this in my edit summary at the time). There might be a corporation but we're not describing the corporation -- the corporation isn't what's notable. It's the project itself that is (or might be).

Again, articles about websites or projects or whatnot don't start with saying they're "a corporation", even though they may very well be. American Broadcasting Companies is purely an umbrella corporation -- not a great example, as this is a website/project. Again there are lots of topics that are corporations, but we don't define them as such in the first line of their articles. Because who cares that they're a corporation? That's not a definition. Of course, you do care though, since you want everyone to know that the Venus Project is just a money-making scheme. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:26, 4 Dec 2008 (UTC)

PS: You removed the mention that the website sells merchandise and accepts donations, and then tagged the article as an advertisement, after those things were removed? One or the other, I think. Not both. I've removed all tags anyway now though, since the proposed deletion should serve to convey all the problems in the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:36, 4 Dec 2008 (UTC)

as you know, we are meant to be brief. You are not assuming good faith by talking about other editors motives. The only verified fact in the article is that they are a corporation. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise with refs, instead you fill the talk page and revert edits until you put up for deletion. Widefox (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: check your facts before making more accusations,,,I did not remove mention of donation/merchandise as shown by this [4] . You are well out of order with your personal attacks. I ask you again to decease, thank you Widefox (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you weren't the one who removed those things then I apologize. Still though, they aren't there anymore, and the article doesn't read like an advertisement, so the advert tag is not necessary. The talk page is for discussing things, so I won't apologize for "filling" it. I'm not saying it's not a corporation, only that that fact doesn't belong in the first line. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 4 Dec 2008 (UTC)

Dubious situation

There are now 2 films in one article, the Venus Project was suppose to be merged with one of them. Further merger into the 2 films will attribute the strangest set of categories to the Venus project one could possibly imagine. The page about Fresco no longer describes Fresco while his work involves a lot more than just the Venus project.

The editors destubing the articles are winning. I don't have a clue what to do at this stage. There should be an article about the Venus project because it is something wonderfull, it has been on Larry King, has refference in the NYT, merging some one's lives work into an article about a non existant film with Conspricay facts and Tim Osman theory just doesn't seem right because it's wrong.

I know there are a lot of corporate editors who would love to see this article disappear or misrepresent the topic but have a heart? We are going to build Fresco's cities, the first one in New Z-land.

I understand the vandalism is hard to controll but I'm not here to troll or desturb the article and I do not apperciate such accusations. You know?

So what is the plan? 84.104.135.141 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well we've been discussing for a while wether to merge this article with Jacque Fresco or keep the two seperate and it seems that the majority of people do not want them merged, as you can see above. In order to help this decision make sense the Jacque Fresco article needs to be more about him and less about the project itself. I haven't seen any outright vandalism on these articles recently, just some mis-guided or mis-informed edits. I am currently looking for mroe sources to use as references for both articles.

I do not understand what you mean by a "non-existant" film - two films exist and a third is in production. regarding the Osama Bin Laden theories, the subject is mentioned in both films so far, and whether they are true or not is irrelevant. Itachi007 (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal dispute of Resource Based Economics

Added this section here as it was removed from the zeitgeist movement article and we agreed it should be here as it is relevant to this article and is also a valuable piece of historical information concerning the venus project. Dilligencedetails (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Anyone else with me for AFD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.145.136 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I did look for this specifically and was glad to find the relevant Wikipedia article. An idea that has even actualized into a 20+ acre research center makes it something worthy of placement in an encyclopedia. Thus, I must oppose this being listed as being an AfD, article for deletion. Adavis444 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The main problem with this article is that it's very hard to get reliable sources for anything. The Venus Project is something that is of interest only for themselves, and people who are fascinated by whacky fringe ideas, like me. :-) Except for that it's nothing but a neologism for technocracy. But of course, that can't be reliably sourced. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Im sure once the guy behind it is gone the project will disappear. As far as I can see none of this has actually progressd into anything other than a 'research center' that's probably nothing more than a vehicle to writeoff and move alot of $.

Will have to check back once he's in the next world to see how the venus project is moving along here.Woods01 (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So they have a website

Note: discussion started in edit summaries: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

...And they sell books and videos. So does pretty much every other organization. And the only source we have for it is their webshop? That's both uninteresting, irrelevant and link spam at the same time. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The organization could have both a more online-focused approach (web videos, discussion boards, online articles, etc) or a more "physical" one (organizing meetups, giving talks, actually building a city following the principles they defend, etc.). It seems pretty reasonable to me to point out where they stand on that scale. As for the source, it is primary, but although those are discouraged, they're not outright banned. I'd say a poorly sourced sentence makes more sense than an unsourced one (unless the source is misleading/untruthful). --Waldir ^talk 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty reasonable to me to point out where they stand on that scale. - Sure, but that's not what the text is doing. It just says they have a website where they sell stuff, and the link goes to the store. Drawing the conclusion you draw above from that is WP:OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: they sell "stuff" (books, DVDs, etc.), and the store link shows that quite clearly. It is, indeed, problematic in that it's a primary source, but I don't understand how that can be OR. No conclusions are being inferred. We could say "they finance their activities with the sale of books, etc", and *that* would be OR, since the store's existence doesn't prove they're getting profit from it. But the existence of the store is direct evidence that, well, they do sell these materials. That's all the text says. Inferring where that puts them in the scale of "physicality" of organizations is up to the reader; we just provide the facts.

