| Revision as of 15:59, 3 May 2006 editRJII (talk | contribs)25,810 edits →NPOV← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:06, 7 May 2006 edit undoRJII (talk | contribs)25,810 edits tagNext edit → | ||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{RFMF}} | |||
| This article was listed on ]; see ]. ] (], ])]] 02:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) | This article was listed on ]; see ]. ] (], ])]] 02:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) | ||
| Line 45: | Line 46: | ||
| It seems to me that what this article needs is a well-constructed criticism section composed by a student of more conventional academic philosophy. I'm not the biggest wiki enthusiast, and I don't know how citation operates, but it seems to me that as such material doesn't exist in the literature, it would have to be primary to wiki. | It seems to me that what this article needs is a well-constructed criticism section composed by a student of more conventional academic philosophy. I'm not the biggest wiki enthusiast, and I don't know how citation operates, but it seems to me that as such material doesn't exist in the literature, it would have to be primary to wiki. | ||
| :Yes, that's a problem, because "original research" is against the rules. It would have to be arguments from credible sources rehashed here. 15:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | :Yes, that's a problem, because "original research" is against the rules. It would have to be arguments from credible sources rehashed here. 15:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Incidentally, the rules also say that "self-published books" are unacceptable as sources. Well, I think I'm going to throw out lots of stuff that come only from Neo-Tech's self-publications. ] 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not the policy. Self-published things cannot be used as ''secondary'', but only as ''primary'' sources --meaning they can only be used when you're writing about the source itself in an article about the source. To use Frank Wallace as a ''secondary'' source would be to use his self-published work as a source about something other than his philosophy in another article (unless it has been cited elsewhere by a scholarly source). That's what the policy is against. ] 17:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::False. ] says, "it is essential that '''any primary-source material''', as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a '''reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published)''' that is available to readers either from a website (other than Misplaced Pages) or through a public library". And ] says, "For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, '''not unduly self-aggrandizing''', and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources." (emphasis mine) | |||
| ::::Not only is Neo-Tech material self-published, it's also extremely self-aggrandizing. Either way you look, the Neo-Tech material simply does not fit the bill, and the rules are crystal-clear on this. ] 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The information being referenced is not "self-aggrandizing." It's just a desciption of the philosophy. You are completely unjustified. I'm reverting back. There is no other way to write about the material than to get the information from the material, because there are no third party published sources that discuss Neo-tech (that I know of, at aleast). You don't understand our sourcing policy. And, by the way, you cannot source "criticisms" from forum postings, web pages, etc --those are not credible sources according to policy. Keep it up and we'll have to take this to dispute resolution. ] 02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Go ahead, take it to dispute resolution. If you don't, I'll do it. ] 02:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ok. ] 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''This is the funniest article i have come across for quite some time..business is the highest stage of evolution! and a big dose of bi-cameralism - how yawningly Hegelian. thanks for a good giggle!'' | ''This is the funniest article i have come across for quite some time..business is the highest stage of evolution! and a big dose of bi-cameralism - how yawningly Hegelian. thanks for a good giggle!'' | ||
Revision as of 03:06, 7 May 2006
Template:RFMF This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Neo-Tech. ] 02:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Well after a successful vote against deletion I think I'm almost through writing the article. I've written all approximately 1200 words of it at this point, other than one line from an anonymous user ("the dishonesty disease that creates problems where none exist"), a "minor grammar, phrasing, attribution" edit by User:Antaeus Feldspar, , the neutralization of the word "seminal" to "controversial" (Jayne's book) by another user, and a single spelling correction by User:Sam Hocevar and another by User:Rhobite. I appreciate their input. (I've also edited a few times anonymously by forgetting to log in). A few things need to be done, possibly a word about "Zon." Now I'm just waiting for all my hard work to be trashed beyond recognition. Happy New Year. RJII 22:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, you've done a pretty good job so far, so I doubt there's a whole lot of "trashing beyond recognition" on the horizon. Just remember a simple rule that will probably avoid most of the trouble: phrase it so that even someone biased against Neo-Tech would agree that what you've written is true. (i.e., Neo-Tech defines mysticism as ... rather than Mysticism is...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Of course the vote for deletion was defeated....what do you expect? Neo-Tech is unstoppable.
