Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy)

message: What's the source for the claim that Dr. Wallace writes under "Dr. Higgs Field, John Flint, and others." (That his legal name is "Wallace Ward" is pretty well documented).  ..also the source for the Eric Savage claim? (JoeMystical)
llanny here,
The more and most important document that matter to me from the great Neo Tech Writers is the so beautiful straight talk that they have compose for us the people who more need it, the knowledge that they altogether provide is superior useful and it's an imcomparable style, I have been impressed by Mr, Frank Wallace and Mr. Eric Savage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLanny (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: pen names

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

message: The question: what to do if there are only self-published sources on both sides of the issue (pro-Neo-Tech and anti-Neo-Tech)? Please propose a concrete course of action, instead of making motherhood statements like "read WP:V" -- we've been through those, thank you very much. Bi 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we've been through this. If Frank Wallace published his own books about Neo-Tech then they are legitimate sources to describe what Neo-Tech is. He also published writings by others which were about Neo-Tech. Those are legitimate too. Self-published sources are permissible. They're just not permissible in other articles. For example, you couldn't use Wallace as a source on some subject other than Neo-Tech in another article.  Self-published sources criticizing Neo-Tech are definitely not permissible, because they are not in their own articles but in THIS article.  So, to write this article, you use books written by Wallace and others he published explaining Neo-Tech. That's what has been done. JoeMystical 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we've been through all your arguments. Bi 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no other choice. There is nothing about Neo-Tech that is not published by Frank Wallace (that I've been able to find). JoeMystical 04:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through that too. Bi 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what are you asking for? JoeMystical 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking for opinions from third parties. Bi 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We can definitely not allow someone from here to go post something on a forum or make their own anti-neo-tech web page and them come back here and cite it. Those are considered "self-published." The rule against a self-published source being in article that is not about the source itself exists for good reason. Any criticism of Neo-Tech has to be published by an independent publisher. JoeMystical 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is an WP:RFC. It's for seeking "broader input" from third parties. Are you a third party? Please stop trying to dominate the discussion. Bi 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tell me what to do. I can speak whenever I want to speak. JoeMystical 04:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If there are no reliable secondary sources why should this article be any more than a stub until they become available? - FrancisTyers · 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm not opposed to marking it as a stub (?), but I don't know about other people, especially JoeMystical. Bi 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. Let's make it a stub. I hate wasting material already written, but sometimes you need to. If someone really wants more info on what's inside the books, well, there's the books. And I happen to think that most, if not all this stuff is already available online at their site (already linked: yay!). Or we could even merge it with Wallace's article (as it's HIS philosophy), as per German Wiki. That would allow us to enlarge the latter a bit, as it'is a bit small right now.--SidiLemine 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not true that there are no reliable sources. There are lots of reliable source. The books themselves. The article is fine. Making it a stub makes no sense at all because you can't stop people from adding to the article and it won't be a stub anymore. JoeMystical 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim "the article is fine", so can I take this to mean that you're refusing to accept any offers of compromise other than your own? Bi 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compromise what? What is the problem with the article? It's pretty well sourced, NPOV, and informative. You're not allowed to put your unreliable sources in the article so you tried to get it deleted. JoeMystical 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Merging would be fine by me. What do other people think? If there is a general consensus to merge I'll go ahead and do it. - FrancisTyers · 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea. Addhoc 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with that either. In fact I proposed in the previous AfD to merge it with Neo-Objectivism, but merging with Wallace Ward is just as well. Bi 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've registered my support for a merge in the current AfD. Maybe User:Addhoc and others would like to do likewise? Bi 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose merging. Wallace is not the only developer of Neo-Tech. It is the result of a contributions from many writers, and still goes on after his death. Wallace just came up with the original idea. You can't get a full picture of the philosophy by only citing Wallace. The philosophy stands alone because it's a combination of ideas from different people. His son, Mark Hamilton, probably writes about half of it. JoeMystical 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think it would be better in Neo-Objectivism? Thats fine too. - FrancisTyers · 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I (User:Bi) have no problem with merging with Neo-Objectivism either. Bi 17:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that would probably be an original research problem. I haven't seen any sources call it neo-objectivism. That claim should probably be taken out of the article. JoeMystical 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about merging with Objectivism? Neo-Tech does bill itself as a sort of Objectivism, after all. Bi 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? Do honestly think this would be allowed in that article? Again, that would be original research. No reliable source says Neo-Tech is a form of Objectivism. Stop trying to get rid of the article. The article has no major problems. Just work on the article by sourcing more information and deleting the small amounts of original research, like calling it "neo-objectivism." JoeMystical 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, since JoeMystical is opposing any and all attempts to merge the Neo-Tech article with another article, I'd just like to say that in the event of a merge, my preference is to merge it with Wallace Ward. Bi 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? There is no legitimate explanation for this. The article has no major problems, other than a few items of original research. It is pretty well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. There are PLENTY of sources available. The books themselves are the sources. There is no reason to try to delete or merge this article with something else. Again, Wallace Ward is not the only author of Neo-Tech, so it doesn't make sense to merge it. JoeMystical 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Neo-Tech is the Business/Application mode of objectivism" Wallace, Frank R. Liberating Objectivism: The Liberation Manifest. Is that an unreliable source? My preference finally goes to neo objectivism.--SidiLemine 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot use their own writings as a secondary source. They can only be used as a primary source, which means books about Neo-Tech can only be used as sources about Neo-TEch in articles about Neo-Tech. And even then, it can't be claimed that it is a form of Objectivism in the article, but only stated that they CLAIM that it is the "business/application" mode of objectivism. The books cannot be used as a source for us to claim that what they say is TRUE. They can only be used a source to show what THEY SAY or what THEY BELIEVE. This article is written pretty well. It clearly make it a point to avoid asserting that anything they say is true. This is a good article. JoeMystical 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, JoeMystical, are you ... praising your own edits? Bi 08:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm praising the article as a whole. I haven't written much of this article at all. I've made a few edits in the body and just recently re-wrote a small intro because the previous one wasn't very good. JoeMystical 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I'm confused. "they're the authors of the philosophy. Only they can tell you what it says.  I don't know why you can't understand that3.JoeMystical 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can say: "Wallace says that Neo-Tech is a form of objectivism." But we can't say: "Neo-Tech is a form of objectivism" because their are no secondary sources saying so. Whether "they say" it's a form of objectivism is indisputable because it's right there in the books. Whether is actually IS a form of objectivism is a different issue. We can assert what Wallace and the other writers say about Neo-Tech but we can't assert that what they say about Neo-Tech is true. That would require independent sources writing about Neo-Tech. JoeMystical 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for vague rantage

