Talk:Technocracy movement

message: In the Section on Origins, the following statement is made, "Early technocratic organisations formed after the First World War. These included Henry Gantt’s "The New Machine" and Veblen’s "Soviet of Technicians". These organisations folded after a short time." Although Thorstein Veblen did suggest that a Soviet of Technicians could be formed, no such organization was ever established. It was simply floated as a possibility. If a citation cannot be made to an actual organization, I would suggest that this be rewritten.LAWinans (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veblen's Soviet of Technicians 

message: Much of the content of this article is similar to the content of Technocracy Incorporated.  The History sections of the two articles are almost identical. Johnfos (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlapping content

message: Are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Any editor can remove a personal attack. A talk page is meant to discuss an article. An editor has made two personal attacks related to this subject on another editor. Another on the Energy Accounting page. skip sievert (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked you politely the last couple of days to desist in making personal attacks... and looking from off site or old derogatory information. Since this has not been resolved... I have reported this situation here Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I am hoping this situation can be resolved without further escalation. Thank you user Johnfos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser_talk:Johnfos -skip sievert (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks

message: The thermodynamics section does not belong to this article. It is enough reference the summary sentence provided in the introduction of the article.--tequendamia (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can shorten the section... but the idea of this being based on this concept is important. Scott cited Willard Gibbs as the main instigator (vector analysis) which he used to conceive of this concept. Here is a vid from their site with that info http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm - The section may be a little long though... and I will shorten it. skip sievert (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That goes better in a separate article. We cannot try to turn every reader of the article into a physicist. It is a different topic and in a completely different jargon, it is not what the readers should expect when they run into this page.--tequendamia (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead of an article is to describe information to follow. There is no point in not doing that. It may not be what you expect... but you previously thought it was an unrelated nice little social movement, which was not based on science or this concept, as you stated in your first edit, when you did a huge deletion of material that had been stable here for a long time. Give readers some credit. This does not lead the reader at all. It provides creatively written material to explain a pertinent background aspect. I halved or more the information at least. The basis of the information is thermodynamics... so it makes sense to give a background as to time and place and influences. This idea did not spring out of nowhere. The whole concept is based on energy economics and measuring energy thermodynamically - http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm opinions aside... those are the facts of the basis of these ideas... as presented ... so as an encyclopedia... this is our reporting job... hopefully done with some creativity and illumination. Presenting good and pertinent and directly related info. is the idea here. The article would not explain the subject as well if the fundamental aspects are not illustrated... that being done as neutrally and veritably as possible. skip sievert (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I insist in the creation of a separate article as the topic of thermodynamics is too advanced. I suggest a title like Technocracy and thermodynamics. And include a visible link from this page to that article.--tequendamia (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then do it. It seems like a pointless exercise though because the information here now in its shortened form will still be here... only expanded in a different page... which is not really necessary. I think it would not improve anything to do that. You have not made a reasonable argument for it. The information here now, as said, is integral to understanding the information in this article fully. Most likely it would get R.f.d'd... immediately or merged back here. I would not support the idea of doing that. If it were done... and I think it is a bad idea... it would be better to call it Technocracy technate design and thermodynamics so people know what you are referring to. I do not think you are giving people credit as being able to understand this. After all an encyclopedia is sometimes written at all levels of understanding... how else do you explain things to people as an editor. This is not a complex subject either.  skip sievert (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It is done. It probably needs a re-wording of the introduction.--tequendamia (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. But... the purpose of connecting an article to another page is to make a snippet of the info and refer to the mains article... Also I did the actual method of referring to the main article, which was a minor html issue... Too bad you did not title it correctly to begin with. This adds to confusion a little because Technocracy as a name or title can be a lot of different things... and the article is about the notable movement... hence the title... which is not a redirect could have been titled correctly as Technocracy technate design and thermodynamics... so... your main title muddied up the water a little. I changed the information completely... in the new section... but it is pointless and counter productive to understanding the subject... which is based on energy economics not to have at least a brief section now... about it... with a ref. to the main article you created... that is just the way formatting works here. The article you made needs a lot of work. I will work on it later... but I would appreciate it if the new section with the article reference is improved if possible ... but other wise not pointlessly removed. skip sievert (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermodynamics section 

message: Just reading through the history, I've noticed there are really far too many tiny (+2) etc. edits right next to each other, which causes rather a lot of clogging up of the history, it would be better if made more use of preview function and combined these edits into single larger ones
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebladed (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Tiny Edits 