- You mean Neo-TeX.
Is "NeoTech " trademarked? How much does it cost? 67.118.117.48 22:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The word isn't trademarked. I just added that to the article. Thanks. RJII 22:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What about "Novus-Tek", "Nova-Tech", "Nuova-Tech", and "Nouveau-Tech"? Have any of these been trademarked? Bi 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
pen names
What's the source for the claim that Dr. Wallace writes under "Dr. Higgs Field, John Flint, and others." (That his legal name is "Wallace Ward" is pretty well documented). ..also the source for the Eric Savage claim? (JoeMystical)
SCAM
It seems pretty widely known that Neo-Tech (or Nouveau Tech or whatever they're calling it now) is a scam. Why is there no mention of this in the article?
- That would be a separate issue. Neo-Tech is a philosophy. If anyone selling books is scamming anyone, that would be an issue concerning that particular business. Books about Neo-Tech are available from a number of retail outlets. If Neo-Tech Publishing Company, Nouveau Tech, or Amazon.com, for example, are shown to have scammed people, then it should be written in those articles (JoeMystical)
- Did you get scammed? Who scammed you? (JoeMystical)
- Because we're too lazy to write it up... well, maybe you aren't. :-) I'd say that both Neo-Tech the philosophy and Neo-Tech the publishing company are pretty borked, but the problem's to write it in such a way that it's factual yet NPOV. (On a side note, I think when people try to separate Neo-Tech the philosophy from Neo-Tech the company when something bad comes up, but link the two together when something good comes up, such people obviously suck. But that's not NPOV either...) --bi
- I've a bought a few books from Neo-Tech Publishing. I wasn't scammed. And, I don't see any way possible you could say Neo-Tech itself is a "scam" ..it's just a philosophy. And, Neo-Tech Publishing is indeed separate from Neo-Tech. Neo-Tech is just the name of the philosophy. The publisher used to be called I&O Publishing but they still entitled the philosophy "Neo-Tech." And, they're not the only publisher of Neo-Tech philosophy. (JoeMystical)
- Well, since you're so intent on differentiating Neo-Tech the philosophy from Neo-Tech the company, I've turned the Neo-Tech wiki page into a disambiguation page. I suppose most people will be looking for information about the company than about the philosophy, so it doesn't make much sense to have a page about the philosophy as the main page in any case. Bi 11:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
JoeMystical, I'm tired of you constantly trying to peddle your own views as objective truth, even while I'm doing my best to describe the existing views on Neo-Tech in a detached manner. Sorry, but your "Neo-Tech is objective truth, and Neo-Tech says mysticism is such and such, and Neo-Tech says that this is the ordinary definition of mysticism in epistemology, and Neo-Tech says that Neo-Tech's epistemology is the epistemology, and Neo-Tech says Neo-Tech doesn't 'see' things, and Neo-Tech says that all criticisms of Neo-Tech are based on mysticism because Neo-Tech says Neo-Tech is not mysticism, therefore Neo-Tech is objective truth" is simply not NPOV, and NPOV is how Misplaced Pages works.
