Talk:Frank R. Wallace

Sigma Xi

Bi deleted note that Wallace is a member of Sigma Xi. I contacted Sigma Xi, and they said he is an "active member." Anyone can contact them if they need to verify that. What a ridiculous deletion from Bi, anyway --who is going to lie about something so easily verified? RJII 06:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. DGG tells us that "there are over 60,000 members [in Sigma Xi], and anyone with a PhD is eligible." So whether Wallace is a member of Sigma Xi is moot anyway; it's just an insignificant piece of information. Bi 07:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed an external link

...because it didn't seem relevant at all—or am I missing something? RJII added it, but it looks like he's been blocked, so I can't ask him. (Here's the latest diff) --zenohockey 04:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm back. That site used to have some information on the death and funeral but it's been archived. No need for the link anymore. RJII 04:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is possibly inaccurate

This page states that Frank R Wallace is dead. The date it states he died is prior to the date the Better Business Bureau states he appeared before them to negotiate Neo-Tech's membership with them.

Report on BBB.org's website for Neo-Tech Publishing:
http://worf.usshurdman.com/~vegas/commonreport.html?compid=48788
Scroll to bottom section with notes regarding activity and events.

I would suggest that someone verify that the man on this page is indeed deceased. Business documentation would suggest otherwise.

If it would be of assistance to anyone this is the information I have collected:

Name: Wallace Ward (unknown middle name/initial)
AKA: Frank R. Wallace
Birth: 10 Sep 1932
Alleged Death: 26 Jan 2006
Place of Death: Henderson, Nevada, USA
SSN: 123-24-9841
Last Residence: Henderson, Nevada, USA 89074

Department of Vital Records for Henderson, NV: +1 (702) 759-1011
Death Certificate verification is done between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM MST.

I have not yet been able to call them during this one hour window to verify. If someone is able to verify this information please post your results on this talk page.

Thanks,

Cliffordwagner

I suspect that the Wallace Ward mentioned by the BBB is actually his son, Wallace Ward Jr. But someone should really check up on this. Bi 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Neo-Tech philosophy talk page

Just for the record: part of the article was merged from "Neo-Tech (philosophy)", and here's the talk page for the old article. Bi

(uncivil comment removed Bi 11:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Linkspam from Nathan Shaw

I zapped two extra links which were added in the latest edit, because

• the links give undue weight to Neo-Tech's viewpoint, and besides are added in violation of conflict of interest guidelines;
• the links are described in obviously non-neutral language;
• and finally, Nathan Shaw, the editor who added the links, is a known spammer, which makes it hard to believe that the edit was done out of good faith.

-- Bi 19:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruption=

Bi, you're being really disruptive. You're deleting cited material. You object that one source is a book that's included in a "poker kit" and deleting lots of other cited information with it. The book in the poker kit is a real book with a real ISBN number. Don't delete it. And what is your excuse for deleting all the other cited info? Bridge & Tunnel 07:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

I'm having a very difficult time finding anything that would lead me to believe this guy is notable. The books cited as sources basically are just a name drop, and all the newspaper ones are obituaries. I can't find a thing else, does anyone have anything? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to put sources in, but user "Bi" keeps deleting them. Look at all the books he's written: [1] His book "Advanced Concepts of Poker" is a classic that all professional poker players are familiar with. He's also cited in other books. Bridge & Tunnel 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bridge & Tunnel, I'm sure Seraphimblade also did check out your versions of the page. And yeah, they're just name-dropping, from sources which are themselves of dubious provenance. Bi 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

They're published books with ISBN numbers. Bridge & Tunnel 07:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bi, you really need to stop being disruptive. Bridge & Tunnel 07:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed check Bridge & Tunnel's version of the page, hence the reference to the books he cited. There are a lot of "real books with ISBN numbers", that doesn't establish notability, nor reliability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Then what does, in your opinion? Bridge & Tunnel 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For reliability, academic peer-review or editorial fact-checking establishes that for a publication. For notability, the question isn't "Did he write?" but "Did people write about him?" (Remember that means "about" him, not just that they dropped his name, but that they actually devoted a significant amount of work to that person.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he has written tons of books and that third party books have talked about him and cited his books is good enough. But also he has been in the news and law books for successfully challenging the wording of the oath that one takes in court. Court cases cite his case as a notable and classic case. Bridge & Tunnel 07:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That would do it, though in that case we may want to move the article to be about the case rather then the person. What law books or news sources are those? The one news source I see just mentions the case in passing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!}

