Talk:Resource-based economy/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

User Block Request

The following is a copy of my user block request. The conclusion of WP editors was that I should proceed to WP:ANEW. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, he asked you to go to ANEW if you feel we are editwarring. The one editwarring is you. You are welcome to take this up there but it's a waste of everyone's time. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute and doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Users user:OpenFuture, user:Earl King Jr. and user:Tom harrison keep deleting fully cited text from the resource-based economy article. (This request only concerns the section of the article titled 'Alternative Use' [i.e., alternative use of the term 'resource-based economy'.])

I've reverted twice and don't want to violate the 3 reverts rule.

From looking at the talk page, user:OpenFuture, user:Earl King Jr. and user:Tom harrison seem to have been involved with the article since at least 26 February 2012, 12 March 2012 and 25 May 2012‎, respectively.

From the day of their first involvement in the article to date, the only edits they provided have been deletions/ reversions of fully cited edits, always reverting the article to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.

Starting on 12 May 2012,‎ I began the process of providing several additional reliable sources, and began to cite from these sources. Essentially all these citings have been deleted/ reverted by the three users above, always reverting the article back to its skeletal form.

This is the article including the citations: [1]

This is the article after a typical deletion: [2]

I'm requesting an admin to block these three users from continuing to censor the article.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that you tried to resolve this dispute on the article's talk page, and then employed the standard dispute resolution procedures, before coming here? Can you provide some diffs to these past attempts? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried extensively to resolve this dispute on the article's talk page, and I'll be happy to provide diffs to these numerous attempts, but I've not tried the standard dispute resolution procedure. Do you feel I should employ the dispute resolution before coming here? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that this appears to be a dispute over content, yes, of course. Hie thee to WP:DR. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me as if at least one of your sources is Talk:Resource-based economy/Translations/Globes which you translated. Any other Wikipedia pages you used as a source? Also why is this vandalism? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I translated two sources from Hebrew to English and used both as sources. The other one is Talk:Resource-based economy/Translations/TheMarker. The policies I followed are WP:PAIC#Foreign-language_quotations and WP:Translation. Note that the first policy fully applies to the translation of a foreign-language source into English, but the second policy (WP:Translation) does not exactly fully apply, because WP:Translation is focused on the translation of foreign-language WP articles into the English WP; it does not discuss the translation of foreign-language sources (primary or secondary sources) into English. However, WP:Translation is the only other WP policy I could find on translations (in addition to WP policy on Foreign-language_quotations). WP:Translation even encourages students to work on translating foreign-language WP articles into English as student projects. (However, as I said before, translating foreign-language WP articles is not the same as translating foreign-language sources.) In other words, from both WP policy on foreign-language translations and WP:Translation, it seems that WP policies call for the community to assume good faith in its editors when it comes to translations from foreign languages into English. And I currently don't see a problem with using a WP talk page as the physical location to store the translation. (If I'm wrong on this, please let me know.) One of the editors on the talk page of resource-based economy repeatedly claimed that because I've stored the translation on a WP talk page, then the translation is a WP article, and WP articles cannot be used as sources. I explained in response that storing a (translation) of a source on a WP talk page does not turn the source into a WP article, and that the only issue of importance is the reliability and quality of the source (and verifiability, etc.), not the source's physical storage location. (Again, if WP policies indicate that I'm wrong on this, please let me know.)

Regarding your second question, perhaps I should have used the term censorship instead of vandalism. The reason I'm asking to block the three users is because the evidence shows they are only interested in blocking the development of this article, i.e., censoring it. They had ample time to find reliable sources, and cite from these sources (from looking at the talk page, user:OpenFuture, user:Earl King Jr. and user:Tom harrison seem to have been involved with the article since at least 26 February 2012, 12 March 2012 and 25 May 2012‎, respectively). Instead they only engaged in reversions of citations from reliable sources, and in voicing their opinions on the talk page, while ignoring my pleas to base their comments on WP policies, and ignoring the substance of my comments.

This is a content dispute not something that needs to be handled here. If you feel they are edit warring you should take it to WP:ANEW. Otherwise you should discuss why you think the version you want should be in the article on the article's talk page. GB fan 19:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but no one mentioned this topic above here where OpenFuture complains about personal attacks by IjonTichyIjonTichy. I don't why, but I have a feeling they don't get along.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translations

The two translated sources have been deleted as per Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 7#Can translations of works be used without violating copyright?. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

Based on WP policy on Foreign-language quotations, I intend to continue to use the two original foreign-language sources (in Hebrew) to support my WP article edits.

(Of course, in order to continue to adhere to the WP policy, I'll continue to (a) explicitly distinguish quotations [and citations] that are translations from those that are in the original foreign language, (b) indicate the original source of a translation and the original language, and (c) provide a reference to the original, untranslated text.)

