Talk:Frank R. Wallace

message: "Neo-Tech_(philosophy)" forwards here but the section makes almost no explanation of the philosophy. gwinkless (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Its really inadequate. Dramatizer (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the archives of the discussion page, one can see the problem. Old edit wars of the past obliterated large sections of the explanation of what Neo-Tech is. That said, there was little in the way of third party sources to discuss the issue. This was despite the MOS for citations, which point out that strict citation is only necessary for disputed points. A short, uncontroversial explanation of Neo-Tech should be acceptable. Unfortunately, no one seems to be adding it. I certainly don't know anything of the philosophy, and so I cannot contribute anything myself; so there's your explanation. --Cast (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then maybe Dr. Wallace should have studied his own Neo-Tech system more carefully. I'm guessing that he did not have "absolute control" of "his life" when, according to the article, he went out jogging and was killed when hit by a car. Maybe he just wasn't using his "system of tools" properly. Maybe the "forever" aspect that you mentioned just wears off when you get old and go out jogging. Famspear (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, though, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article, not to debate the merits of the subject of the article or his "Neo-Tech" system. Famspear (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

text: gwinkless, I believe that was by design from some of the WP management.  From what I have seen posted around before (not on here though), there was an entire article dedicated to the idea.  Famspear, this IS a discussion to improve the article, by putting another article up that explains it better than here.  However, apparently the person in charge, for whatever reason, decided that the page didn't have a right to exist, so it was deleted, and now, redirects to a small little blurb in another article.  I did a search online (outside of here) while writing this post and found the article fumbleweed posted.  Not trying to force people to make a judgement one way or the other, but it seems pretty shady on the WP side of things. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-Tech

message: I have not noticed a single mention of Wallace's strongly held belief in and promotion of the concept of biological immortality, very strange since it is the whole raison d'être of his philosophy and business pursuits. Now I'm no longer a hardcore follower, fan, or even admirer, but surely this warrants inclusion, don't you agree?--Shanoman 
(Samuel Erickson said "He doesn't put Biological Immortality in the letters because as we can all agree, That subject is over most peoples heads. But it really is in the letters its just in a Genetic Code. So when the letter say's that Neo-tech will bring you romantic, wealth, and health FOREVER! That phrase is Code for Biological Immortality."
(talk) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem isn't that those who know of Wallace are unaware of this. The problem is that there is little or no third party references to him and his work, so that we have little mandate to add this information to the article. Until a third-party reference to his opinions on biological immortality is made, we can't include it here. --Cast (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need third party references for this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Source#Sources  So you can use books by Wallace, published by Wallace, in an article about Wallace to describe his views and philosophy. Dramatizer (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could do that, but within minutes, yes, minutes, some Asperger's riddled nitwit would spring into action and edit it out, calling it "original research."  Forty-four minutes to Wapner....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.138 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Then feel free to add whatever information of the philosophy you can. For my part, I know nothing of it, and cannot. --Cast (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Biological Immortality

message: So Wallace Ward is the "real" name and Frank Wallace the pen name.  I get it.  But the paras on the trial need to be rewritten so that one or the other is used, not both within the same sentence.  I realize that this is at least in part due to the inherently collaborative nature of Wikipedia, but come on.  Picture this in an article:
: Twain's real point was that Huck's childhood naivete was closer to correct than the supposedly educated opinion of the day.  This was because Clemens was trying to show that Huck's ignorance of the wider world's sophisticated mores was really his strength, a recurring theme in Twain's works.  Clemens sought to show that ...
Once we've established that Wallace Ward = Frank Wallace, the article needs to call him one or the other throughout.   75.216.40.75 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to some extent.  But it does need to be clear at the start of the article.  32.212.104.223 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  On a different issue with consistency ( but different than the name issue within the article), this talk page has a tag (presumably about the overlying article page) that this page is a candidate for deletion, and the consensus was to keep it.  Good choice imo.  However, the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Tech also has a "the result was to keep" tag, and yet the page itself, according to the discussions linked there (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech), was apparently deleted, and now refers only to a small subsection of another article.  Where is the consistency WP? 32.212.104.223 (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: Not sure how to do it, but I propose a split of the former merge of the Neo-Tech (philosphy) article back to it's own page, instead of some small little sub-section of another related page.  My reasoning is this, the biggest reason this merge happened at all was because of Bi's repeated (and well documented) apparently personal attacks against a philosophy he or she vehemently disagrees with.  While the article itself (before the repeated attacks by Bi (short for Biased maybe?)) would need to be cleaned up, and properly sourced including self-source, asking for deletion strictly because of some rule pulled out strictly to justify deleting, while allowing violation of that rule elsewhere on other articles because they are more "mainstream" subjects should not be allowed.  While self sourcing might not strictly be in the best practices, I am 99% sure that there are many articles that do not strictly follow every single rule and guideline on this wiki that are allowed to stay.  32.212.104.223 (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since none of your reasons are supported by policy, its extremely unlikely to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose article split back to how it should be