I also provided source which were books about poker saying that Wallace's poker book was a "seminal" work. It's a classic. That in itself is good enough as well. Bridge & Tunnel 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Someone saying someone else wrote a "seminal" work doesn't in itself do it-that would do more to enhance the notability of the book then the author, but in either case the person saying it would have to have some credentials as a reliable authority on such things. Also, what were those citations of the legal case? That really might make for an interesting article on the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense what you're saying. If someone's books are notable then the author is notable because he's the author of the books. Do we make a separate article for each book than an author writes on Wikipedia? Of course not. We note the author and list the books. Bridge & Tunnel 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation from a legal textbook which has a pretty good sized discussion about it. Wallace has a good point in that case. How can one guarantee he is speaking the truth when he testifies? The most one can do is speak what he believes to be the truth, which is simply to be honest. Bridge & Tunnel 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"That doesn't make any sense" isn't an excuse for you to go on an edit spree. If you genuinely don't understand what someone's saying, ask for clarification. If you're using "doesn't make any sense" as an excuse to shut people out, then stop. Bi 11:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing reported on WP:ANI. Bi 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one being disruptive. Someone put up a notice requesting sources and evidence of notability. You're deleting the information when I add it. You can't pretend that Wallace is not notable by deleting the evidence of his notability. Bridge & Tunnel 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bridge & Tunnel, you and I have both been advised by User:Robdurbar to discuss changes on this talk page, instead of unilaterally editing the article. Why can't you just do that? Bi 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

False. Nowhere in the above discussion was a suggesiton brought up to "discuss changes on the talk page first." I don't have to "discuss" adding sources before I add them anyway. To delete information that is sourced, which is what you have been doing is disruptive. I was asked by Robdurbar above to provide source, which is what I have been doing. He asked me to provide a law book source and I have. You've been deleting it. Now you're trying to delete the article. What is your problem? Bridge & Tunnel 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar gave the advice on your talk page. Bi 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that, as a prolific author and leader of a movement that is an offshoot of a major modern philosophy (Objectivism), Wallace merits an article. I think the call for deletion is too harsh; maybe some more citations should be added instead. Mike1981 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll have to honour the decision not to delete. However I still disagree on Bridge & Tunnel using those sources of his with regard to this article, so I've started an RFC on this. Bi 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge hidden Neo-Tech Neo-Tech article into this one

Here is the hidden Neo-Tech article Neo-Tech. I think it should be merged into this one, or better yet re-created. Bi put it up for deletion awhile back and unfortunately it was deleted; I think wrongly deleted. JoeMystical 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked on the discussion page on that article and it said there was a vote to merge that article with this one. So it looks like it was supposed to be done anyway but no one got around to it apparently. Bridge & Tunnel 14:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I forgot that the vote was to merge the article into this one. So let's do it. I'll start working on that if no one else does. JoeMystical 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: acceptable sources

I hereby put the following matter up for WP:RFC/PHIL: can the following books be used as sources for this article?

• Friedman, Stan (2006). Dogs Playing Poker: Poker Kit. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 1402734484.
• Schreiber, Lee Robert (2005). Poker as Life: 101 Lessons from the World's Greatest Game. Hearst Books. ISBN 1588164616.
• Hope, Tony: Hart, Markus; Wilson, Vicki (2005). Fresh Wisdom: Breakthough to Enlightenment. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 1419618555.

I think these books can't be used as sources, since they have not undergone any peer review or editorial oversight, and neither have they been written by people who are known to be authorities in any of the relevant fields (poker, philosophy, Wallace the person). However, Bridge & Tunnel had repeatedly insisted that these are acceptable sources, with no justification whatsoever. And I've yet to come across any rationale from anyone based on Wikipedia policy that these sources can be used.