In other words, the removal of the full translations does not significantly affect the nature of past or future edits.

If you disagree with my intentions, please let me know.

Again, thank you for your guidance.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The following is a direct copy-and-paste effort from my user talk page:

The information you want is at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources and Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions. SO It appears that unless you are using a quote in the body of the article you don't need the translation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather. Yes, I studied and re-studied both of these WP policies several times before I began the (time-consuming) process of citing and quoting from the two Hebrew sources on RBE ...

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Page is protected.

I've fully protected the page for 72 hours due to edit warring. This means no one can edit. It doesn't not mean that this is approving the current version, it is just the version that existed at the time of the protection. During this 72 hours, I suggest everyone discuss the changes and reach a consensus so that the edit warring will not continue. As I won't be watching this page, please address content issues with each other, not to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Last good version

There are now four editors who has expressed the opinion that the current version is the last good version, and there is only one that disagrees. We clearly have a consensus on what is the good version to start with when it comes to further improvements. IjonTichyIjonTichy's edits have been rejected multiple times and are against consensus if seen as a whole. Re-adding them without previous discussion is therefore just vandalism.

To make changes, we have to discuss the issues constructively. The first part of that is that the person wanting to change the article explains what he feels is wrong with it and how he wants to improve it. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not say that IjonTichyIjonTichy is a vandal. Probably he is a very dedicated member of one of these groups and just wants to get as much information to the public as he can. That mission though does not jive with what we could be doing for a good article. If anything I believe the Alternative meaning can be further edited down from our agreed on last best version. The books and lectures of J.Fresco part seems pointless and the bio part of him being a structural engineer etc. is probably bogus information anyway. He has no degree and in the past was busted as not being a doctor or what ever. To my knowledge he has no degree in the stuff he is listed as being. I think it could be shortened further anyway. And, with the consensus of four people its pretty obvious that the current protected version is the best for now. IjonTichyIjonTichy please knock off the edits warring now. Its pretty pointless for you to insist on doing what you want to do when the others are not going to allow it. As stated previously if you sincerely want to advertise this subject maybe its possible for you to write an actual book on it and if its notable you could influence things in that way. But, trying to do a one man band kind of thing and rejecting the others here is not going to get too far. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

text removed

I've removed this text: [3]. We don't stick two completely different concepts that have no connection with each other into the same article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Sometimes you have to, to prevent endless battles and editwars. This is why the two subjects are mentioned here. It is just a compromize. It would have been nive when you had read through the history. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "nive". We are mentioning two disparate things in the same article that have in fact no connection to each other, that is clearly silly. The easier solution is to remove the less notable topic instead of reverting me: one has been at AfD and been deleted. Considering there is 120k bytes of text here on the talk page I don't think it's reasonable for me to read everything. Point at the consensus on this issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It may not be reasonable but it would explain the way it is pretty well. Maybe you can read half the page, that may do it. Also, the concepts are connected, there is ample citation material that gets into both of the usages. Both reflect each other for better or worse. They represent the two usages of the term that are around and used all the time. One is mainstream the other borderline fringe but still needs covering. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is to keep both explanations on the page in a very short, to the point way. The first, the classic use of the phrase. The second, the recent use of the phrase as use by The Venus Project and related groups. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, and that is why I am asking where this consensus was reached. Which thread? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just read the talkpage, about the first three quarters of it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the alternative use should be cited to a couple of good secondary sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. But the problem is that the alternative use is largely confined to the organizations mentioned in the article, but very hyped up due to some documentaries. I haven't seen independent sources about the alternative use, but I have seen POV-pushers trying to take over the article... Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have articles with random other bits attached that only happen to share the same name but themselves failed the test of notability at AfD. I propose an RfC on this to attract a true consensus about removing the section. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The term or something like it has been around for a long time. For better or worse some of those groups have hundreds of thousands of members. Its a notable term. There are mainstream articles covering the groups in question. The Technocracy movement has been around since the 1930's. It was once wildly popular. Zeitgeist is organized all over the world in sort of a internet cult like way. Lots of news stories on them if one digs a little. Fresco obviously did not invent the term it comes from old sources from biophysical economics and energy economics. Its not a random bit that shares a name either, both are interrelated to each other and share aspects. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It failed the test of notability at AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats true. Maybe we should get rid of the whole alternative section. None of the three are notable outside of themselves mostly. Lets get rid of it because it is just a phrase, self defined by those groups and marginally picked up by some media, if at all. It would serve a purpose also of getting rid of the proponents of each group that mess with the article negatively and often. It is not for certain Zeitgeist uses it now since their split with Venus Project. None of those groups are even related to each other except historically now. I will be bold and delete the alternative section. Its not worth all the trouble of adding three fringe groups to the actual term. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the alternative use actually is the most common use nowadays. People looking up what RBE means are likely to get confused. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an argument for a disambiguation page or are "not to be confused with" template. We never put different and unrelated content into the same articles when the only similarity is a coincidence of names. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not the only similarity. Having two pages would also leave both of them very short, and that would most likely quickly lead to suggestion of merging, etc. Until we can get a good article on what TVP really means with RBE (and that is hard mainly because of lack of concrete sources from TVP, that use the word in other ways than just a buzzword) this is the best solution. Once The Venus Project has a good section on resource-based economy, we can have a hatnote.

