Talk:The Venus Project

501(c)(3) The Venus Project Foundation

There is another "Venus Project," located, instead, in New York City, and is a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit, humanities organization. http://www.venusproject.org/

Should this be mentioned as a possible confusion? This page currently is categorized under, "non-profit organizations". This should be changed, as the "Venus Project," located in Venus, FL, does merchandising while not a 501(c)(3) non-profit. (and is thusly, for-profit, as the http://www.venusproject.COM)

Also, the Venus Project (for-profit) was issued a copyright in 1995

Public records: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=the+venus+project&Search_Code=TALL&PID=LPYFCPzRGyQBj6k9ziJymSsIGYYR5&SEQ=20130828200730&CNT=25&HIST=1

The date of founding should be adjusted accordingly.

Incidentally, the Venus Project Foundation was founded in the same year.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan81 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like your research is accurate. Please adjust the information accordingly with the citations you found. It is misleading to say it is a nonprofit when it is in the business of making money. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Venus Project sells merchandise - pretty much all they do - so, their "purpose" should include, "merchandising". Xan81 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary removes

Dear User:Earl King Jr., Why you removing my edits calling it odd cut & paste. I think, you mean WP:COPYPASTE, but that's not it. That's a translation from Polish. If you think that grammar isn't too good then just correct it. This text has a relationship with The Venus Project, because this article is about it. I also don't understand why you've done the second edit. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can not take a bunch of information from the Venus Project site and post it here because that violates presentation of neutral material. It has to be sourced and it has to be written in grammatical English more or less. As a person that appears to be involved in the mechanics of the organization Venus Project you also have to take particular caution to be not promoting the ideas, rather you have to present them neutrally. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: I disagree with you, when some project have described its pillars, information about it absolutely doesn't violates WP:NPOV and it's not WP:PROMOTION. Besides, it's not a problem that is primary sourced in this case and for grammar correction we have {{Copy edit}}. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: OK, I restored it with additional refs. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Those were not additional refs. They were the same copy paste that you added before but sourced it now to one of Fresco's company brochures or internet blurbs. If any of his things are important no doubt someone else will have written about them. Mostly his stuff is blue sky speculation and en. Wikipedia is not a promo redirect to Fresco's website. You sourced it only to him. You wrote it in a non neutral presentation also like it was some gospel truth. That is not the way it is done. Slow mo edit re-adding gets tiring. Please do not add any more of the same unless it is sourced to something other than the subject company. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The AfD was "merge" - what is this doing as an article?

I am confused. There was an AfD which resulted in "merge" - why is the article back as a stand alone when there is no significant third party coverage that has been added? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge into what if you do not mind me asking? The J. Fresco article? If that was the case sure go ahead and do it. This article was a really sloppy mess a year or two ago. Now it is just bearable but only just with like you say, not much outside sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This article should probably just be deleted. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

no there there

I don't see what this is doing in Wikipedia. It contains almost zero information. I've read it, and I still have no idea what the project is about or what it is supposed to achieve. And there should surely be a section labelled "Criticism." This should be deleted. Theonemacduff (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• support implementing the merge results from the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Venus Project. nothing has changed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

+support Just go ahead and do it Mr. Doom. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree this article contains little information. Looking at the history it has had more information a lot of which was removed for POV. Although, I'm not sure why books on the subject should have been removed , without looking into it.

Regarding the merge decision. That was taken six years ago in December 2008. Again, looking at the article's history; shortly after the decision there was debate over whether the merge was completed or not. The article then was continuously worked on since May 2009. As the merge process was done a long time along and it seems contentious it may be appropriate to relist before going ahead. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to redirect then I think Jacque_Fresco#The_Venus_Project_and_later_career would be a better target. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Jacque_Fresco#The_Venus_Project_and_later_career would be a better target for a redirect. Fresco founded and runs the Venus Project, versus a 2008 Zeitgeist film where which the director no longer endorses the Venus Project. Normally a redirect is proposed using the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers instructions. Alternatively, an AfD discussion may result in a redirect. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Since it's a redirect already then I think changing the target right now is non-controversial, unless someone disagrees. Anyone who feels like it can still start an AfD or RfC or whatever (and restore the article if they think it's justified/necessary for the process), but I'm not volunteering to do that so I'm just expressing my opinion on the target of the redirect. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

At this stage I would rather go through the procedure, rather than boldly make what would appear a non controversial edit. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am ok with changing the redirect to the person -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The project prominently featured in Peter Joseph's 2007 film Zeitgeist: The Movie, but Fresco and Joseph parted ways in 2011.[7]

Wrong. They were featured in Joseph's 2009 film "Zeitgeist Addendum." This is common knowledge. 2603:6081:8500:CB77:DCB9:260B:BD04:BED2 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)