In any case, I now bring this matter forward to community discussion. Bi 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of cousre they can be used as sources. Bridge & Tunnel 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Baldly reasserting your point over and over again sure makes you look credible, no? Bi 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting information that is sourced sure makes you look credible, no? Bridge & Tunnel 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Circular logic. This RFC is about whether your "sources" are acceptable in the first place. And stop trying to dominate discussion. Bi 06:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And I already responded of course they can be used as sources. And don't try to push me out of the dicussion. I'll discuss whenever I please. Bridge & Tunnel 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see what's wrong with the first two -- WP:A does not say that a source has to be peer reviewed to be reliable. I'd say they can be used as sources on Wikipedia, but their reliability has to be weighed against the exceptionality of the claims they are used to support. The third book is published by BookSurge, which seems to qualify as a "vanity press." So per WP:A that book would probably not be an appropriate source for controversial or disputed claims. PubliusFL 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough but the claim from the BookSurge book is not controversial or disputed. Neo-Tech literature itself says that Wallace plans on building a "building-size, public walk-through glass model that illustrates -- via interactive audio and video -- the scientific, intellectual, practical, and emotional meanings of that discovery in aesthetically-exciting ways." "He will organize and then integrate the vast amounts of raw physical, statistical, and mathematical information currently available for the chemical elements. That information concerns space-and-time distributions, quantities, properties, and uses of those elements on quantum, macro, and cosmic levels." That's from "Pax Neo-Tech" Bridge & Tunnel 21:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all the BookSurge book is used as a source for? What's the source for the stuff about non-supernatural intelligent beings? PubliusFL 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Same sources. Both the one from Booksurge and Wallace's writings himself in Pax Neo-Tech where he says "Yet, without direct evidence to posit a scientifically-acceptable theory, Neo-Tech deduces a useful speculation: Perhaps eon-advanced conscious beings (Zons) birthed this universe with initial conditions designed to deliver ever-expanding health and prosperity for conscious life by following the immutable laws of nature. Such a speculation provides a tool for generating predictions -- regardless if universe-creating Zons exist or not." Bridge & Tunnel 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, so the BookSurge book does make controversial, extraordinary claims. And it's also published by a vanity press. Bi 10:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is concerning. How can you say "the claim from the BookSurge book is not controversial or disputed" when it's used to support an assertion that the universe was created by space aliens? Bi, above in this talk page you mention respecting the decision not to delete the article. Has there been a VfD for this article already? There's no link to the discussion at the top of the talk page like there normally is. PubliusFL 15:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was over a few days ago. Bi 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not being "used to support an assertion that the universe was created by space aliens." It's being used to support an assertion that Frank Wallace speculated that the universe was created by intelligent beings. Sure it's controversial that the universe was created by an intelligent being, but it's not controversial that Wallace speculated that it was. That's all the source is being used for. Bridge & Tunnel 17:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bridge & Tunnel, see below. Bi 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a step back and think about this. I only came to this article from the RfC and had never heard of Frank R. Wallace's cosmological beliefs before. How do I know it's not controversial that Wallace speculated that aliens created the universe unless there's a reliable source saying so? That's the kind of claim that's controversial on its face. We certainly wouldn't accept someone putting that kind of statement in, say, Tony Blair's article based on a self-published book. For something like this, if you can't find a reliable independent source, you should at least cite something that Wallace himself wrote. PubliusFL 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been qouting above. That's from "Pax Neo-Tech" which is a book by Wallace. Wallace's own books back up what the Booksurge source says. Wallace himself openly says that he speculates, though doesn't assert, that the universe was created by an intelligent non-supernatural being. And he said he planned on building that glass walk-through model that the source talks about. Bridge & Tunnel 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's peel this apart layer by layer.

Again, from WP:A: "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources" (emphasis mine). You're using the Booksurge book as a source. But is the article about the Booksurge book or its authors? No. The article is about Frank R. Wallace. The Booksurge book can only be used as a source about the Booksurge book or its authors.

So, the only self-published material that can be used in an article on Frank R. Wallace is Frank R. Wallace's own writings. So instead of looking at the Booksurge book as a source, now let's look at Wallace's writings as a source. Now, our source — Wallace — claims that the "universe was created by an intelligent non-supernatural being". This is clearly a contentious claim, from a questionable source (Wallace). Bi 18:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that an intelligent being created the universe is contentious, but it's not contentious that Wallace speculated that that might be the case because he says it himself in his writings. There's no way you can prevent that from being in the article. It's perfectly acceptable to cite what a person says or believes no matter how far out it is. You're trying to twist policy to prevent information from being in this article, obviously. Probably because you couldn't get it deleted But it's not going to work. I've assumed good faith as long as I could but I can see now that it's just not there. Bridge & Tunnel 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Wait a minute. Per WP:FRINGE, a non-mainstream theory should only be mentioned on Wikipedia if it has received attention from a mainstream publication or mainstream group. See also WP:A, claims from a self-published source must be relevant to the subject's notability in addition to not contentious. Even if the fact that Wallace believed this stuff is not contentious, what's the justification for talking about it on Wikipedia? PubliusFL 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Because this article is about Wallace and his writings. If we were talking about Wallace's theories in another article, then that's another matter. By the way intelligent design has recieved plenty of attention so his speculation that an intelligent being created the universe is not all that "fringe." Bridge & Tunnel 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's begging the question. Just because there is an article about Wallace doesn't mean everything Wallace believed or talked about belongs on Wikipedia. PubliusFL 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not begging the quesiton. You said that a theory should only be mentioned if it has received attention from a mainstream publication or group. The speculation that an intelligent being created the universe (otherwise known as "intelligent design") meets that criteria. I disagree with your second sentence. I think everything essential to what Wallace believed or talked about in his writings does belong in the Frank R. Wallace article, of course narrowed down for conciseness and efficiency. That's the standard for all Wikipedia articles about any particular person. Bridge & Tunnel 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Intelligent design" in general has received mainstream attention, but Wallace's particular flavour of "intelligent design" which involves "business-oriented isotopes" and other weird crack — that, my friend, is nowhere near mainstream. Bi 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? Something doesn't have to be mainstream to be on Wikipedia. And if it's in an article about a person it doesn't matter how far out of the mainstream it is. Anything that Wallace says that is essential to his writings can be mentioned in this article. It's not even gone into detail about what the theory is except that he theorized the universe was created by an intelligent being, so what you're saying is not even relevent. Bridge & Tunnel 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Anything that Wallace says that is essential to his writings can be mentioned in this article" if it's attributable to a reliable published source. A source is not "reliable" if it's self-published, unless it's being used in an article about the source, is not contentious, and is relevant to the subject's notability. "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" and "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" are red flags indicating that such claims" should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources."PubliusFL 20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and the self-published source says the same thing that Wallace himself says in his own writings, so it doesn't matter. Whether the the Booksurge book is used as a source or Wallace's writings themselves used as a source, the same thing can be stated. The Booksurge source is obviously correct in what it claims Wallace says so there is no doubt as to its reliability. Bridge & Tunnel 02:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. You still haven't shown how these unusual theories are "relevant to (Wallace's) notability" and covered by mainstream sources, as required by WP:ATT and WP:FRINGE. If there's no reliable independent source covering this stuff, it should not be in Wikipedia, period. So far I see some evidence that he may be marginally notable for what he wrote about poker, and marginally notable for his "fully integrated honesty" oath. PubliusFL 05:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

