Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:26, 15 March 2013

Biography: Science and Academia C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Industrial design C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive1, Archive 2

Problem with the Fresco material of bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical, criticism section missing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead section

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

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

Sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nitpicking of Language and Grammar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Industrial design articles
• Low-importance Industrial design articles