message: No mention is made of the Technocrat's brown-colored attire. I will attempt to find a reference. LorenzoB (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no brown colored attire. Some people involved at one time wore grey suits for some functions, but that is an incidental thing and probably not important in the article. skip sievert (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Adair thesis (which makes Technocracy seem much more interesting than this article does) there were not only grey and red uniforms but a fleet of grey and red cars. JQ (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Attire 

message: As skip is now permanently banned shall we try and get this article up to academic standard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive75#User:Skipsievert_talk_page_postings  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenhand (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip banned 

message: This article is much more interesting, informative and accurate than it was only a few months ago. JQ (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have made some progress. Thanks to all involved. -- Johnfos (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Huge improvements 

message: The language written about the movement seems over the top in the American and Canada section. 
For example,
:Technocracy's heyday lasted only from June 16, 1932, when the New York Times became the first influential press organ to report its activities, until January 13, 1933, when Scott, attempting to silence his critics, delivered a rambling, confusing, and uninspiring address on a well-publicized nationwide radio hookup
What is the purpose of this content, except to act as a reference to the statement about the movements peak? Wouldn't a reference suffice instead of posting opinion pieces? I'm sure the radio address was controversial but to post something like this doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia standards. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll check some more things out before I do. I thought it needed some attention first though. There are still some others in this section that need revising. I saw the same thing a minute ago on the Technocracy Incorporated article. It was a statement which linked them to fascism because of what they wore. Again, doesn't seem appropriate to put it in that context. I think I'll mention that on that talk page as well. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: America and Canada Section

message: I have found some new information about the formation of the Technical Alliance and have restored that information in the Technocracy Movement and Technocracy Incorporated articles. You can see the reason for the edits Here on the Technocracy Incorporated Talk page. Input is appreciated. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Source of information from the Social Security Online webpage in the Technocracy section a little down the page, that has some group history. Added a couple of sentences from that to the article . Everything I have read says you are right about the Technical Alliance and it not disbanding. That information was wrong. As far as I have read it was Hubbert that joined them in 1932? and pushed to have the information published as more members came along at Columbia University. Fidel Drumbo 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Alliance information 

message: © Copyright 2003 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.
Wikipedia is a non commercial purpose. This is the link with the material on it http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_61689.htm
This information could have been edited if the person doing the editing out of it had wanted to. This is a good information link. If that person is so sure it is copy vio then edit the information do not delete the information. Fidel Drumbo 07:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the noncommercial restriction is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA license on all Wikipedia text. Of course you could rewrite the information in your own words. Without rewriting, however, the text could be used only under Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content policy, including a rationale of why rewritten text would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. (BTW, even if the GSA license had been compatible, quoting it without attribution would be plagiarism.) —teb728 t c 09:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Ok, great. I rewrote it in my own words while trying to stay true to the citation . I think it is far away from the original as to not be an issue now, but relays some basic info from the link. Thanks. Please comment further here on the re-edit if you think it needs more changing.  Fidel Drumbo 11:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not revert educational material that is copyright ok if used for education purpose

message: It would be great if this article can get improved some more, but I wish the new editors could talk before they include material that was previously deleted or edited for having heavily negative language. ThanksGooglesalot2 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop edit warring and work together. This is why we have a talk page.

message: I've fixed some issues of neutrality in the overview section to clarify how the movement was perceived as fascistic. It still needs some work but I hope this can help with the issues editors have with that particular part of the article. If you have issues with this please say so on the talk page instead of reverting it. Thank you. Googlesalot2 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your edits are good, they make it more neutral.Meatsgains (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: I looked at the history of this and the other technocracy article and noticed its size has waxed and waned over the years. It seems some other interesting articles also rapidly grows then slowly shrinks like the life cycle of a star. This would not be a problem if the article becomes more concise with no loss of content. I have occasionally read this technocracy article over the years and noticed some information I found interesting and useful for other articles and my edification has been purged and all the flavor seems to have been sucked out leaving less. this is not unique to this article, but also to many other unique articles I occasionally read and wonder why this happens because it seems to be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia's goal. Just a passing thought about a trend I noticed.Septagram (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2009 there were certainly a lot of changes to this article, as discussed on this Talk page. The issue of overlapping content was raised, see , and much material that already appeared elsewhere was removed. Some unsourced material was removed. In November 2009, User:John Quiggin saw these changes as a "huge improvement", see , and said that the "article is much more interesting, informative and accurate than it was only a few months ago". Johnfos (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Some more unsourced material has been removed, and the article has now been merged with the Technocracy Incorporated article, following consensus at Talk:Technocracy Incorporated#Propose merge to Technocracy movement. Johnfos (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noticed that this article and others have changed over the past few years 

message: I think I saw it before, I'm not sure. Should I add it? --Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it okay to we put the Technocracy Symbol in this article? 