Look, I'm all for removing spam/commercial links, but until we get a better source, I don't think the damage (less information for the reader) overcomes the benefit (less link juice for their commercial interests). Especially since (1) external links are nofollow'ed, and (2) this is an encyclopedia where people come looking for information.

--Waldir ^talk 08:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But there is no information there, except your conjecture that because they have a website where they sell videos, this is their main means. But you don't *know* that, it's conjecture/OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The text didn't say it is their main means. It simply stated they did that. In the absence of information about other things they do, someone could infer those are their main means (a totally legitimate inference, though OR as you say), but the text itself didn't affirm that. --Waldir ^talk 10:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. And hence your argument "It seems pretty reasonable to me to point out where they stand on that scale" is invalid. And hence, we are back to my original statement: "So they have a webite. And they sell books and videos. So does pretty much every other organization. And the only source we have for it is their webshop? That's both uninteresting, irrelevant and link spam at the same time." --OpenFuture (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. What makes my argument invalid? The fact that we don't provide information on *all* their activities doesn't mean that information on some of it can't help people place them on that scale; quite the opposite, actually. --Waldir ^talk 12:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't help them place them on the scale. It would if we said that they *only* did that. We don't, because we can't, because we don't have a source for it. The information is at best not useful, at worst misleading. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Usefulness is a subjective concept. I personally find that information useful (that's why I restored it in the first place). You don't, that's fine. But as encyclopedia editors, we cannot make judgments on what readers will find useful or not. It is a fact that they do it, and we source it (the best we can). Therefore, there's no objective reason it should be removed. If you prefer, we can add the link in plain text, so that it's not clickable. Is that an acceptable compromise? Otherwise, what would you suggest? --Waldir ^talk 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that for the reasons above, it should not be included. We can and have to make judgements all the time, based on Wikipedia policy. And mine is that there are at least three reasons, listed above, not to include it, and no reason to include it. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll request comments from other users. --Waldir ^talk 17:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to back up OF on this one: there's no reason to include that material in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Someone already tagged, but I'll put forth the proposal here. I'm not seeing enough content to justify an independent article. This could easily be covered in Jacque Fresco, as I'm not seeing enough independent coverage to justify its own article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Or the other way around, but yes, the articles could most likely be merged. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is notable enough. Even back in the 70s Larry Kind interviewed Jacque Fresco. A new interest in the project has started since it was referenced in Zeitgeist: Addendum. Dustin184 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I trust that on the new movie there was a better explanation of the Venus Project idea in general. Maybe the article can be expanded. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not a lack of explanation, but a lack of reliable sources and independent coverage. In any case, Fresco is hardly notable outside the Venus Project, and hence the articles should be merged. Probably the Fresco article should be merged into this, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems prudent, I agree. It is better to contain the content in the Fresco article within the Venus Project article. --Gaxtrope (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thusly merged. I needed to remove two refernces as they triggered a spam filter. The article needs some cleanup now, there is some repetition. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, The Venus Project article could be expanded if required.--(Gharr (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Someone please clarify. The Fresco article was merged with The Venus Project because: 1. Fresco's lack of notability? or 2. lack of acceptable references? If it is a notability issue, by Wikipedia's policy, Fresco qualifies for an article. However, given the subjective language in Wikipedia's policies, I imagine some people will disagree with me on that. The general attitude in these discussions seems to be that The Venus Project is all for which Fresco is known and that there is no coverage of him outside of The Venus Project. I would like to know upon what these claims are based. I suspect that there is a significant lack of research on the parts of individuals in this discussion. Thorough and serious research requires much more than a google search. I hope that is not a method you editors are using.

Over the past couple months I have been researching Fresco extensively. I have been working on a draft that will overhaul the old biography article. As of now I have uncovered over a hundred 2nd and 3rd party sources. I think this will solve the lack of acceptable references issue as well, if that is in fact an issue. I will edit the Fresco article at some point in the weeks to come. Is that a problem?

However, at this time, the merge may be warranted given the state of the previous Fresco article. --Biophily (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

He was merged for both reasons, and more. Fresco has no notability outside The Venus Project. Almost all of his article was about the Venus Project, not about Fresco, so once anything in the article about The Venus Project was removed, it was obvious that there was no basis for an article. It doesn't matter how many sources you have, unless these sources are about things he did outside of The Venus Project. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you assume Fresco has no notability outside of The Venus Project, but that is simply not true. Fresco has had coverage throughout his entire life. I will demonstrate this in the new article.

By Wikipedia's policy, if a person has been covered by established external sources, then they qualify for notability. I have no argument against merging due to the low quality of the previous article. But arguing that he is not notable is mistaken; I'm sorry I have to say it so bluntly. I suspect your certainty is unjustified. Nearly half of the sources that I have found cover Fresco's work (1940s-1980s) long before The Venus Project existed (1994-present).

Instead of relying upon uninformed opinion, let's try to discover his notability by considering snapshot statistics that may reveal a portion of his notability outside of the sources that I previously mentioned.