He is most notable for Neo-Tech, which is his philosophy. It doesn't matter if his philosophy is not mainstream and not covered by mainstream sources. It's still his philosophy and it's what he's most famous for. It's what the scores of books that he wrote are about. The Zon thing is part of his philosophy. What is up? What is the harm in mentioning that he speculated that maybe the universe was created by an intelligent being? Why are you so adamantly against that being mentioned. I don't understand. Bridge & Tunnel 07:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Most notable for Neo-Tech? Why aren't there any reliable third-party sources in the article talking about that, then? You can't base a claim of notability on his own claims and a self-published book. I'm not adamantly against anything being mentioned, I just want things that are mentioned to be sourced per Wikipedia policy. That's the only reason I came to this article, through the RfC. It took me a long time to figure out what the article was about or what he is supposed to be notable for, which to me is an indication that the article needs some cleanup and some better references. PubliusFL 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've linked the word "Neo-Tech" to the hidden article so you can read about it there. I don't know if there are third party sources talking about it but I don't think there needs to be. As long as the information is confined to the article that it's about I don't see a problem. After all Neo-Tech is what he's most known for, whether it's written about in a scholarly way by others or not. That's easy to see by just looking around the internet. Bridge & Tunnel 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no independent sources in the "hidden article," either. I don't know that Neo-Tech is what he's most known for. I can't tell that unless someone can provide some independent sources saying so. That's the whole point of [[WP:ATT] -- Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Once again, the only independent sources I have seen say he is notable for poker, tax evasion, and an unusual courtroom oath. PubliusFL 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be any sources to say he's notable. Whether someone or something is notable, or what is notable about a person, on Wikipedia is ultimately for consensus to decide based on any criteria that they choose to use. The Neo-Tech information has already been judged as notable in the vote. That's why it was voted to move the information here. Bridge & Tunnel 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bridge & Tunnel, please see the bottom of this page. PubliusFL 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's not mainstream, then WP:FRINGE applies. As PubliusFL pointed out, a non-mainstream theory should only be mentioned on Wikipedia if it has received attention from a mainstream publication or mainstream group. And Wallace's flavour of intelligent design which involves "business-oriented isotopes" and stuff is not mainstream, and not covered by reliable mainstream publications. Bi 05:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if it's confined to the article about the person that has the theory. It's perfectly fine to mention it. Bridge & Tunnel 16:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd have thought that the claim that a book is "seminal" (in the first two sources) counts as quite extraordinary indeed. But let me know what you think. Bi 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the book is seminal anyway. It says that the book "has been called seminal." There's nothing contentious about that. Bridge & Tunnel 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:A says that the test is whether the source makes a contentious claim, not whether the Wikipedia article makes a contentious claim. And the source — the book — certainly does make a contentious claim. It doesn't matter if you intend to subsequently quote the contentious claim in reported speech — no means no. Bi 10:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. It's about whether the article makes a contentious claim. Wallace himself could make a contentious claim but that doesn't mean we can't report that he made that claim. And we can certainly report that books on poker say that Advance Concepts is a seminal book. Anyway it's not even a contentious claim. Find a source that disagrees that it was a seminal book before you claim such a thing. Bridge & Tunnel 17:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Let's look at the policy text: "There are two exceptions: [...] Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: [...] it is not contentious [...] there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources." Observe the following:

1. It says "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" — given that Wikipedia articles are written by nameless contributors, can "it" refer to the article?
2. Why does the last part need to start referring explicitly to "the article", when "it" already refers to the article? Answer: "it" does not refer to the article.
3. Look at the beginning of the clause: "Material" is singular. "Articles" is plural. "It" is singular. Guess what "it" can refer to? Bingo.