message: ===Article Problems===
There are some concerns that need to be ironed out in this article.
*Reliable Publisher: From WP:V, "… that have already been published by reputable publishers." Inside the article currently are claims about use of name changes and psedonym writing. Vanity_press sources usually are unreliable. 
*Primary Sourcing: This article is suffering from complete reliance on primary sourcing. There are currently no secondary sources in the article. 
*Without a Reliable Publisher and an singular reliance on that source, this brings up WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (Is this a tiny minority view? Should we devote an article to it, and not a section in objectivism?) and many other balance and POV issues.
===Possible Solutions===
*WP:V allows for dubious reliability and self published sourcing in articles about themselves. neo-tech.com seems to fit under that umbrella.
*Secondary sources?  . These were found by using google for neotech and rand. Other suggestions include neotech and objectivism, neotech and criticism or critic, etc.
*Library/Academic Journal hunt. If this subject is notable, someone in some academic journal will have written something about it.
Without secondary sources, the notability of this article is in question. Further, the primary source has been questioned as unreliable, and consensus at WP:RS is that burden of proof on the editors who want to keep that source to prove why it should remain.
Find those secondary sources! Electrawn 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: *WP:V allows for dubious reliability and self published sourcing in articles about themselves. neo-tech.com seems to fit under that umbrella.
*Secondary sources?  . These were found by using google for neotech and rand. Other suggestions include neotech and objectivism, neotech and criticism or critic, etc.
*Library/Academic Journal hunt. If this subject is notable, someone in some academic journal will have written something about it.
Without secondary sources, the notability of this article is in question. Further, the primary source has been questioned as unreliable, and consensus at WP:RS is that burden of proof on the editors who want to keep that source to prove why it should remain.
Find those secondary sources! Electrawn 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Solutions

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

message: Replace content with:
#redirect Frank R. Wallace#Neo-Tech philosophy
Category:Protected redirects

and consider replacing the category with  - Christian75 (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The appropriate template for a redirect is , not . --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request