• For a basic google English internet search, there turned up 566 listings for "Jacque Fresco" (in quotes) (this search does not encompass the whole) [decent evidence]
• For a basic English Youtube search, there turned up 1000 separate non-duplicate results for "Jacque Fresco" (in quotes) (this search does not encompass the whole) [decent evidence]
• A Facebook artist page bearing his name has 13,984 likes [okay evidence]
• According to wikistats (http://toolserver.org/~emw/wikistats/) Fresco gets 416 views a day on average, and The Venus Project gets 339 views a day on average. [very good evidence]
• There were 341 worldwide screenings of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward which is dedicated to Fresco's work. (Total attendance has yet to be calculated.) As of now it has 3.15 million views on youtube (this does not encompass the whole) [okay evidence]

The irony is, anywhere The Venus Project appears, Jacque Fresco appears with it. Therefore, he is just as notable as The Venus Project. And since he has had press coverage for longer than The Venus Project, reason should conclude that he is in fact more notable than The Venus Project. If Fresco isn't notable, then The Venus Project isn't notable and should be deleted. Such is where logic has taken us. It would have made more sense to merge The Venus Project article into the Jacque Fresco biography, not the other way around, since clearly Fresco's wiki article gets more views than The Venus Project article.

I will be posting the new article at some point in the weeks to come. Is that okay? --Biophily (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not assume anything. "Instead of relying upon uninformed opinion" - Right, instead of doing that, why don't you read the Wikipedia requirements on notability, WP:Notability? Note the part of reliable sources, etc. Hint: Google hits doesn't count. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I realize that google hits are not an acceptable source, and I would never use it in an article. The bulleted points were merely to demonstrate that Fresco isn't a nobody and that many people are interested and aware of what he is doing. I tried to make it clear that aside from many acceptable sources that will be included in the article, the bulleted information is auxiliary for the sake of this discussion. --Biophily (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever claimed he is a nobody. No sort of evidence or even argumentation that he is notable outside of TVP has been provided. I rest my case. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I think Jacque Fresco should have his own article. I think it should be more of a biography similar to Isaac Newton. The theory of The Venus Project is explained here, so there is no need to cover it again in a article on Jacque Fresco. Also The Venus Project should be expanded; the discussion here shows some things should really get the "Q&A treatment". --(Gharr (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

I don't see enough info on Fresco, independent of the Venus movement, to sustain an article on him. And a direct link to the Venus website isn't a cite for "expanding the article." We need independent sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is many editors are lazy and avoid doing any deep digging to uncover sources. Fresco is indeed obscure, but that is lessening these days. His age makes it difficult to locate sources that cover his past prior to The Venus Project. There are many sources though, and after hundreds of hours of digging, I have located many of them. I will be posting a new article on Fresco in the coming weeks with plenty of independent coverage. Are you alright with that? --Biophily (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You do what you want, it can aways be reverted if there isn't any notability. I don't believe that you can provide notability outside of TVP for Fresco, the fact that you haven't given one single example is a strong indication of that (as it your seemingly complete lack of understanding of what notability means when you try to argue for it by Google search hits). But if you have that evidence, obviously you can make an article. You can do it anyway, but then it is likely to be a waste of time. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to people bios, let's face it: in respect to the accurate definitions of the terms, Wikipedia actually sets criteria for (the more accurate term) notoriety (which can be more objectively demonstrated), not notability (which is completely subjective in its accurate definition). The criteria given to notability is an abuse of the term. Also, Wikipedia covers topics that are popular among academics and of interest to those fortunate enough to get their work published. But it does not in all cases cover topics that are well-known outside of those circles (such as grassroot cultural figures or hermitic figures). That's okay I suppose, and I realize that notability is given a particular conditional definition by Wikipedia, and I try to follow it in the best way I can interpret it. But Anyways, complaints aside, citing web statistics was merely a lousy attempt to loosen any underlying bias you might have that might be leading you to disagree. If you believe that Fresco has no notability at all (even in as much as cultural mindset), then you are likely not to accept evidence for even the slightest notability (i.e. notoriety) in his past that was actually published.

When I say he qualifies, I mean he qualifies under the creative person or entertainer criteria for notability.

Creative Person (obviously):

• 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique (arguably a "Resource-Based Economy" which is now used by spin-off organizations e.g. RBEF, RBOSE, Atlas Initiative, Open Ecology, etc.)
• 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (The Venus Project)
• 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (doubtfully arguably The Venus Project property) (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (arguably the Zeitgeist Moving Forward theatrical release and Z-Day)

Entertainer (semantically arguable; he kind of does entertain)

• 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following (obviously The Zeitgeist Movement, and other fans of TVP)--Biophily (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. And now show that he did this. Twice. Because there is already an article on TVP, you know, and everything about TVP should go here. (I'm not going to argue the points themselves, even though they are partly wrong, the main point has always been that he isn't notable outside TVP, and it continues to be this, which you apparently still ignore). --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what appears to be two significant people weighing in here to talk about the fact that a person known (is notable) for one thing are not worthy of being included in the Wikipedia and/or cannot have a separate article. Since you are so powerful, perhaps you might use some of that power to provide a reference form Wikipedia to support your view. If this is your own view then I don’t see how your comments will improve the article? --(Gharr (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Since no answer is forthcoming yet as to why it is okay to merge a person notable for only one thing, and the Jacque Fresco article was briefly allowed to exist again before being reverted, I took a look around and asked the above question again to someone who managed to put in a very questionably neutral comment on the talk section under the heading (surprise, surprise, surprise) Merge. For people interested in the Jacque Fresco article being re-established or added to wikipeidia, this talk section could be very interesting to you.-- (Gharr (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

(response to previous critical comment)If The Venus Project is notable, I assume you accept that… then pointing out the article should be longer to explain things like why the theory is not related to Communism or Capitalism might be of use to the readers—I assume that some of us are are here to improve the article rather than to attack it or a link on Q&A from the organization itself (the only way to write a non-original account of the theory)! By expanding The Venus Project article, a separate article for Jacque Fresco becomes even more appealing.--(Gharr (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Do Not Merge This Article

I have read the above discussion carefully. I have also discussed this subject online and was attacked immediately with an alternative view. This subject is emotional and seems to be interpreted in various ways. Discussing this with one or two paragraphs might be impossible here—at the very least it would result in my comment being deleted immediately!

