Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 3

message: This is the section of this article that really looks bad now. I encourage all people who have recently shown an interest in this page to whittle this down to where it is interesting and readable. It would seem I hope to everyone here that this section really needs help. (skip sievert 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have worked a little on this section and improved previous edits which have gone back to inferior edits such as the Urbanate and Net section. The Urbanate section should be removed on the other page that links it here. Also Kolzene has put up multiple links also to information on his chat site TechCa. Most all that info. is redundant to the official website Techinc already here. Also the Net chat site is getting way to much attention here. It has its own parent site with a link to it. Do we really need to know useless info about where it is 'officially' registered on this page ? No. That may be interesting in the parent article. 
Isenhand contrary to your 'opinion' about the origins of Technocracy, Technocracy originated with Howard Scott, and a group of friends that hung out in New York. There would have been no Technocratic movement without Howard Scott, the person that stitched it together from ideas from Veblen and others that while being influence's were not the actual person who formulated most of the ideas that became Technocracy , and that were outlined in the Technocracy Study Course. Also contrary to the request at the bottom of the page to not include chat sites someone put TechCa and Net back up. That has already been agreed by party`s here to not be done. Why was it done then. This is supposed to be a page that is getting somewhere. Wafulz strongly suggested that they not be here. He also put a footnote in his edit that told people nicely not to put the Net Chat site up. I restored that edit made by wafulz. 
(skip sievert 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you expand on what exactly you mean? I'll assume you're complaining about the totally POV and Unencyclopaedic nature of the paragraph, well that is unfortunately because it was written by one Skip Sievert. As you may be able to tell, the page has been locked, so no-one will be able to change his edits for several days. Unfortunate, but nothing I can do until Friday. --Hibernian 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the movement 

message: Thankyou Kolzene for bringing attention to    :http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm
History and Purpose of Technocracy- this should  be the gold standard here for thinking on the historic aspect of the antecedents of Technocracy movement. It also address`s much of what Isenhand has speculated about, and answers in a definitive way just 'who' 'what' 'when' and 'where' the movement started, the background of it, etc. It even address`s the name of the organization and its historical connections. Also it address`s the definition of the word Technocracy as an administration by science or technique. Kolzene this link would make a good citation to be used for this page in the bottom references area, and a file of it should be used in external links perhaps because of its clarity, and the issues it address`s. 
Rather than use the citation back to your website TechCa which there is disagreement about, and also goes in a circle to your home page, I think that both you and I could no doubt agree that this archive material from Techinc has a wealth of information on it that answers many of Isenhands questions about the history of the Technocratic movement. Why do not we use that for a citation on the Study Course, instead of the current link to your site ?  I think that would be a good thing as it answers so many questions, and it also is a dispassionate link that goes to a official website for Technocracy, TechInc, in Washington.
The link to the Technocracy Study Course and also this History and Purpose of Technocracy, I think are the most imporatant reference points here. 
Also, I think we should let the Urban Planning page lie as is. Kolzene you added a link in the text of my edit that goes to urbanates by Hibernian. While I think that is overdoing it a bit, and would rather just see a file of the Wilton Ivie article from TechInc, I will agree to leave that one reference to Urbanates in the section on Urban Planning. I think putting the Urbanate link in the references beyond that on the bottom is redundant. 
Also the external links should go to my edit of just the Study Course and Techinc and possibly a file of the History and Purpose of Technocracy. This would avoid any conflicts of interests among editors here. After all , I have not added any personal links to my information site for some time. Here is an example of a site of mine that I would add if other external links are used,  http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/
technocracy-incorporated » home - So , to avoid each editor here putting up sites they are involved in lets just go with a link to the History and Purpose, and TechInc Washington, and also the previous links left in by my edit. Those contain the most pertinent material any way along with a link to the Study Course. It is pointless to argue around in circles here. Lets go for the most objective and correct information, and not go by various editors 'opinions' about this and that. I think this for starters is a realistic compromise. Also it is not a good idea to continually link things that are obviously not connected such as information from the Venus Project, which is the Jacques Fresco link, all the techno Utopia type links etc. Lets keep my pared down edit there and only add the History and Purpose piece. That really excellent piece should be a center piece here.  (skip sievert 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isenhand, here is another file for the information brought out by Kolzene,http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_10fqbv5t
History and Purpose of Technocracy.Howard Scott - Google Docs & Spreadsheets
This information I would hope as Kolzene has explained will lay to rest some earlier arguments by yourself about the origins of the movement, and also the definition of some terms such as the word Technocracy itself. (skip sievert 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I find it amazing how you can write so much, and yet, say so little. That massive essay above is just the same stuff you've been saying for ages and everyone here has already rejected it (Apart from about the document Kolzene presented, I agree that that can certainly be used for the article). Again you're going on about this Urbanates thing, you said we should replace the Urbanates section with some undefined notion of "Urban Planning", but you don't seem to get the fact that Urban Planning and Urbanates are exactly the same thing in Technocracy. A Technate wouldn't go on building old style cites, it would be build Urbanates, therefore any Urban Planning will be the planning of Urbanates. You say "I would suggest Hibernian that you or someone make a file of the Wilton Ivey piece, and use that in reference to Urban Planning.", but that is essentially what is already there, the Urbanates article was mostly written in reference to the ideas Wilton Ivey, etc. If you want a longer section about what a Technate might do with cities before it replaces them with Urbanates (which would likely take decades to build), then be my guest if you know some specifics about it. However, so far you have added absolutely nothing to that section, you have only deleted material from it, so I'm not very optimistic about what you could contribute (especially taking into account your incredibly biased opinions on the issue). And I will confirm again, your edits will be reverted without mercy when the protection is ended, so there is no point trying to convince anyone here to keep them. --Hibernian 00:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you quoting entire Wiki pages?, I think linking to them would be easier... Anyway, I'm in no mood to be lectured to about Civility or neutrality from one of the biggest Trolls on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:What is a troll). Again Skip you have not addressed any of the issues I talked about, and have merely avoided them as usual. Again I will say, I stand by what I have stated, and have given you exactly the treatment you have shown you deserve. --Hibernian 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skip and Hibernian have both been blocked for six hours. You guys are losing focus and turning this into a personal affair again.--Wafulz 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolzene, and Isenhand.