Conclusion: it's crystal clear that the test is whether the source makes a contentious claim, not whether the article makes a contentious claim. Even framing a source's contentious claim in reported speech is a no-no. (It's so obvious that you'll have to be really dumb not to see it — I mean, I wish I didn't really have to analyze the whole thing in such boring detail — but then again, as Rep. Eshoo says: "Well, you know what, you have to be smart to play dumb.")

And I think I might be able to find a source which disagrees it's a "seminal" work. "xhad" tells us:

I did manage to find mention of this guy's book in my copy of "Gambling Theory and Other Topics," in which Mason Malmuth (a well-known author whose work I respect) reviews a slew of books. "(4) [out of ten] A carefully written book that is much too vague. However, it contains some interesting advice if you are just trying to hustle people. While this book should be read, you won't learn much of real value."

Now "xhad" may not qualify a source, but by your own (pretty low) standards, Mason Malmuth definitely does. Are you willing to bet that Malmuth didn't say that Wallace's book is "much too vague" and contains nothing "much of real value"?

So: your source is questionable, and it makes contentious (and contended) claims, and contentious claims in the source simply can't be included in any guise, period. Bi 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're bringing up policy about self-published sources. The poker books are not self-published so what you're saying it irrelevant. It's laughable that you're trying to stop the inclusion of a couples independant sources that says one of Wallace's books was seminal. You can't stop that from being in the article. Bridge & Tunnel 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

They're questionable sources, which are well within the scope of the very same clause. And my independent source doesn't agree with yours. What can you say to that? Bi 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Question" them all you want but it's perfectly acceptable to cite a book on Wikipiedia. If you have a source that disgrees what does that matter? You just add that source as well. That's what you're supposed to do in Wikipedia. But the source that you quoted doesn't say it isn't a seminal book. The author thought it notable enough to mention and said it "should be read." Bridge & Tunnel 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not "perfectly acceptable", as I've already explained very very clearly above. At this point it's abundantly clear you're just throwing out nonsensical arguments, and even after they've been refuted in detail you still repeatedly insist you're right. Bi 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. You've just attempted to interpret policy in a very convoluted way to keep information out of this article. You're obviously wrong. Books can be cited as sources on Wikipedia. And if writers of other books say that another book was "seminal" it is perfectly acceptable to point out that they say that. Bridge & Tunnel 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(uncivil comment by JoeMystical deleted -- Bi 08:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Removal of link to old version of redirected article

Bridge & Tunnel, above you said that the old Neo-Tech article was "judged notable" in the AfD. I suggest that you re-read the results of the AfD. As the old article's talk page said, the redirect was "contingent on strict conditions on conforming to Wikipedia neutrality, verifiability, and other policies, otherwise delete." Simply linking to the old article which was redirected does not comply with these conditions. Also please read WP:ATT, which is an official Wikipedia policy. Contentious material cannot be placed on Wikipedia unless it can be cited to a reliable independent source. PubliusFL 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. It doesn't have to be an "independent source." The source can be the writings of Wallace himself. Look at the policy about "self-published sources." Bridge & Tunnel 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at it. The writings of Wallace himself can be used as sources for claims that are relevant to his notability and not contentious. He can't proclaim himself to be notable, so in order for his own writings to be relevant to his notability they must be relevant to something that's been covered by an independent source. Also, this philosophy is clearly contentious -- the AfD results were clear in stating that Neo-Tech's notability is primarily as a scam. Therefore information on Neo-Tech, which is contentious, cannot be attributed solely to self-published sources. Finally, WP:ATT also states that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." This includes "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known" and "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community." Neo-Tech clearly falls under those descriptions, therefore claims regarding Neo-Tech require "exceptional sources," which self-published sources are not.

WP:FRINGE provides further guidance: "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. . . . (I)f the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventor of that theory, then various 'What Wikipedia is not' rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory should be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." PubliusFL 01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is where you are wrong: "in order for his own writings to be relevant to his notability they must be relevant to something that's been covered by an independent source." Again, all it takes for his writings to be notable is for a consensus of Wikipedians to decide they are notable based on any criteria that they want. That WP:FRINGE thing is not a policy statement but a "content guideline" that can be overriden depending on the circumstance. The only "theory" is the speculation that an intelligent being may have produced the universe. That's a mainstream theory. But, the Neo-Tech philsophy itself is not a "theory." It's a philosophy. I think now you are twisting policies like Bi has been doing because for some unknown reason you don't want this information revealed on Wikipedia. Why else would you go out of your way and try so hard to keep information out? Do you think the information is harmful or dangerous to society? What is going on? Before I came here I had never heard of Frank Wallace, but came across it in the Colby Magazine. I've been taken aback by diligence by you, but especially by Bi, in trying to keep information out of this article, even when it's Wallace's own words and therefore irrefutable that he said them. That leads me to believe there is more to this than meets the eye. For someone reason some people don't want Wallace's ideas to come out. Therefore I'm going to stay here and make sure that they do. Bridge & Tunnel 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