And I've not even touched on the fact that all your statements about Neo-Tech being objective are nothing but circular logic, and I'm not writing that in the main article only out of respect of NPOV, so don't force me. Bi 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? I never said that Neo-Tech is objective truth or anything else you just stated. Look, this is how Misplaced Pages works. You can't just make things up in articles. They have to be sourceable. That's Misplaced Pages rules. If there is a criticism of Neo-Tech then you should be able to point to that criticism in a source. If not, then you're violating the Misplaced Pages rule against original research. Now, you claim that some critics question the definition of mysticism. Where are these critics? If the critic is just you personally, it's not relevant. (JoeMystical)
- The Criticisms section gives the sources that criticize Neo-Tech. You are the one who removed the link to that section so that you can accuse others of not citing their sources. Is that honesty or what? Bi 09:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- A criticism from "Neocheater Nenslo"? You've got to be kidding. What credibility does Neocheater Nenslo have? That's just a post to a forum from an apparent nobody. That's not a proper source. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find objections to neo-tech in published papers. But, don't resort to plucking out an email from a forum. That's not a reputable source by Misplaced Pages standards. (JoeMystical)
- Strange that Neo-Tech is supposedly against authority, yet we have a Neo-Tech supporter who makes a great deal about citing only authoritative sources! Sorry, but I've read Misplaced Pages's guidelines on citing sources, and nowhere -- nowhere -- does it say that only "reputable sources" from "published papers" can be cited. All that's needed is that whatever claim that's made is verifiable. And in this case my statement was indeed verifiable: I claimed that such and such a person has said such and such a thing, and the link clearly shows that this is true. Bi 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It has to be a credible source. Citing some guy's message on a forum is definitely not encyclopedic. If you keep this up I'll take you to arbitration. This will be a close and shut case. Look at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources "Bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." So, obviously "Neocheater Nenslo" is not a reliable source. We don't know who he is or what qualifications he has to comment. (JoeMystical)
- Strange that Neo-Tech is supposedly against authority, yet we have a Neo-Tech supporter who makes a great deal about citing only authoritative sources! Sorry, but I've read Misplaced Pages's guidelines on citing sources, and nowhere -- nowhere -- does it say that only "reputable sources" from "published papers" can be cited. All that's needed is that whatever claim that's made is verifiable. And in this case my statement was indeed verifiable: I claimed that such and such a person has said such and such a thing, and the link clearly shows that this is true. Bi 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that what this article needs is a well-constructed criticism section composed by a student of more conventional academic philosophy. I'm not the biggest wiki enthusiast, and I don't know how citation operates, but it seems to me that as such material doesn't exist in the literature, it would have to be primary to wiki.
- Yes, that's a problem, because "original research" is against the rules. It would have to be arguments from credible sources rehashed here. 15:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the rules also say that "self-published books" are unacceptable as sources. Well, I think I'm going to throw out lots of stuff that come only from Neo-Tech's self-publications. Bi 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's not the policy. Self-published things cannot be used as secondary, but only as primary sources --meaning they can only be used when you're writing about the source itself in an article about the source. To use Frank Wallace as a secondary source would be to use his self-published work as a source about something other than his philosophy in another article (unless it has been cited elsewhere by a scholarly source). That's what the policy is against. RJII 17:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the rules also say that "self-published books" are unacceptable as sources. Well, I think I'm going to throw out lots of stuff that come only from Neo-Tech's self-publications. Bi 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- False. WP:OR says, "it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Misplaced Pages) or through a public library". And WP:V says, "For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources." (emphasis mine)
- Not only is Neo-Tech material self-published, it's also extremely self-aggrandizing. Either way you look, the Neo-Tech material simply does not fit the bill, and the rules are crystal-clear on this. Bi 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- The information being referenced is not "self-aggrandizing." It's just a desciption of the philosophy. You are completely unjustified. I'm reverting back. There is no other way to write about the material than to get the information from the material, because there are no third party published sources that discuss Neo-tech (that I know of, at aleast). You don't understand our sourcing policy. And, by the way, you cannot source "criticisms" from forum postings, web pages, etc --those are not credible sources according to policy. Keep it up and we'll have to take this to dispute resolution. RJII 02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead, take it to dispute resolution. If you don't, I'll do it. Bi 02:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- The information being referenced is not "self-aggrandizing." It's just a desciption of the philosophy. You are completely unjustified. I'm reverting back. There is no other way to write about the material than to get the information from the material, because there are no third party published sources that discuss Neo-tech (that I know of, at aleast). You don't understand our sourcing policy. And, by the way, you cannot source "criticisms" from forum postings, web pages, etc --those are not credible sources according to policy. Keep it up and we'll have to take this to dispute resolution. RJII 02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not only is Neo-Tech material self-published, it's also extremely self-aggrandizing. Either way you look, the Neo-Tech material simply does not fit the bill, and the rules are crystal-clear on this. Bi 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the funniest article i have come across for quite some time..business is the highest stage of evolution! and a big dose of bi-cameralism - how yawningly Hegelian. thanks for a good giggle!
- How dare you mock the great wisdom of Neo-Tech, you irrational worm! :-) Bi 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)