I would very much like it if those involved with TVP or TZM dug up some material to help expand this, instead of using up their time on interpersonal conflicts on Wikipedia. But I guess that's unrealistic. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Venus Project and Zeitgeist are mostly internet driven blogs. They are marginally notable though their terms might not be. Open Future, the Future By Design people at Venus Project took a term, changed the meaning to suit them. Its more confusing for people now, not less. The alternative section in relation to self sourced and marginally cited material does not belong here, in other places it failed the test of notability at AfD. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The term is certainly on the borderline for notability. Although there are few solid academic articles concerned with the alternative use, I do know of many mainstream news articles around the world that report on it, the most prominent of which would probably be a BBC report a few months back during the Occupy pinnacle, in which the term was used in its alternative sense. I don't think a term has to sweep the earth to be notable, however I don't think it deserves an article anywhere nearly as comprehensive as historical ideologies or social systems like many RBE supporters dream of. It probably better belongs in the Venus Project article with a disambiguation directing it to that section.

Occupy Cardiff & Resource-Based Economy, BBC Wales Today--Biophily (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's also important to remember here that notability as a Wikipedia concept concerns only articles. That something or someone isn't notable enough to have their own page doesn't mean that you can't mention them otherwise. In any case, this page is more or less a disambiguation page as it is. Notable or not, there isn't really much to say about about the original use of the term either. :-) -OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So lets delete the alternative section since its not notable and leave it for the Zeitgeist page to mention it, or Fresco page or Venus project page to self source themselves on the term. The BBC report does not mention anything about Venus project or Zeitgeist. The original term resource based economics, has lots of articles and information, so the actual core of the article in the mainstream usage can be expanded. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what "notable" means, what you say above makes very little sense. That the Venus Project page doesn't mention it is currently one of the main reasons we have to keep it here. If you can write a good section about it on The Venus Project, we could have a hatnote. But no such section exists, and my efforts to write one has failed, only partly because of lack of time (which of course is not helped by bringing this discussion up again, long after it was discussed on the Dispute noticeboard).

Expanding the mainstream usage is a very good idea, if you can come up with something more relevant to say. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I think there are enough arguments to keep the article as it is. The problem is that both uses are notable but that both uses are also too meagre to warrant separate articles. With the close ties between the two uses/meanings, they are more or less condemned to each other. The Banner _talk 11:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now the arguments are about even and more people have to weigh in. The mainstream article just has to be developed and no one has done that to broaden it. The alternative section is just content driven bloggers with pay pal buttons selling DVD's and abstract concepts. No serious writers about them only people warning mostly about the cult aspects of them. Its self sourced non notable self promotion. Probably a request for comment is in order. With issues like this unfortunately people from those groups will drop in to shore them up. Ah wait a minute, the former Night of the Big Wind who is now The Banner is weighing in here under two names his former and current, so that further confuses. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a name change, still the same person. But I just approached a friend of mine for help. I guess that he, as professor in economics, can shed some light on the classic use of the subject and help me create a longer, more thorough piece about it. The Banner _talk 15:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless reliable secondary sources are presented to support the alternative use, we should leave it out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The fringe material was also already deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resource-based_economic_model; we are merely adding a paragraph on a non-notable and unrelated (WP:UNDUE) topic into this one. Even if references were found, they would need to have some concrete relevance to this topic rather than just a coincidence of name. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

O.k. Delete the alternative section, and bring the self sourced interpretation of R.B.E. to the article about the movement or project. Since the source supposedly in that context is Venus Project place the content there. The arguments made by experienced editors at the a.f.d., that this represents duplicative and excessive coverage of a very fringe concept the editing of which is made overly difficult by zealous promotionalism, appears convincing to me. So, transfer the information to the Venus Project article. Then as another editor said, the actual notable term can be expanded. It does not appear that these two things are wedded together. Then maybe a see also listing of the Venus Project takes care of the problem on the article page here? Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