message: I think the authors have done a good job in this entry. It is always  difficult attempting to provide information about a topic when people without substantive knowledge or understanding nit and pick constantly.
Recognizing that the entry is about the Technocracy Movement and not just the Howard Scott organization, "Technocracy Inc.", there are several things which could be added:
   * The movement was at its peak in the Thirties, but it didn't completely fall apart afterwards indeed it had a brief revival nationally during WWII when it proposed "Total Mobilization" for the War.
   * The movement retained considerable popularity in the northwestern United States and in British Columbia through the Fifties up to 1960
   * In California, the movement spawned a schismatic offshoot named "Utopian Society of America" that was similar to Technocracy Inc. but had a mystical tinge to its approach. The USA was active throughout the Fifties.
   * Several sections in the Upper Midwest chafing at the leadership of Howard Scott also split off creating an alternative called "TechnoDemocracy", they sought to mellow the authoritarian image of the movement.
   * And, of course, Jacques Fresco first proposed "Sociocyberengineering" as an alternative to Technocracy and this was the underlying ideology of his Venus Project (promoted by the Zeitgeist Movement) which morphed in the Network of European Technocrats.
I also note what I believe to be a minor error, the entry suggests that Gantt's "New Machine" and Veblen's "Soviet of Technicians" were alternative organizations. While Gantt did have members or associates, Veblen's Soviet was an idea and not an actual organization.
LAWinans (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Info & Comment 

message: With regard to "Though now relatively insignificant the Technocracy movement alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930's survives into the present day" - this is inaccurate, see The Kibbo Kift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbo_Kift  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.67.162 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technocracy movement is _not_ 'alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930's' 

message: With regard to "Though now relatively insignificant the Technocracy movement alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930's survives into the present day" - this is inaccurate, see The Kibbo Kift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbo_Kift  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.109.212 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, interesting history to that group. However it was active in the 1920's and stopped existing in the 1950's and was not connected to the U.S. or Canada region. Organizations established in 1920 Organizations disestablished in 1951 Kibbo Kift history organization. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technocracy movement is _not_ 'alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930's' 

message: The citation from the SSA actually says "alone among THIS collection of radical movements" - THIS referring to the small number of radical movements described on that page. Without that crucial context, saying "Technocracy alone survives" is blatantly wrong, since it ignores, eg, fascism and communism. The SSA page didn't deal with those radical movement. Faulty (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it? If editing the information helps then do that but removing the information is removing something important and cited by the U.s. government and that is a reliable source. If you rephrase it, fine, but interjecting fascism or communism neither of which was a contender in the u.s. from that time period is interjecting your ideas as an editor and then its your original research. That is why the citation is there, so people can see what the actual thing says. You making a comparison to Communism or Fascism has zero to do with anything here and is a false argument. Also you are just plain wrong again about the way it is presented, it says Though now relatively insignificant the Technocracy movement alone among the collection of radical movements of the 1930s survives into the present day, Your original research of saying communism and fascism were significant in the U.s. is wrong.  Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact is, that SSA page listed a small number of radical ideas of the 1930s, and then said "Technocracy alone among THIS collection of radical movements survives". The statement I removed didn't mention that the SSA was talking about only a small number of radical ideas of the 1930s. The implication was that all radical ideas of the 1930s are dead apart from Technocracy, which is clearly wrong. Faulty (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

text: The link isn't this article, which is where the problem is. Your newest edits look clumsy, and go off at a tangent about something irrelevant to this page (you are literally describing your source, good grief) Faulty (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of disrupting the article or giving a false edit summary? Editing the information, you could have left the quote which is direct and dropped the other part. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your edit is clumsy and pointless, and you inserted it into the existing sentence structure without fixing the grammar that comes after. Faulty (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alone among the collection" 

message: Howard was neither an engineer nor a scientist, when it was discovered by a journalist that he was a fraud, he himself and the Technocracy movement were kicked out of Columbia University.--213.147.167.250 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Scott was a fraud