I do expect this comment and myself to be attacked and even have my comment erased. There seems to be a very serious battle to erode or delete this article and I have just stepped into the ring.

The fact is that “The Venus Project” is not about war, government, or money. It is not communist, capitalist, utopian or technocratic—all terms that are generalizations and not really useful in describing governments today or their lack-of in the future.

I expect the attackers of this article to delete my comments, because they don’t want a rational or easy to understand argument placed here. They prefer to stick to generalizations, clichés, cherry-picking-the-rules, and fear mongering to delete this article.

However, to explain why this article should not be merged with another article we do need to understand what this article is. The detractors would have us believe that this is a greedy corporation who utopian ideas will die with their founder or be sold off to the highest bidder—words that have been left in this comment section and can easily be read. Since it’s a corporation it is open to be sold and thus with the sale: “The (fickle) Venus Project” might be dumped for all we know. The opposing side might disagree with everything said in this paragraph!

There has also been clear discussion of edit wars that have continued for too long in this article. The edit wars seem to revolve around placing the above paragraphs ideas into the article and for whatever reasons they have been rejected by the other side (to which I might assume is my side).

The first thing that goes out the window, with what appears to be an emotional argument here, is logic in such debates. Here is the simple logic, this article has gone through a lot of tests and desperate attempts to move material (I assume this is part of the war like arguments to erode or hold the line depending on whose side you’re on) and this has allowed all sorts of tags to be thrown around—the current one being a merger attempt.

If you actually read the article, it seems clear that its core topic is about a vision for the world’s future. Yes it relates to people, society, and how we access resources, but this is only the part that forms an overall idea of “The Venus Project.” It seems clear this idea—The Venus Project—is able to stand on its own and does not require the presence of its creator.

If you choose to argue mergers like this then you might as well go on to claim that “Newton's laws of motion” should be merged with an article about “Isaac Newton.” That idea, I’m sure would be treated as total nonsense. The fact that the author of this article has had to resort to repeatedly stating “Fresco’s” name in the opening introduction and theory (a fate that does not befall the Newton's laws of motion article) is not reason enough to merge this article either.

I propose that the repeated reference to Fresco be removed from the theory section of the article and reduced in number in the introduction. The theory is clearly not Fresco, it is called The Venus Project. If the author(s) wishes me to put in an edit that treats the article more like the “Newton's laws of motion” I will do so.

Finally, the critics here have not helped improve this article, they have seemingly been more interested in diverting the meaning of this article or deleting it—that is they like to treat this forum as a debate. I cannot help but wonder why the things I suggest have not been discussed earlier. Perhaps the participants think that Wikipedia is a forum for debate (using the rules and tags as weapons) rather than a place for discussion about improving an article.

Do Not Merge This Article; it's a really silly idea. Gharr (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion: 1) Merge the article about Jacque Fresco into The Venus Project (as TVP seems to entail more than one person, but JF is notable only for TVP), and 2) Merge the content about 'Resource based economy' into its own article. Several organizations have apparently sprung up later that adhere to variations of such a concept without being tied directly to The Venus Project or Jacque Fresco. --147.29.31.104 (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

But "resource based economy" is on the other hand just another name for technocratic communism, so does it really need it's own article? Otherwise I agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, does 'technocratic communism' (whatever that means) already have a Wikipedia page by itself? I'm no expert on social systems, but what makes TVP technocratic? AFIAK the Technocracy movement advocated an energy currency and a hierarchy with engineers and scientists at the top, whereas TVP advocates no currency and no hierarchy. Also, apart from the term 'common heritage of all the Earth's people', which would make the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 one big commie bill, I fail to see the classic communist tenets here, both in theory and how it came to be in attempted practice. But if 'technocratic communism' does exist - and is notable in its own right - feel free to make that page too! --Gaxtrope (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Technocratic communism only means that you want communism, and think technology would help. Which it won't. I don't think it is notable in it's own right, but of course if it is, it should have a page. ;) What makes TVP technocratics? The fact that they want the whole society run by technology and computers. That is per definition technocratic. What you call "The Technocracy movement" is just one form of technocracy. TVP want to abolish ownership of the means of production, which is pretty much the definition of communism. They just say it with other words, namely that they want to abolish rationing by monetary means, and that all resources should belong to everyone, etc. Other words, same meaning. In all cases, communism, resource-based economy, technocracy, it's based on a fundamental lack of knowledge on how economy works, and what the problems in economy is. But now we are getting off-topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think all this stuff after point 1 belongs under the heading “Merge Proposal.” I also think most of it is original research or theories and does not belong in Wikipedia, where are the acceptable references to the stuff you say is fact? I also don’t think the constant repeating of a merge proposal or new merge proposals is unacceptable behavior—it’s just a continuation of an edit war. --(Gharr (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

