Talk:First Things First 2000 manifesto

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Graphic designWikipedia:WikiProject Graphic designTemplate:WikiProject Graphic designGraphic design articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I thought Wikipedia didn't do primary sources? orthogonal 13:00, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the source text and left the introductory material. RickK 14:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved from VfD:

First things first 2000 Manifesto - contains mostly primary text --Minesweeper 13:18, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
- I jumped on this too (in Talk), but the poster is new, let's give him a bit of time to make it an article before jumping in with both feet, maybe? orthogonal 13:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Looking at the edit history of this IP, there's lots of interesting material. Some newbie issues but this looks as though it'll be fine after the lerning hurdles have been dealt with. JamesDay 14:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Still looks like this is going nowhere, but if FT can actually make something of this, then hold off deleting. I see nothing new in the "Manifesto" other than the age old premise that artists should either do something (in their mind) relevant and starve, or do what society is willing to pay them for. Although couched here as an "ethical" dilema, it is actually just a political one. I too hate cigarettes, but they are legal. It is therefore a political decision not to do cigarette ads, not an ethical one - Marshman 17:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Marshman you do not have a clue what you are talking about. What exactly is the difference between the ethical and the political? You read texts like you have a privileged position on the world and can see an 'objective' stance. Your argument pretends that it is that of 'reason' and 'common-sense' but in reality it conceals a political stance of the methodological individualist - right-wing and capitalist. So if you have a political position then why cannot others? What gives you the right to declare Truth with a capital T? I vote to keep it and have some balance against this pseudo objective stance which conceals a conservative, individualist and highly political agenda.
  - Ease up anonymous dude. I know what I'm talking about, but clearly you would not be receptive. And what the hell is a "methodological individualist"? Should I be insulted? Hurt? Proud? I'm definitey NOT rightwing by the way, and far from a capitalist (although I don't regard that as necessarily bad). Shows how good your politcal radar is. Here is a difference for you: if you are a graphical artist and take a job doing a cigarette ad, but do a crapy job because you are opposed to smoking, then that is a breach of ethics. If you refuse to do the work, that could be because of your personal ethics (you regard the perveyors of tobacco to be evil), but the entire question of smoking is really a societal/political one, not a moral issue. I find your POV to be at odds with general liberal thinking; not everyone has an "agenda" and I did not vote to delete, so what is your gripe? - Marshman I might add, I went and read the original 1964 Manifesto (on the web), and would have no problem with signing on to it myself. In my life, I've always been a critic of the advertising industry and consumerism. The problem is the strident presentations we are getting at Wikipedia on this subject: try this: lose the jargon, write like you are trying to teach something (stop preaching), and watch the POV. The subject is a valuable one, but so far you are a poor presenter. Around here, you are going to run into problems until you learn to get it across without POV. - Marshman 22:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- A Methodological Individualist is a person who believes in the sovereignty of the individual. The point is you cannot write in an objective style - it is a fiction. I suggest you read Gadamer, Foucault, Derrida et al. Anyway reading these debates I don't quite undestand the reasoning for deletions. It is far from democratic to allow a random collection of people to vote who are insiders and moreso have no idea about the subject matter... some real tricky questions about how you decide to manage this project if you ask me. I think a democratic pool with a real fair and equal voting system should be instigated - this is far from transparent, fair and free... just my 2 cents... User:ABC
  - Hmmm. Sounds good (sovereignty of the individual), but if that means "no responsibility to society," then anonymous dude is definitely way off base. Anyway, your criticism of the process is probably quite valid (discussed many times around here), but the idea there should (or even could) be such a pool is probably not realistic. Either everyone has an equal opportunity to voice their opinion (system in place now), or a select few are "elected" to make decisions for us. The latter is more likely to upset valued contributors than the former (which tends mostly to upset newbies and questionable contributors; no intention here to chasracterize anyone, just process). And all that is being said here is that an encyclopedia is no place for strong POVs. I think the problem that anonymous dude has with this tenent of Wikipedia is very clear in his response to criticism of his articles. Go read some of the articles. They are packed with jargon and source text. They need to be toned down and written so the average non-flamming liberal can even understand what he is saying. If I mis-interpreted the point of the articles (a distinct possibility) it might just be that the article is at fault (in its presentation of concepts) and not me. - Marshman 17:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. By the way, who made the vote above? Morwen 18:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  - Must be the graphics guy that is writing the POV articles? - Marshman
    - It's no longer primary text. I'm neutral on whether it's deleted or not. Angela 14:32, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Since the source text has been removed and the similar article (First things first 1964 Manifesto) was kept, the decision is to keep this for now. --Minesweeper 16:39, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

I just read the FTF 2000 last night as well as several reactions to it. Frankly, the origional document was much more clearly written than this article. I recomend a complete overhaul if someone has the time (which I don't, at least at the moment). Binerman 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Things First 2000 manifesto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]