O.K., I have moved the information from the alternative section, or part of it, to The Venus Project page and added a see also of Venus Project, on this article page here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And as a result both articles suck even worse than before. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No doubt all the p.o.v. pushers from Zeitgeist and Venus Project will feel that way also. Future By Design by Fresco uses the term only, Open Future, a coincidence of words non withstanding. Forget the so-called 'hat-note', there is no connection between the mainstream term and the Fresco version. Mention of Fresco and Zeitgeist do not belong on the article at all. Seems pointless also to include Zeitgeist with the Venus Project 'term' on the page, though probably neither should be on the page, it acts like like a promo redirect for Fresco when it is not deserved since its not notable for Fresco either except by his advocates. Zeitgeist topically does not use the term now and had an acrimonious split with Venus Project. I would say remove the hat-note, its just more confusing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Useless exercise. Within a fortnight the Fresco-circus will be back here. And to be true: you efforts to get it removed is just as much POV-pushing as the efforts of the Fresco-guys to get it in. I don't understand why you don't accept a workable compromise. Maybe we should remove the article altogether... The Banner _talk 10:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Useless exercise? The Fresco circus is here now. Another editor brought attention to all this IRWolfie- and currently I am not p.o.v. pushing nor is that editor or the other that is supporting getting rid of the Fresco stuff here for the reasons they and I have given. Why remove the entire article when it is real term used and as that is notable, and who had the idea of putting a - between the words which is not such a great idea? Resource-based economy could be changed to Resource based economy now, instead of using the Fresco -. User Tom Harrison also is saying we should leave it off the page if its just self sourced which it is, a self sourced term to a self sourced internet movement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't POV pushing to ask that articles cover one specific topic; we do not cover different topics in the one article, simple as that. If there are editors trying to POV push, resisting that is not itself POV pushing, but working towards WP:NPOV: "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas" (WP:POVPUSH). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Earl King Jr: You make less and less sense every day. If we remove the hatnote, everybody who searched for the term "resource-based economy" will get utterly confused, most usage refer to the venusian usage today. The argument that it's "self-sourced" is irrelevant. What is relevant is notability and due weight. That's based on usage in reliable sources, not who defines it. Since the usage is by The Venus Project, their usage is the definition. The definition therefore is self-sourced. The notability is not. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism but using ridicule of other editors is not a good debating technique Open Future. Future By Design (Venus Project) information is confusing enough without that. The hat-note should not be there. If people search for resource-based economy they will wind up on the Venus Project site anyway without that and end up on Wikipedia. The word phrase would go right to the Venus project site. Why have a phrase that is even punctuated in a proprietary way with a - , be part of the page. Its not related to the subject at hand. Can we rename the article Resource based economy? That would be better. Aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article is not neutral presentation especially as the thing you are trying to put in is a fringe theory nearly all self sourced to itself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why am I confused?--Biophily (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, using ridicule is not good debating technique. Therefore I do not use it. Criticism is not ridicule. If you take all criticism as personal attacks it's going to be very hard to have a constructive discussion towards consensus.

If you search for resource-based economy you will end up on Resource-based economy. This both on Wikipedias own search, and it's the first search result on Google.

None of the other things you say make any sense to me. I have no idea why you would think it would be "better" to violate normal spelling rules on this article, or why the hat note shouldn't be there because Fresco's books are confusing. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

How come the Resource-based economy definition in wikipedia changed so much. It used to be a long article regarding the concept of Fresco's Venus Project but now all you see are 3 or 4 paragraphs that is totally irrelevant to the definition most people are searching for in wikipedia. Is it just me or am I smelling a conspiracy of silence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.210.181 (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's just you. But read the above discussions if you are interested in the why. Otherwise you could have noted that the first sentence in the article is the following:

"This article is about countries whose income comes mainly from natural resources. For use of the term as an economic theory, see The Venus Project."

Which in itself is adequate information for you to find what you are looking for. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

if you are looking for information regarding the concept of the Venus Project, then I suggest looking at the article: The Venus Project. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Case and Point a U.S. President Candidate is using the Term Resource Based Economy to mean a non monetary based economy in which resources are held in common. Roseanne Barr from her campaign page "The Bankers and the Federal Reserve need to be brought down. They have stolen our money, our future and the American Dream and continue to enslave us with a broken monetary system. There is no scarcity; there is manipulation of the resources. We need to end the wars, bring our troops home and our jobs back, create new Green jobs and put people back to work. We need a resource based economy." is she notable enough for wikipedia's standards? It doesn't look like she's pushing RBE according to the Frescoism definition though more the general definition of it as an economic theory. "http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/Issues" -New user