For "point 1:" If you want to introduce complex statements like “Several organizations have apparently sprung up later that adhere to variations of such a concept without being tied directly to The Venus Project or Jacque Fresco,” then the reader is forced to consider the possible question of who is the inventor of The Venus Project theory or who owns the theory: If this is true then all you need to do is to provide the acceptable references (for Wikipedia) that discuss this and I will have no choice but to consider it. --(Gharr (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

On the date I read it, this “Merge proposal” was either to retry of the “Merge with Jacque Fresco” or the reverse “Merge Jacque Fresco with this The Venus Project Article.” There was no mention in that debate about merging The Venus Project with some article about Communism, Technocracy and/or Technocratic Communism. I suggest that all comments about Communism and Technocracy be removed from this section. What has that got to do with an Article Merger Attempt??? These comments about Communism and Technocracy should be moved to another section if they want to start arguing about whatever they are starting a debate about! (Gharr (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

DO NOT MERGE JACQUE FRESCO WITH THE VENUS PROJECT 1) Even if it is assumed that Jacque Fresco is only known for the Venus Project (an assumption that requires ignoring the evidence to the contrary), then in the interests of consistency, merging the Jacque Fresco article with the Venus Project article requires that all people with a Wikipedia entry who are known for only one thing be merged with that thing they are known for. 2)In any case, suggesting Jacque Fresco is notable only for the Venus Project is an act of denial that requires ignoring all evidence which shows he is known for other things such as films, books, public speaking, designs, patents, published articles, the Zeitgeist movement. 3) This issue clearly demonstrates Wikipedia is subject to inconsistencies and has problems with control structure. 4) Comments should not be made unless suitable research has been undertaken. 5) Whoever merged the Jacque Fresco article with the Venus Project article please restore as two seperate articles. Thank you.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.226 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree: The Venus Project can easily be expanded. I have seen questions about if The Venus Project is related to Communism or Capitalism (a common theme in interviews with Jacque Fresco). I don’t see why these questions should not be answered. The Venus Project is complex; it is designed as a workable system (and solution) for the entire world. The idea that some might think the present tiny article is of sufficient length to describe it is astounding to me. I strongly suggest that a bibliography of Jacque Fresco should not be contained inside this article; it needs and deserves a separate section. --(Gharr (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Neutrality2

In order to perceive this article as neutral I would like to see a Criticism section. Isn't that the best method to ensure that the article is neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisercostin (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

To have a criticism section we need to find reliable criticism. Not many take it seriously enough to criticize it, but if you have some reliable sources on the topic I'm sure we could do something. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are actually frowned upon. Any criticism can be integrated into the article itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, maybe we should merge (or expand this one) with more articles on social systems similar to TVP. However, we should have in mind that technocracy is not a system based on technology, it is a system based on the idea that engineers should run a society. On the other hand, communist is not a goal, it is a system developed to achieve a goal. Since Frescoes goals have similarities with communism goals, that does not mean that they have the same system (goals: similar; means: different).

I agree there is not much primary sources talking about Fresco. However, an interview, like this one might be useful, I guess! —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The system is the goal, in both communism and TVP. The means/goal are in also the same: The practical abolishment of ownership of resources and production. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Jacque Fresco clearly states that The Venus Project is not Communism". I at least can provide a source to support that statement that is not original research. The question is can you supply references acceptable to Wikipedia that support you ideas or is this your own original research? --(Gharr (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

The other issue is that Fresco has stated clearly under multiple occasions that law will not be made, so trying to make a law to abolish private property rights when laws are themselves outgrown is kind of a non sequitur and a self defeating proposal. This statement doesn't even need to be sourced, all you have to do is call them, ask them if this is their disposition and they will say the exact same thing I just said. So it is absolutely misleading to have a portion of the article say something like, "Fresco proposes the abolition of private property" when it is self defeated by the fact that he wants to outgrow laws entirely and he has never made such a declaratory proposal to begin with. If you have a source on this please let me know, other wise please keep your biases out of the discussion.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Coordination of edits

I notice there is a flurry of edits being done in this section right now…

I hate to think good (or “bad”) people are wasting their time & resources in uncoordinated editing.

I’m not yet for or against the edits that are occurring here or elsewhere at the current moment.

I just want to let people know some events have occurred in the Jacque Fresco article that you may be interested in. It may also effect the way you edit your articles—there has been a tendency of Wikipedia to break articles into smaller parts because of the mobile telephone network which you might also want to consider.

Whatever your motives are, thank you for making the effort to improve The Venus Project article (and I notice the edits are being done across in the The Zeitgeist Movement section as well), and I will also apologise ahead of time should I have to oppose or support any edits and thus the wonderful work you do or the criticisms you make.

I also want to say hello and welcome to any new people that visit, just read, or leave their opinion here. :) --(Gharr (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

It's annoying getting vandals attacking the website. It makes it much harder for editors to work and imporve this article. Perhaps this article should recieve some level of protection.

I think the reference section needs work. I suppose I could track down the history and see if someone has not already done some of these corrections before the article was given a large set of edits (I still do not hold any views on the edits that occured). --(Gharr (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

The history does need work. The dates and people involved are inaccurate.--Biophily (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I was referring to the reference section links. The history I was referring was that of the changes made to the main articles reference section over time (since this article seems to get quite a bit of negative comments and vandalism). I'm assuming here that some previous editors tried to correct the article but these edits might have been lost over time...IMO this article need to be protected. --(Gharr (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Oh yes, my mistake. I agree, it should protected.--Biophily (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of "the"

Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Use_of_.22The.22_mid-sentence:

"Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence. However, some idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of artistic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage"

So "the" in "the Zeitgeist Movement" or "the Venus Project" is not capitalized unless it comes at the beginning of the sentence. And as always, the Wikipedia Manual of Style takes precedence over however the movement, project and its adherents choose to capitalize the words. Ground Zero | t 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, and what is your view of the capitalization of the Big Bang (It's not history, since it is not fully proven yet and is still under dispute). The Big Bang is merely a model or theory.