message: Seeing as how we have a little break I would like to suggest that people take the time to look at the relevant sources for Technocracy.  Tech Inc has some good info on its own history but as this article is about the technocracy movement and not just tech inc so I think it would be good if everyone was to have a read of the books on the early years of the movement and to use those books as sources for the article. 
Akin’s book provides a good overview of the early years of the technocracy movement include early technocratic organisations that existed before tech Inc. One point of interest; Akin says that the Technical Alliance collapsed after about a year due to Scott’s insistence of understanding economics in terms of energy. Scott then continued the energy survey himself until he got support for Columbia University. Can any one confirm that?
Other points of interest that would be worth adding include a look at other technocratic organisations that arouse in 1933 such as the Denver Technocrats but especially the Continental Congress, which was not only the largest technocratic organisation in 1933 but, like Tech Inc,  also resulted from the energy survey.  Akin’s book gives some info on these but do we have any other source of information on them? 
The term technocracy was originally applied to the technical plans developed by an engineer in 1919, can’t remember the guys name now, but does anyone else know what his technocracy was and how it differed from Tech inc’s? Raymond’s book gives info on that but not much anyone got any better sources of info? 
Isenhand 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: (I am 154.5.41.198, just created an account.) No, seriously let's just delete everything to do with Technocracy. It's going to be next to impossible to cite anything in this article that isn't construed as original research. This article is desperate for more sources, yet we have users (like skip) who are removing links to Technocracy's fundamental documents like the TTCD and links to other Technocracy websites. It's a movement known about by a millionth of the population at best. The only people who edit the article are technocrats, who are supposedly embracing science as a panacea to the world's ills, but who can't figure out something as simple as citing references to their own 'scientific' views. Despite how many times I try to get this and other Technocracy articles close to something encyclopedic, my edits just disappear without explanation. If it's never going to be a good article, it shouldn't be an article in the first place. --77siddhartha 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a bit of an over reaction, don't you. Deleting it would just be silly, I mean come on. Citing the article is by no means an impossible task, it's just going to be laborious. I think it's a bit strange to say only Technocrats are editing the article, as you've edited loads of the articles, and as far as I can tell, you aren't one (in-fact this seems to be the only thing you're interested in on Wiki). Anyway it doesn't matter who edits it, only that the edits they make are in keeping with how Wiki operates. I believe the article can be a good one, it will just take work. --Hibernian 03:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Some of us are trying to help with the citation problem now that we better understand what needs to be done. I don't see deletion as a viable solution here. --Kolzene 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a technocrat at one point, actually. Besides that, though, I just make edits so that the article more or less conforms with Wikipedia standards. If the information is going to be out there, it should be professional. What is up on Wikipedia now is nowhere close to even being clear, let alone verifiable. It will take a lot of work to make these articles good, but a lot of that effort is going to be in 'policing' edits. Unfortunately, Technocracy Study Course will also need to be 'policed'. I'll ask your help in keeping an eye out for skip's reverts in accordance with Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --77siddhartha 07:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's just delete this whole thing