It's primary sourced and not relevant for this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Case and Point a U.S. President Candidate is using the Term Resource Based Economy to mean a non monetary based economy in which resources are held in common." - Right. Which exactly what this article is NOT about. It is not about that economic system, it is about how the term is used within the theory of economics. (No economist uses the term as Roseanne Barr does). Hence, what Roseanne Barr says about Resource-based economy has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. This is really not that hard to understand. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there then be a page for Resource Based Economy the economic system that Roseanne Barr is describing seperate from the Jacque Fresco page? Nowhere in her description does she site Jacque Fresco or the Venus Project? Obviously the economic theory is a common use term used by different people and i'd also point out that Charles Eisenstein uses the term to describe his Sacred Economics. www.sacredeconomics.com perhaps it goes under Gift Economics then? Or are you saying that an academic with a degree trumps all three of the different definitions used by Roseanne Barr, Charles Eisenstein, and Jacque Fresco? Arguably even RealitySandwich.com -New User

The discussion we had on that recently lead to the consensus that RBE in the Fresco-sense should be under The Venus Project. If the term starts to be used significantly by people not connected to TVP then having a separate page would make sense, yes. Loads of economists uses the term, but in a completely different way from Fresco, and that's the way this article is about. Charles Eisenstein uses the term, but it's not obvious how he uses it, and since he talks about the history of economics, it's unlikely he uses it in the same way as Fresco does, as his way is a hypothetical future economy, so we'd need a reliable source that he uses it in the same way. It's possible he uses it in a third way, he has fundamentally misunderstood most economics, why not also resource-based economy?

In any case Roseanne Barr by herself does not mean a lot of people not connected to the Venus project starts using the term. (That she doesn't mention TVP or Fresco does also not mean that she is independent from them, btw). --OpenFuture (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the TVP type usage failed the test of notability at AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with removing the reference to Venus Project about Resource based economy on this articles page. Fresco's version is self sourced internet driven. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Most people who'll google for "Resource based economy" want to know about the Fresco meaning, but they'll end up here. We have to have some sort of reference. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

People end up to here from Google [4]. What point is there to going to the Resource based economy article page when they can just go to the Fresco article or Venus Project article or the many Fresco/Zeitgeist sites? Why connect the term in regard to the mainstream usage if its not notable except for internet driven self sourcing from Fresco or Zeitgeist? Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say now, or what you are asking, or arguing for or against, if that's what you are doing. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And you first being incomprehensible doesn't mean you are allowed to remove a perfectly valid and necessary hatnote. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The TVP type usage failed the test of notability at AfD so why put it on this article? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Because: Most people who'll google for "Resource based economy" want to know about the Fresco meaning, but they'll end up here. We therefore have to have a hatnote to point them to the place they actually wanted to go. There was no consensus in the DRN discussion on whether the Fresco meaning should stay in this article or not, but it was moved to TVP, and then there has to be a hatnote. Your argument that there is no relation between the two meanings is senseless, since that's exactly what hatnotes are for; when one term has two unrelated meanings. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You are assuming most people can not 'search' their way to the other articles with the Fresco meaning. Do we need to guide people to the other non related term? Maybe not a good reason to cross connect the two. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no assumption in anything I say above. Just straight facts. Yes, we DO need to tell them that other meanings of this term exist. That's the whole purpose of disambiguation pages and hatnotes. If you don't agree with that, find the correct place to suggest that we remove all disambiguation from wikipedia. And good luck with that.

(But to be honest, I don't think you disagree with that. I think the problem lies somewhere else. Is this about that you weren't allowed to keep the reference to the Technocracy movement in the hatnote, so now you want it gone completely? Or something else?) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Something else. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Resource-Based Economy; Alternative use

Copied from initial location:

"""

"The term resource-based economy is also applied to a hypothetical economy in which goods, services and information are produced with such efficiency and abundance as to render them free to the public."

I originally modified that statement for greater up-front clarification. Hearing someone say, "You can have everything for free" leads you to a very different conclusion than what hearing, "The social and technical hyper-efficiency will allow us to produce goods in such abundance that, based on the Law of Supply and Demand, the price will be so insignificant that it would be essentially free." I understand that it isn't exactly necessary, however, as a member of TZM, I know firsthand how much reading is involved to understand why society will be capable of providing free access to everything and quickly reading 'you can have everything for free' can be very misleading. Lagesvantner (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As a member of Zeitgeist you have to be careful because if you make their point of view that would not be neutral. An overview of information has to be used from neutral sources and third party or second party writing. Zeitgeist and Venus Project and Technocracy groups all have different view points of a resource based economy and they differ from each other. In all three of those theories the basics of life are free though. Please bring any further comments you have to the talk page of the article in question. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"""