I also feel that The Venus Project is in common use. I'm not sure if reducing this to the "Venus Project" will help reduce confusion in the readers mind. Style manuals are called guides for a reason...

However I am not against the reduction of capital letters. Less capitalization does make an article easier to read. I'm not doing this because I am totally in favour of it, rather it seems the right thing to do.--(Gharr (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Seems reasonable.--Biophily (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to deviate from the general rule here. The Venus Project is free to capitalize its name however it wishes, but frankly i think capitalizing "the" in the middle of a sentence is only done to give the name undue prominence. It makes the sentence harder to read because the reader is not expecting the capitalization in normal American English writing. The Big Bang is capitalized because it refers to a specific event, whether people believe in it or it not, there is supposed to have been only one Big Bang. A "resource-based economy" is a type of class of economies, just like "money-based economy" is a type of economy. Venus Project adherents do not seem to capitalize money-based economy. Ground Zero | t 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "general rule" refers to here. I have seen scientific theory capitalized and other articles that do not capitalize the theories (more on the wrong ideas that style must be consistent throughout the Wikipedia is mentioned below). I think the mention of the "general rule" is not useful and in fact places a editor on weak ground since there is no exact statement of if one should or should not capitalize scientific theories in the style manual. I think some of us have read a "style manual" and know exactly what I mean--there are no exact examples or details on if we should capitalize a scientific theory (given the exponential growth of inventions you would expect there to be some mention). However, since The Venus Project does not capitalize "the resource economy" I am willing to concede to editors who demand that capitals be avoided. I do however have serious reservations on the logic and correctness of such arguments: " According to the First Law of Thermodynamics." So if no capitalization is used then I think Capitalization and a direct link should be used instead for the first occurrence of the theory--for example : the Resource Based Economy. I will also accept, for the moment that only one direct link will be used as a sort of introduction to the word. The remainder of the words throughout the article should be uncapitalized: the resource based economy. I have more to say about WP:OVERLINK in later paragraphs...

The no capitalization of the "money based economy" might be irrelevant. Consider Monetarism as a better example of what should have been given as a good example. But as I say, I will concede to you on this occasion.

I am not of the opinion that the style manual is set in stone. I feel it is more of a guide. I appreciate that some editors want a Wikipedia that has a uniform style throughout it many different subjects and articles. However the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style states: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion." Again the "general rule" editors state to set things in stone does not appear to exist. It is acceptable that articles may vary in style--editors don't have to force them to be identical. Certainly the argument that "The Venus Project" should be changed to "the Venus Project" is far from safe ground for a editor to try and hold on to with a so called "general rule" for all articles since such an idea is not supported by the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.

An editor that shows up rules that support their views and uses those rules to ignore another editors mention of rules should be questioned. All my edits have been revoked and any rules I write in support of my views have been ignored--despite the fact that I do have good reasons and supporting material.

It has been mentioned that the use of the abbreviation RBE is a good thing--but clearly this "RBE" is not referring to a Resource Based Economy and it is not a suitable abbreviation to put in a short article like The Venus Project. If "The Venus Project" is copyrighted or a trade marked, then it also must be use that exact format (and not leave out the "The") or you will find you have broken the law. Not only this but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Abbreviations: under the heading: "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations," would seem to support my view. The use of RBE in this article should be avoided IMO and I have given good reasons why I hold that opinion.

A mention of Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight would make me think a editor is biased against The Venus Project (that they consider it a fringe idea that does not deserve an article in Wikipedia). This sort of attitude has little place in a technical argument in capitalization. I would then wonder the subject was bought that up? This argument can not be used to prevent the following link from occurring: Resource Based Economy inside the The Venus Project Article.

Editors trying to put in the See WP:OVERLINK(:An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia) will be ignored; I very much doubt that most readers understand what a Resource Based Economy means. If it is demanded that only one link should exist, then I will accept that for the moment. --(Gharr (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

You seem to mixing up two different discussions (1. the capitalization of "the", and 2. capitalization of "resource-based economy"), so I am having trouble understanding your arguments. I will try to address them concisely as best I can.

1. I'm not sure what "general rule" refers to here.

With respect to capitalization of "the", the general rule is: "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence." With respect to "resource-based economy", the general rule is to capitalize only [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|proper nouns: "A proper noun or proper name is a noun representing unique entities (such as London, Jupiter, or Toyota), as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities (such as city, planet, person or car)." The discussion in the article is about "a resource-based economy", i.e., about a type of economy, not about the one-and-only "Resource-Based Economy".

The general rule on capitalizing "the" is clear. On your talk page you talk about how there is no example of this for scientific theories. The list of examples is only that: a list of examples, it is not intended to cover every situation. It is only illustrative of the general rule, which is that you don't capitalize "the" mid-sentence, unless an exception applies. None of the exceptions listed seem to apply here.

2. I have seen scientific theory capitalized and other articles that do not capitalize the theories (more on the wrong ideas that style must be consistent throughout the Wikipedia is mentioned below).