More bogosity at work. Whatever detailed explanation people give against your arguments, you just claim without proof that people are wrong, people are "twisting policies", and then you simply intuit your own Obviously Correct Interpretation of the policies from your gut.

Again, you're just repeatedly throwing out nonsense ad hoc arguments, and when they've been refuted you just repeatedly insist you're right. Bi 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My arguments have already been made above over and over. And they're solid. Your arguments just don't hold water. Bridge & Tunnel 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I try to be diligent about Wikipedia policy. I just reverted a nonsense addition to the Princess article. I don't think it's "harmful or dangerous to society" for some unknown person to claim to be a "princess of the world," but it is a violation of our policies, so out it goes. I only came to this article in response to the RfC, and at first I thought Bi was making a big deal about nothing with regards to the poker books. The more I looked at this article, however, the more I became concerned about WP:ATT issues and the fact that the conditions of the Neo-Tech AfD are being ignored. PubliusFL 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so as far as I can tell you don't have a problem with the poker thing. You mainly have a problem with just the one sentence that says Wallace speculated that an intelligent being may have created the universe. Is that correct? Bridge & Tunnel 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Convicted felon"

I reverted Bi's placing in the list of Wallace's accomplisments, "convicted felon." First, it doesn't say what he was convicted for which is simply for not paying income tax. Second, lots of people are "convicted felons" but that's not what's important about them. This is totally non-encyclopedic and POV-pushing at its worse. Bridge & Tunnel 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so mentioning only euphemisms is now "neutral". Good to know. Bi 07:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: I have made some copyedits, added some paragraph breaks and changed some headings. I had never heard of Wallace or his philosphy before coming across this article, and it's a bit difficult from reading the article to determine exactly what the basic tenets of the "Neo-Tech" philosophy are. Perhaps rather than beginning with Ayn Rand, etc., the applicable section should just start with a statement like "Neo-Tech is a philosophy that states that [fill in the blank . . .] " or something like that, and then follow with the comparison of Neo-Tech with Rand's philosophy.

Regarding the comments above (about lots of people being convicted felons), well, most people who are convicted felons are not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article about them. If, however, Ward is notable enough for an encylopedia article (because he developed an arguably positive contribution to the study of philosophy), then his criminal legal problems -- especially a felony tax conviction -- should probably also be included in the article -- for balance and completeness. Deliberately omitting the mention of a felony conviction (arguably considered to be a negative aspect of someone's life) could be evidence of an agenda to push a non-neutral positive point of view about the individual. Both positive and negative information should however, be presented neutrally.

Anyway, someone who knows about the Neo-Tech philosophy might consider taking a stab at some sort of overall definition for it, and put that at the beginning of the applicable section, just to make it clearer. Since I've never heard of Neo-Tech, I might not be the best person to work on that. Yours, Famspear 12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is already discussed in the article that Wallace was convicted for tax evasion. In fact, I'm the one that put that in the article in the first place. So, it cannot be claimed that I'm POV pushing by deleting the "convicted felon" in the list of accomplishments. It's simply non-encylopedic and a blatant attempt to discredit the person by decribing him as a "convicted felon." Martha Stewart was convicted of a felony, but is "convicted felon" listed as one of her label in the intro? Of cousre not. If you think you can, see if you can get away with putting that in the intro of that article. I'm going to reword it so it's not a blatant attack on the person. Bridge & Tunnel 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Since when is the introductory paragraph supposed to be merely a "list of accomplishments"? The introductory paragraph should be neutral, just like everything else. You scream "POV! POV! POV!" at others when you're clearly trying to impose your own POV. Bi 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you mention Martha Stewart, but clearly you're just cherry-picking whichever examples happen to fit your argument. After all, if there are any counterexamples, you can easily "fix" them to fit your argument — wasn't Kevin Trudeau called a "convicted felon" until you went to "fix" that? Bi 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply calling someone a "convicted felon" serves no purpose other than a personal attack. It could mean anything from that the person is a rapist to simply someone who didn't pay taxes. What problem do you have with stating this instead: "Wallace also successfully challenged the oath used in court prior to testifying to be changed to replace the word "truth" with the phrase "fully-integrated honesty." Wallace was an income tax protestor, and this was in a case of income tax evasion, for which he was later convicted."? Bridge & Tunnel 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) In contrast to calling someone a "mail-order magnate", which is an oh-so-totally unbiased term whatsoever? If I insist on writing that Ward is a pulp philosopher, a scientist who doesn't do science, a junk mail magnate, and a convicted felon (all of which are verifiably true), then maybe you can say I'm engaging in POV pushing. Bi 04:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How is "mail-order magnate" a biased term? It's a direct quote from the newspaper. He was extremely successful in the mail order business. "Convicted felon" doesnt even tell the reader what he was convicted for. What reason is there for opposing it saying "this was in a case of income tax evasion, for which he was later convicted."? Bridge & Tunnel 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you like the quote? "The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed on Wednesday the tax- evasion conviction of a Nevada man who was not allowed to testify because he refused an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Instead, mail-order magnate Wallace Ward of Boulder City, Nev., had offered to swear that he would testify with "fully integrated honesty" - a standard he considered to be higher than the mere..." August 20, 1992, Daily News of Los Angeles Bridge & Tunnel 04:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: I'm also confused about this statement:

According to Stan Friedman, this was a "seminal" work developing the idea that one can make a money playing the game for a living to the general public.

Obviously, if you're clever or lucky you can make money playing poker, or make a living at it (I've never played and I know nothing about the game). What I'm confused about is the phrase "to the general public." Does this mean playing poker outside a casino, out in the "general public"? The passage seems to be a bit vague. What exactly is Stan Friedman saying the "idea" really is? Yours, Famspear 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That the idea one could make actually make living playing poker was not recognized by the general public prior to then. The "idea" is that you can make a living playing poker. The idea is that that can be your full time job ..that's it's not simply a form of entertainment. Bridge & Tunnel 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it to "According to Stan Friedman, this was a "seminal" work publicizing the idea one can play poker as a form of self-employment." Maybe that gets the idea across better. Bridge & Tunnel 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: As a self-critique, I confess that my commentary above (about including or not including information in the article about a criminal conviction) may be off topic a bit, as I don't actually see any other editor deleting that information entirely, anyway. Uh, my excuse is that I didn't get much sleep last night (my little one woke me up early this morning). Famspear 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: Thanks for the clarification on the self-employment point, etc.

By the way, do we have any specifics on what tax protester arguments he may have raised? The court opinions I cited don't mention any tax protester arguments. The omission of any mention of them could just mean that those kinds of arguments were not specifically raised that particular court (and maybe he just raised the arguments administratively with the IRS, before going to court, or in something he wrote, etc.), or it could just mean that the tax protester argument wasn't raised on appeal. Do we have any information about any such argument he raised, and in what forum he raised it? This information would be good to add to the article. Yours, Famspear 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll look around and see what I can find. Bridge & Tunnel 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Predicesor?

I have recieved a letter from IMA and it offered me neo-tech so now I am wondering who is now running integrated management associate?

That's probably Wallace Ward's son, Wallace Jr. (a.k.a. Mark Hamilton). Bi 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I zotted all references to questionable sources

Now that Bridge & Tunnel has been banned for being a sock puppet, the NPOV dispute with him is effectively dead, so I've taken it upon myself to throw out all references to questionable sources. Bi 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links

A recurring link to an external site seems to be added in violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Also note, the spoof link in question has been removed six times by four users and added six times by an operator of the spoof website. Because the link has been added/deleted many times, a summation is offered (apologies for lengthiness):

In the original Neo-Tech article, a spoof site was included along with a large set of external links. This list was minimized by administrator FrancisTyers. An operator of the spoof site re-added the link which was removed again by administrator FrancisTyers who noted an objectionable amount of advertising content. The spoof site’s operator resubmitted a link with less advertising and it was allowed by the administrator, being noted to no longer violate WP:LINKS ‘What not to link to’ “Sites that contain excessive advertising“.

However, does the spoof site fit with WP:EXT “Links normally to be avoided” number 2 ‘site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research’ (as it is a spoof site) and 3 ‘Links mainly intended to promote a website’ (as it is being re-added by an operator of the external site in question).

Also, as the website being linked is a spoof article, it does not seem to contain useful, factual, or informative material (See "What to link“).

Finally, does adding a link to an external site by an operator of that external site represent a conflict of interest. This notes: “You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.” This is what guidelines list as the appropriate course of action. Even if the external link is permitted and has consensus to be included, it should be added by a neutral and independent Wikipedia editor other than the spoof site’s operator.

This is not meant as a personal attack or a limited interpretation of Wikipedia policies. Instead, as this is a recurrent issue, it is meant to touch upon policies or guidelines that seem applicable in determining a fair course of action. Thanks. 162.40.164.81 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My reply:

1. Despite being (mostly) a spoof site, the site does contain some factual, verifiable material.
2. You forgot to mention that the only "neutral" users who currently want the link removed are all anonymous editors, including yourself. I don't know what others think, but I find that highly suspicious.