I understand your point and agree with your concern regarding neutrality, however I don't feel as though my modification favors either of the three organizations as they all have proposals for achieving the hyper-efficiency for the purposes of producing abundance (hyper-efficiency and resource abundance are highly-emphasized attributes of each organization, though each group proposes differing means of achieving these attributes). My edit was simply an attempt to very briefly elaborate on why each organization can provide goods and services for free rather than simply saying, "You can have everything you want for free" which sounds Utopian and can lead casual readers to an incorrect conclusion. Lagesvantner (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not bring information from a talk page to here especially without saying where it came from. Start any conversation here about the article from scratch. Its confusing if you don't do it that way. The article currently has links to all three groups. Those groups are not affiliated with each other. Lumping them together does not work. There is no connection, only a term and some historic link between two of the groups, now severed. The article does not say, 'you can have everything for free', so please don't say that. The links to the separate articles provide what information is available about each group and their proposals. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize; these are my first contributions and I'm learning as I go along. The statement 'you can have everything for free' was a poorly-worded exaggeration based on a conclusion that individuals who are newly-exposed to these groups usually arrive at before understanding the details of each organizations' proposals simply by reading or hearing that things are free. I should have taken better care to exclude personal experiences from my reasoning regarding my modification and I apologize for that as well. The organizations the section links to are actually very deeply connected and extremely similar in many ways, especially regarding their emphasis on technological efficiency and abundance, so I maintain the position that my modification is relevant and beneficial to the reader's understanding of the Resource-based Economy as these three groups refer to it, however I concede that my motivation and reasoning are insufficient to warrant the modification of the section and these groups will simply have to address the issue in their own forums. Lagesvantner (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what you will find as you explore and become a good editor is that neutrality really is best and making things very direct. The organizations the section links to are actually very deeply connected and extremely similar in many ways, especially regarding their emphasis on technological efficiency and abundance, so I maintain the position that my modification is relevant and beneficial to the reader's understanding of the Resource-based Economy as these three groups refer to it End quote Lagesvantner. On the surface it may seem that way but it is not so. The Technocracy movement has never been associated with any other groups and goes to pains to say that on their site. Zeitgeist ostensibly is saying resource based economy but they are saying resources are enough now for everyone. No way that Venus Project would agree with that. So, these groups actually have little in common beyond a phrase with some meanings. Zeitgeist is still known as a conspiracy oriented group because of the first Zeitgeist Peter Joseph movie for better or worse they will be tagged to it forever. Venus Project is a spin off of Technocracy where Fresco got many ideas,he is a former member of Technocracy and Technocracy calls itself a science social design. All different.

Suggestion Lagesvantner Start a user page, get an account talk page going and it will be easier to interact and you will have better tools for interacting. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

the venus project and zeitgeist movement are not using the term Resource Based Economy in a different way. both are regarding the survey of resources, automation of work, abolishment of national boundaries, etc. where you find the difference ? is it needed to move the alternative use to the zeitgeist movement page also ? It's better having the description about alternative use here. instead of explaining it on each page. -- Bharath chand (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Auto promotion to TVP in this article

The present article has been subjet to a conflict of interests, therefore please don´t ignore the link about the answer from patent office of USA, where you can find the obviolusly claim from TVP to be the only owner of the concept Economía Basada en Recursos (spanish) or Resource Based Economy (english), see more: https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP se too: https://archive.org/stream/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP_djvu.txt (english)

If you need to corroborate this source please check with the serial number onto the last doc shared in this web site: http://trademarks.breanlaw.com/77829193-resource-based-economy.html

I have not a clue to what you are talking about or referring but please do not edit the article for some personal reason or opinion you hold about Fresco who apparently you visited in the last few years, according to the link you posted? Whatever, the redirect is important and was sorted out on the talk page previously, you can reference that if you are curious about that information above. [5] Diff. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don´t bother us, TVP is not the owner and is not the only source about RBE idea, so please stop to make auto promotion and read the info contained in the link about TVP intention to thry patent RBE term and the response from the patent office of USA! And please read too the links and info in the present RBE article on wikipedia and you will can figure out TVP is not the only source or the better source about RBE, so please stop! Enano Humano 29 December 2013 (UTC)

NOTE:

Read too: http://theoverthinker.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/8.-Spirit-Of-The-Times-2012_issue8_web.pdf

What do you mean when you say, Please don't bother us? Are you with a group that opposes Fresco? Whatever, your edit does not make sense and your argument does not make sense. If its a personal feud you are having with Fresco then this is not the place to act it out. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for you. You are only other fanatic person from the venus project and this is sad, because you don´t use any kind of real argument. Why are you ignoring the other sources? Why do you try to fool us with the auto promotion to the organization venus project? Read the response of the patents office of USA and don`t ignore the facts! https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP Enano Humano 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you going on about? It is well known that Fresco's request was turned down. Its in the article about him. Stop removing the redirect. It has nothing to do with anything you are thinking. Are you an angry member of Zeitgeist opposed to Fresco? If so take it somewhere else. You are disrupting the project here. What do you mean don't bother us. Who are you representing with that statement. Who ever it is, fact is you are not improving the article, you are disrupting it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you pretend ignore other sources and bibliography about RBE? Why are you acting like a fanatic? RBE is not venus project, RBE is a wide concept and you can get many sources. What happend with you? This is your best argument?: "Are you an angry member of Zeitgeist opposed to Fresco?" I don´t care about the problems with those organizations, I am claiming to see beyond a dogmatic and fanatic position.