"Resource-based economy" is not a scientific theory. RBE is a concept for a new type of economy advanced by the Venus Project, not a scientific theory.

3. So if no capitalization is used then I think Capitalization and a direct link should be used instead for the first occurrence of the theory--for example : the Resource Based Economy.

The Manual of Style calls for consistent capitalization of non-capitalization in an article, as you point out. Capitalizing it the first time and not subsequently will look like an error that someone will correct sometime.

4. The no capitalization of the "money based economy" might be irrelevant. Consider Monetarism as a better example of what should have been given as a good example. But as I say, I will concede to you on this occasion.

I don't understand the example. In the article on monetarism, that economic theory is capitalized only where it appears at the stat of a sentence. It is not capitalized in the way that proper nouns are.

5. I am not of the opinion that the style manual is set in stone. I feel it is more of a guide. I appreciate that some editors want a Wikipedia that has a uniform style throughout it many different subjects and articles. However the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style states: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion."

Agreed that it is not written in stone, but the good thing about it is that it can help resolve disputes. One editor wants A, another editor wants B, so we turn to the Manual of Style, which is a collaborative effort of the Wikipedia community, and that seems like a pretty fair way of resolving disputes. It beats the stuffing out of endless revert wars, which can happen if two editors disagree and can`t find a compromise.

6. An editor that shows up rules that support their views and uses those rules to ignore another editors mention of rules should be questioned. All my edits have been revoked and any rules I write in support of my views have been ignored--despite the fact that I do have good reasons and supporting material.

You've lost me here. Are you accusing me of something? What rules are you writing? Everyone is free to propose changes to Wikipedia manuals, guides and policies. That doesn't mean that the rest of the community will accept the changes.

7. It has been mentioned that the use of the abbreviation RBE is a good thing--but clearly this "RBE" is not referring to a Resource Based Economy and it is not a suitable abbreviation to put in a short article like The Venus Project. If "The Venus Project" is copyrighted or a trade marked, then it also must be use that exact format (and not leave out the "The") or you will find you have broken the law. Not only this but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Abbreviations: under the heading: "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations," would seem to support my view. The use of RBE in this article should be avoided IMO and I have given good reasons why I hold that opinion.

I don`t object to changing "RBE" to "resource-based economy" wherever it appears, if that is what you are proposing. I only objected to defining the acronym "RBE" and then not using it in the very next sentence. Spelling it out instead works for me.

With respect to trademarks, the Wikipedia community has already determined that it will not follow corporate styles. See WP:TRADEMARK. If you disagree with this policy, you can propose changes to it on its talk page.

8. A mention of Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight would make me think a editor is biased against The Venus Project (that they consider it a fringe idea that does not deserve an article in Wikipedia). This sort of attitude has little place in a technical argument in capitalization. I would then wonder the subject was bought that up? This argument can not be used to prevent the following link from occurring: Resource Based Economy inside the The Venus Project Article.

You've lost me again. The only edits that I have made to this article have related to style and linking. Oh, and I deleted some vandalism that you and other editors had overlooked. But you are accusing me of bias against the Venus Project. I suggest that you review WP:Assume good faith. Reviewing WP:UNDUE, I see that it does not say what I thought it said. What i meant twas that sometimes people capitalize in order to give extra emphasis to something. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) says: "Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis."

9. Editors trying to put in the See WP:OVERLINK(:An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia) will be ignored; I very much doubt that most readers understand what a Resource Based Economy means. If it is demanded that only one link should exist, then I will accept that for the moment.

The point of WP:OVERLINK is that in an article of this length, only one link is needed. Others are just redundant.

Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A1 to Q2: A economic theory is a scientific theory and I strongly disagree with any editor that says otherwise: Economic Theory: “A primary stimulus for the development of modern economics was the desire to use an empirical approach more akin to the physical sciences. Are you with me thus far, or would you like to argue otherwise? Because if editors don’t agree on this, any further discussion will be useless. The editors will simply have to agree to disagree.”. --(Gharr (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

I'm an economist. I have two degrees in the subject and work in the field. I don't mean to suggest that this makes me an expert, but to me "scientific theory" means the physical sciences. If I want to talk about an economic theory, I'll say "economic theory". And I wouldn't describe "resource based economy" as an economic theory, but an economic concept. I don't know what name to give to the economic model proposed by the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project. I'll have to investigate further to answer that question. In any event, the names of economic theories are not usually capitalized unless they are named after people: socialism, capitalism, communism, monetarism, Marxism, Keynesianism. Maybe it should be "Frescoism". Ground Zero | t 00:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, that sounds interesting. I'm a Engineer, and I studied economics, engineering, energy and resources. I also understand the design process. In your country (The USA) I'm classed a scientist. I'm not here to do original research or judge the Resource Based Economy as not being based on science and thus not a theory. If that is the line you are towing with your edits I feel you are far from being neutral in this subject and should cease to edit The Venus Project article.