If you're still not satisfied, feel free to go non-anonymous and start a WP:RfC, and we'll see. Bi 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if the spoof site contains ‘factual’ information, this still does not address a primary issue. That issue is whether the addition of a link to a personal website by the proprietor of that website constitutes a violation of WP:COI or WP:SPAM. To help in addressing those issues, it has been posted to WP:COI/N. In clarifying the further information for this Talk Page (and despite being a repetition of some of the previous points), that post is included below:

"User:Bi may be involved in WP:COI edits. This users website has been noted to be a competitor on an official Frank R. Wallace (1932-2006) homepage (last paragraph notes the spoof site Pax Neo-TeX). Although User:Bi editing as a competitor affects the whole article (i.e. nominating it for deletion three times), the editor has also linked to a site he operates. To note, the link was deleted 8 times by 5 editors. Each of those 8 times, it was re-added by User:Bi (operator of linked website)."

"Besides editor being in a COI, the self-promotion link to his site seems to constitute WP:SPAM ..."Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam...” User:Bi is persistent about keeping his website linked into the article. Given that the user is editing an article related to his organization or it’s competitors, COI guidelines seem to suggest that User:Bi should avoid or exercise great caution in linking to his personal website, editing the article or participating in it’s Afd discussions. This is my first time involved in Wikipedia, is this a proper course of action to seek remedy? I hope this is okay. Thanks.”

Also, before initiating WP:RfC, as there are currently two editors involved, the issue is being listed at WP:THIRD. Btw, all Wikipedia editors are anonymous (unless explicitly professing their identities) whether signed in under a username or being identified by an IP Address. *the number of times the spoof site link has been added-by-User:Bi/deleted-by-various-editors was updated to include data dating back to the original Neo-Tech article (that has been merged with this one). J. T. Lance 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Firstly, lets stop edit warring, and it won't help in any way.

What the anon user said is true, [2] clearly states that websites you own or maintain should not be used. I also did not find anything significantly important to Wallace's biography or his life. Also, Wikipedia:External links says that "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article".

I suggest that the editor who maintains the website and wishes to add the link to this article should consult more neutral editors and ask an administrator what he/she thinks about this. Until the problem is solved, I think it would be a good idea to leave the link off the article and discuss on the talk page. Seeking for help on the dispute resolution process is definitely good and hopefully an administrator will sort things out. Mr. Killigan 06:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked an administrator (FrancisTyers), and he allowed the link, which is why it is here. How many more times do I have to ask before the link is acceptable? Also, the only "neutral" users who currently want the links removed are all anonymous IPs. 162.40.164.81's statement of the case omits these facts and is therefore unduly biased, to the point of being wrong. Bi 06:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Killigan, thanks for information and third opinion. The help is much appreciated...

Just to note again from the earlier comments, while the link was allowed by an administrator, the allowance was granted to include links to this article that were free of objectionable amounts of advertising. Valuable links are welcome. But, no permission was or should normally be granted for an editor to link to his/her personal website if this is against Wikipedia policy or consensus of fellow contributors.

The linked site further appears to lack merit for the article. Does it provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article, as Mr. Killigan noted in referencing Wikipedia: External Links? If the link were included and later deleted, should the linked site's proprietor be granted choice to re-link the site? The reason the link has been on this article is due to it's being re-added by the linked site’s proprietor. ...Self-promotion is a contrast to various Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

It thus seems that “even if the external link is permitted and has consensus to be included, it should be added by a neutral and independent Wikipedia editor other than the spoof site’s operator.” And, also important to consider is the Conflict of Interest that may bring into question edits by said user concerning this or related articles. His website is clearly noted to be a competitor of the organization that comprises part of this article. J. T. Lance 09:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletes were done by anonymous IPs and without reason. Why then do I need an additional reason to re-add the link, when there's already reason to include the link in the first place?

Why did you omit to mention these facts in your case statement anyway? Doesn't that call into question your neutrality?

And question what you will, but the fact is that my edits are properly cited, and they come from reliable sources. Bi 09:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He's questioning the usage of the external link, which is maintained by you. Mr. Killigan 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, exactly which link are we talking about here, its been a while and I see several links being added and removed. Definitely the three that are already there seem to me to be ok. - Francis Tyers · 10:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pax Neo-TeX. Mr. Killigan 10:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note, while the question of the site itself is an issue, a larger question is the addition of the site as a means of self-promotion by it's proprieter (and a competitor with the organizations of Frank R. Wallace). This status is noted on a Nouveau-Tech Society homepage. (Pax Neo-TeX and it's author are listed in the last paragraph.) Thanks. J. T. Lance 10:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)