Again the sources:

- Response from Patent office of USA to venus project over RBE: https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP (RBE can´t have owner)

- Legal process about rejection RBE patent: http://trademarks.breanlaw.com/77829193-resource-based-economy.html ( venus project can´t prove the authority over RBE)

- Article. Debunked the venus project: http://theoverthinker.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/8.-Spirit-Of-The-Times-2012_issue8_web.pdf (venus project get money from activists to make a movie but they never made this movie and the money is lost)

- Real Bibliography from academic books:

* Barry C.Field (2000), Natural Resource Economics, McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-231677-2.

* Thomas H. Tietenberg (1988), Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, Scott-Foresman. ISBN 0-673-18945-7.

* Philip A. Neher (1990), Natural Resource Economics: Conservation and Exploitation, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-31174-8.

* Steven C. Hackett (2001), Environmental and Natural Resources Economics: Theory, Policy, and the Sustainable Society, M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-0682-8.

* Erhun Kula (1992), Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Springer. ISBN 0-412-36330-5.

* Juan C. Suris Regueiro, Manuel M. Varela Lafuente (1995), Introducción a la economía de los recursos naturales, Civitas. ISBN 84-470-0613-1.

* Pere Riera (2005), Manual de economía ambiental y de los recursos naturales, Thomson. ISBN 84-9732-369-6.

* Carlos Romero(1994), Economía de los recursos ambientales y naturales, Alianza Editorial. ISBN 84-206-6811-7.

* Alan Randall, Ricardo Calvet Perez (1985), Economía de los recursos naturales y política ambiental, Limusa. ISBN 968-18-1727-3.

* Roxana Barrantes (1997), Hacia un nuevo dorado: Economía de los recursos naturales, Consorcio de Investigación Económica. ISBN 9972-670-00-7.

-

So, I ask to you again, Why do you try to ignore the facts? The people are not idiots and you can´t hide the sun with one finger. RBE is not venus project. So, grow up man and try to use your critical thinking! Please do it! This is not a debate about opinions, it is a debate about sources and your fanatic auto-promotion to venus project and Fresco. PLEASE WRITE THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LABELS, TRADEMARKS, ORGANIZATIONS OR AUTO-PROMOTIONS Enano Humano 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a redirect. The page is not promoting anything. Are you a disgruntled ex Venus Project member? Why the attitude? Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Earl! What happend with you? Why do you delete a real bibliography about the RBE concept? Why do you fear? You are a fanatic of venus project. Your only argument is this: "Are you a disgruntled ex Venus Project member? Why the attitude?" Are you mad? I only found sources that you don´t have and this sources don´t say anything about your new religion, the venus project. So please stop ignoring the facts and please leave the sources clena and don´t put anymore AUTO-PROMOTION ABOUT VENUS PROJECT! Use your critital thinking AND READ OTHERS SOURCES PLEASE! Enano Humano 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Calm down. Its not a promotion it a redirect. That means people looking for something can click on the redirect if interested. It Looks like the bibliography can stay. Another editor has left it in their edit while maintaining the redirect, which another editor put in a while ago, not me. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Actualy, Why you calm down? and stop putting this crap "This article is about countries whose income comes mainly from natural resources. For use of the term as an economic theory, see The Venus Project.". If you keep going I will call a wikipedia moderator to resolve this confict of interests and auto-promotion (the auto-promotion is forbiden in wikipedia). You don´t have any valid sources to make a reference to venus project and you are ignoring all the evidence, for example the response to venus project from the USA office patent: https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP (RBE can´t have owner)

DON'T TRY TO FOOL US Earl! You are only a fanatic of venus project! A website and some videos of a guy who talks about something, mean nothing. Wikipedia is not a primary source, so you must have real bibliography, not only faith about a funny project and the need to make auto-promotion, so please! STOP TRYING TO FOOL US! Enano Humano 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sentence structure corretion 5 January 2014 (UTC) Anon user