Feel free to write a article, become notable and leave a article in the wikipedia if you feel the need to put original research in the Wikipedia, I am more then sure you are capable of it. --(Gharr (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

The United States is not my country. As far as your accusations that I am judging or towing a line, there is no need to get personal. I would not describe any economic theory or concept as "scientific". They are better classed as "economic". I am passing no judgement on the Venus Project or on the Zeitgeist Movement. What "original research" am I conducting or presenting here? Ground Zero | t 01:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"I wouldn't describe 'resource based economy' as an economic theory--" is not my statement. As much as I would love to discuss opinion, theories and research, the wikipedia talk page or article is not the place to do it. If a editor states qualifications, then I would expect that editor can easily provide a reference to back up the above statement "I wouldn't describe 'resource based economy' as an economic theory--", unless there is no notable reference.... --(Gharr (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

• Yeah, so resource based economy shouldn't be capitalized. As WP:MOS says: Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter unless the name derives from a proper noun (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper noun (lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a political party or ideology. Use lower case for doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas (as distinguished from specific events), even if they are capitalized by some religious adherents (virgin birth, original sin, transubstantiation). --Sloane (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Sloane. I had missed that part of WP:MOS. I think that is unambiguous. Regards, Ground Zero | t 10:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes

See

• Economic_theory
• Scientific_theory

Request partial-Protection

--Request edit partial-protection for this article

I have observed a lot of comments saying various things about The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement, the Jacque Fresco article (now wrongly merged and re-directed to the Venus Project, see the talk page), and even the Resource Based Economy.

The major comments revolve around deletion, merge and not notable. Along with these comments is a constant stream of vandalism of all pages across the board (I have gone into some detail about it in the Jacque Fresco talk page for example.

I am constantly surprised by how people argue that The Venus Project is not important or significant and then I see this level of constant vandalism. Obviously The Venus Project does seem to be well known, so well known that it has developed a strong core of people that have formed opinions that are aggressively against The Venus Project. This article, any related articles and organizations need to be protected.

This is a clear vandalism attempt at The Zeitgeist Movement:

Vandalism Section A: Jacque_Fresco talk page

As I have mentioned before, I have discussed the terrible state of the Jacque Fresco talk section already.

Vandalism Section B: The Venus Project article

This article (The Venus Project) has come under vandalism attacks twice after some major edits so far and I will describe them below:

1) 75.32.32.52 (talk) vandalism warning 1

2) This person "A" is not warned

3) Same person "A" as above

Vandalism Section C: Resource based economy article

This is a example from Resource based economy article:

1) Person "B"

2) Person "C"

3) Person "C" again

Vandalism Section C: Resource based economy article

This is a example from the The Zeitgeist Movement article:

1) 174.93.110.18 (talk) is given a (warning 1).

2) 76.93.19.66 (talk), warning 1

3) 76.93.19.66 (talk), as above

4) 76.93.19.66 (talk), as above

Protect This article

It does not make sense for editors to be forced to try and remove vandalism. There is also a possibility that editors will miss some vandalism and this will allow for the creep of vandalism into a article over time. It's time to protect this article and related articles.

--{Gharr (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

I concur. Your work is appreciated Gharr.--Biophily (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all editors support on this matter of semi-protecting this article. I thank thank all editors for their efforts in trying to improve this article, and I do feel very bad that time has to be wasted on correcting vandalism. --(Gharr (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

Is there anybody in here, because I can add caps to the article and recieve massive reverts and other editors seem to do massive edits and get no reverts or argument. Under that system there is no need to wonder where the Fresco article went.--(Gharr (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

uncited content

This content was again replaced uncited to the article see here - So I have moved it here, if anyone wants to cite some of it and replace it, as its contentious and uncited it should not be replaced without WP:RS - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob

Please don't do reverts of multiple edits, making multiple changes. Addressing specific concerns is much more productive.--Sloane (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking it to the talk page as requested.

I have already warned Gharr on his talk page, but apparently he wants me to do it here to. So here goes: This article is not exempt of WP:NPOV. This article can not treat Fresco's theories like they are facts. When Fresco claims that X is Y, the article can not say "X is Y", it must say "Fresco claims X is Y". This is no different from any other article. on Wikipedia. If you want to claim that "X is Y" you need to find realiable sources showing that this in fact is so. Jaque Frescos opinions, dreams and ideas are not reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. These are Fresco's theories, not fact, and they should be presented as such, just as the ideas of other political and economic thinkers are presented. Ground Zero | t 13:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, theories need to be clearly designated as such.--Sloane (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Sick, I see User:OpenFuture calls zero days a reasonable talk time--good on YA! You got yourself a 3RR warning comming soon! I even asked you very politely to have a conversation here on the this talk page (and avoid a 3RR) on the 26 March 2011, instead you go to my own talk page twice trying to make this personal and suddenly you see the light and come back here at the last moment. Then you commit a clear edit war:

• Strike 1: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=420645836&oldid=420645303]
• Strike 2: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=420715042&oldid=420651748]
• Strike 3=edit war: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=420804478&oldid=420752462] made the last edit so all 3 spaned 25 hours--smart move...

I think you have enough experience to know better, but apparently not.

Your experience is noted (25 hours) and your aim is too--to edit war just outside the boundry of blame.

---

(Gharr (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Gharr, you should note the views of others here. We can set aside whether OpenFuture has reverted three times: the more important point is that Fresco's views should be represented as views. Your version appears to present them as statements of fact. Ground Zero | t 03:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

While previously I was only interested in Gharr's conduct against other editors, I have reviewed their edits because I'm interested in what sparked this conflict and I disagree with Gharr: Fresco's views are Fresco's views - Fresco's views must be presented as Fresco's views. I also agree with what Ground Zero says. The broad consensus is clear, as is the narrow one present on this talk page: Gharr even presents no arguments to justify his version, so we're done for now. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)