Talk:Technocracy Incorporated

message: This article seems to have been written by its subject.
It's not a bad article, but the adverb "quickly" seems POV in all uses.
Taking decades to amass "thousands" of members is no great accomplishment.
24.21.189.221 15:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Uhhh.... World of Darkness... Mage... this is fake, right?
:For reference, this user is refering to Technocracy (World of Darkness). And yes, this current article on Technocracy is totally real. 154.5.41.198 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World of Darkness 

message: I fail to see a substantial difference between the two articles. Furthermore, the fuzzy line between them only confuses readers. You even have a picture of the Technocracy Incorporated sign as the first image. Let's clean everything up (again) and cite some bloody sources.
154.5.41.198 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the discussion on the technocracy movement page this article has been split again. Technocracy Inc is just one organisation in the movement.Isenhand (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've now formally added tags to propose merging Technocracy movement into this article. As discussed on the Talk:Technocracy movement, given the controversies we've seen, it makes sense to talk about specific groups rather than a general, "fuzzy", "movement".  Concentrate first on bringing the pre-WWII stuff up to scratch, first the history and then the basic concepts as developed by Scott et al before the war.  Then you can have two sections, one on how the ideas of TI developed post-WWII, and another about "legacy" or "influence" that can describe specific groups that share similar ideas.  If those groups deserve more than a few lines, then it's probably best to start a new article for them.  But of course, you need to remember WP:V and WP:RS - all information must be verifiable from reliable, third-party sources, otherwise it will be removed! FlagSteward (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Technocratic_movement]] 

message: Removing links to expanded information.. and only preserving links and information to certain sources such as Network of European Technocrats narrows things down to.. in my opinion.. information that is contrived to get people to end up on that particular Network of European Technocrats website.skip sievert (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It does not make a lot of sense to delete information directly related on wikipedia articles 

message: That article should not be merged it should be deleted (Technocratic movement]]. It originally was a vehicle for this 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Network_of_European_Technocrats
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of European Technocrats - That article should go into an Afd.. because the whole concept of it does not make sense. It was originally written by the person that originated the NET article to claim there even was a Technocracy movement connected outside of North America which there is not.. at least not connected as to the same ideas. skip sievert (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD makes the most sense for the article [[Technocratic movement]]

message: Added a linked citation and reference to Willard Gibbs material. 
Stream lined article, shortening some non cited material.
Made some syntax and sentence structure more readable.skip sievert (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Willard Gibbs citation

message: At this point it makes sense not to merge the two articles. Each article is playing a different role. The TechInc article talks directly about the focus of that organization and relates directly to the different people involved in the history of it. 
The Technocracy movement article gets into the precedent cultural/scientific culture from the 19th century and the early 20th century and gets into how all those things combined to produce what we know as the Technocracy movement in the 1918 to 1934 period that is still around. 
One is dealing directly with that group information (TechInc) and the other dealing with the movement of social scientists and engineers and others that went through a period of attempting to think up alternative constructs for society (TechMovement). 
The period from the late 19th cent. and the inception of Technocracy Incorporated (TechInc.) along with the other attempts by various people to start related social movements (TechMovement) is now pretty well covered in depth and cited and referenced in the Technocracy movement article... so now it makes a good stand alone article with a different perspective than the Technocracy Incorporated article because it gets into the antecedents and that is a broad ... and long topic. No doubt it can still be improved with more citations and references. skip sievert (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no purpose other than publicity in duplicating this article using to different names.--tequendamia (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that is true then why not Afd the Technocracy movement article? Seriously. Do you want to merge this TechInc article with Technocracy movement or Technocracy movement with TechInc? Right now your tags are contradictory. It may make sense to merge the Technocracy movement article here .. but not really the other way around. skip sievert (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Technocracy movement]] and [[Technocracy Incorporated]] articles

message: Energy accounting section reference now pointing to Fezer article.
Added another reference link to Ivie, Wilton A Place to Live: 1955 Technocracy Digest skip sievert (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: reference link

message: Made the beginning any way of a lead section for the article.... skip sievert (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: lead section

message: The history for this page ends in 1934.  Are there no further events in this organization's history?  --TarrVetus (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Following on from what I've just said, I'm adding an advertising tag to the top of the article.  It is not only  Technocracy Incorporated that is being promoted, but the "Technocracy Study Course", which is mentioned at least three times in the article, twice in bold type. In fact, there are a great many articles on WP which seem to be promoting this course: . Johnfos (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked more closely at the article now. The "Technocracy Study Course" is mentioned six times, and the "Trend Events" newsletter is mentioned three times. I would have thought that each deserves to be mentioned once only. Johnfos (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are perhaps tag over enthusiastic. Instead of trying to negatively phrase your concerns of an article that has been around for years by a notable group... why not improve the article.?..which you have not done... make changes to effect the issues you have. You are not actively editing the article... tags are a last resort. skip sievert (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising tag

message: Attempts have been made to introduce the following material into the front end of several articles. I've moved the paragraph here because it introduces some material that in part seems to be straight copy from a self-published source. The content is also incorrect because the Technical Alliance actually disbanded in 1921, as the TA article shows.
The group's aim was to design a new system of production and distribution (energy accounting) based for continental North America that would provide a better standard of living while conserving non-renewable resources. According to their published information this would ensure ‘an economy of abundance’.http://surepost.com/igdtech/technocracy/pdf/THE_ENERGY_DISTRIBUTION_CARD.pdf The Technical Alliance was renamed Technocracy Incorporated in 1930 and in 1932 its basic findings were published. In the fall of 1933, Technocracy was incorporated in New York State as a “nonsectarian, educational-research membership organization” (Technocracy Digest, No. 231, pp 4).http://archive1.macs.ualberta.ca/FindingAids/Technocracy/technocracy.html
We need to use reliable sources such as published books, on Wikipedia, rather than self-published websites. Books which are readily available include:
*William E. Aikin (1977). Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocracy Movement 1900-1941, University of California Press.
*Beverly H. Burris (1993). Technocracy at work State University of New York Press.
*Howard P. Segal (2005). Technological Utopianism in American Culture Syracuse University Press.
-- Johnfos (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed paragraph

message: Quite a substantial part of this article is repeated in Technocracy and Technocracy movement. There's not enough here for a stand alone article. I propose that this article be merged and then redirected to Technocracy movement. LK (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge now complete. Johnfos (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merge to [[Technocracy movement]]