Hi guys, after reading this discussion and going over the discussion. I arrived at the conclusion that The venus project has no sources, it is not a credible source, nor do they have a solid economic theory. They only have website and text that talks about an idea presenting Jaque Fresco as the mind behind a resource based economy, but sources in this conversation show otherwise. The sources show better and more serious arguments and relevant work about the proper use, and real meaning of the term Resource Based Economy. jjmr247 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing that for what ever reason you as the other editor have some personal feeling about Fresco. Let me point out that the article here is not about Fresco. There is a simple redirect to Venus project in this article because that is the sort of thing an encyclopedia will do to provide information. Fresco and his ideas are notable in the sense that he has been written about, was featured in some silly movies and is an author and was once fairly notable as an inventor of various things. It is a mistake to take your personal opinion, because you have decided Fresco or Venus Project not notable and project that on to information on Wikipedia. jjmr247 it may appear that you are a single purpose account attempting to join a minor edit war over something not worth fighting about. Its very doubtful that what you consider the opposing editors here have anything in mind but neutral presentation and being helpful to readers. I for one have no stake in Venus project and did not even support the redirect at first but another editor added it and it makes sense to have it because it just assists people looking for information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Earl you don´t have any argument, your only resource in this conversation is keep trying to hide other info with lies and guessings, and you only can say "Are you a disgruntled ex Venus Project member? Why the attitude?" to everybody who are trying to put any real sources and more relevant sources that the venus project. This is a shame for wikipedia users. You lost your mind trying to defend a fake reference to the venus project's (they don´t have any economic model or investigation), and you still hope the people believe in you and in the words of Fresco without any sources, investigation or any kind real evidence and like say the USA paten office: "RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY" for services incorrectly set forth as "Association services, namely, promoting the interests of alternative social sustainability and design." However, it appears that the proposed mark "RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY" is a pre-existing phrase in the socio-economic literature discussing economic models, a pre-existing phrase with a fairly widely known meaning." see more: https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP So please STOP TO FOOL US Earl! Enano Humano 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Article

Enano best you slow down. You are making a lot of mistakes calling names like vandal in your edit summary of another editor and edit warring against what ever small consensus there is. If you have an issue you believe then ask for a Request for comment or bring it to one of the boards for them to deal with. Your current approach is tendentious and its a big mistake to go to war over something so insignificant as a redirect. Wikipedia should never be used for name calling or anger and accusation in the way you have done WP:NOTBATTLE. Please take a breath and change your approach, now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn´t seem to be an argument here, all he Enano Humano is asking is for you to put up real sources and if you have any sources, please put them up. Otherwise remove the self promotion, and relax with the attitude because you are looking like a fanatic only stirring up conflict to defend an unvalid source. jjmr247 5 January 2014 (UTC)

jjmr247, did Enano Humano ask you to edit here, or are you the same person? If so, that would be a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks jjmr247. If you can see in this article, you can find people who are trying to ingnore the real biography about RBE concept. So, they hope the people believe in the words of Fresco without any sources, investigation or any real evidence and like say the USA paten office "RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY" for services incorrectly set forth as "Association services, namely, promoting the interests of alternative social sustainability and design." However, it appears that the proposed mark "RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY" is a pre-existing phrase in the socio-economic literature discussing economic models, a pre-existing phrase with a fairly widely known meaning." see more: https://archive.org/details/IntentoderegistrodelaEBRporTVP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enano Humano (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny how your English suddenly improved and now you sound just like the other guy almost, Enano and Jjmr247 oddly you sound like the same person now, could it be that you are a sock puppet, meat puppet? I guess. Also, stop posting that ridiculous Internet Archive thing. Apparently that is part of your internet feud you two are having with Fresco. Yes, it appears you have some nasty war of words with your group, the Promethean's your group wrote some over the top uncitable and non notable unauthorized rant, placed it on Internet Archive and now are trying to quote from it, not good, not good at all. Cease posting this ridiculous link [6] it is not usable here in any form. It is apparent that the two of you are in some group that is highly anti Fresco but this is the wrong place to bring your fight. Go make a blog or something but just stop editing here before some Admin accidentally views your work and gives you and the meat or sock puppet the boot. I am trying to explain this stuff to you now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Earl We are NOT the same person. Once again I will ask you to stop the Auto-Promotion. I think Enano has been clear with you of why you can not Redirect to the Venus Project page. For one The Venus Project does Not have neither a model nor an Economic Theory on their part, it is not a credible source since it has not sources other than Themselves claiming to have coined the Term, which is absolutely FALSE. Second as per the link Enano gives is to the US Patent office Telling the Venus Project that they can NOT do such thing. At the same time other sources Do show real and serious work about the topic. Again all this auto promotion has no work to back it up, only Plagiarism on the Venus Project's side otherwise show some real sources behind Fresco's work. jjmr247 (talk) 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that those accounts are operated by the same person, and 3rr will probably be enforced on that basis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tom, please don´t support Earl, you must be impartial and you must moderate this article, please check the sources posted by me, Earl don´t have any real argument he only want do auto-promotion to venus project and his ideas like a real reference (he is a fanatic of venus project), but if you check the venus project website they only expose a idea but no a economic theory. Please take the sources and make a comparative study, like me in the past! By the way I don´t need use others profiles, and if you are a real admin of wikipedia I guess you can see the IP adresses, e-mails and others stuffs! Enano Humano, 9 January 2014