Talk:Monad (Technocracy)

I did a quick job on the article. I will one day return to fill things out. Trfs 05:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Feel free to do it if you're in the know.

General/Economic Equilibrium
I'm sure most technocrats are going to shudder at anything to do with economics. For the masses, however, the well-explained economic theory of equilibrium is aligned with the balance of energy consumption and goods-production in a technate. This is why I put those thinks in, albeit left the term 'loosely'. All I'm doing is trying to explain what balance is meant here, and I think the most fitting definition is economic equilibrium.

Origin?
Any hints on the origin of the Monad? It smells alchemy to me Arivero 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Voivod?
I deleted the reference to Voivod, as it didn't seem to have any connection with the topic of the article whatsoever and wasn't even properly linked. Irritator (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the size of this thing?
I seems way to big to fit into an article. Could it be shrunk in half or shrunk two thirds?skip sievert (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
An editor recently redirected this page to another page. This article covers a notable thing that is well known and needs an encyclopedic entry. It appears that the redirect would deprive people of more direct information here as to the origin of this logo symbol. Please discuss a serious redirect like that before doing. skip sievert (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * that redirect was correct, and I have re-established it. This particular symbol as a symbol of the organization is not independently significant by any stretch of the imagination. The alternative is to ask for it to be deleted entirely, and the redirect is preferred. I usually like to take the conservative course.  DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How is it conservative to redirect an article that has a lot of information about a notable social group from the early thirties, 18 card carring members of which, were later involved in the Cabinet of F.D.R.,? that was the fastest growing social movement of the time, and claimed 500.000 members in California alone? Scroll down to the Technocracy section in this official Social Security History website, here, and you can see a picture of the Monad. How is it that you have determined by statement of fact, without any other explanation that the organizations symbol is not independently significant..? and how is it that the argument is... this way or deletion? Given those things would you be willing to reinstate the article? skip sievert (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not imagine  restoring this--the significant material -- what you refer to above -- is every bit of it in the redirected article. There is no third party indication of significance of the symbol. Frankly, the only viable alternative to redirection is deletion.    DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)