Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Goldberg material

And editor is putting that information off balance to make it look like the 'movement' is widespread and 'taken seriously' without adding the rest of the story line from the article [1] I readded the information. If that editor and another have a problem with that info. best to discuss here and not remove since consensus says it is o.k.. Using the idea of weight really does not apply. Especially since the same editor used a partial quote to make a point and disconnected the later part apparently not to have the point developed fully but to keep it at the snippet and disconnected from the 'whole' level. There is clear consensus from other areas above to use the Goldberg material and I suggest the editor self revert since this smacks now of edit jousting, does the article no good, twists the information and makes it unreliable to partially give an idea without including the bigger aspect. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I see little evidence of 'consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You and SDS are against consensus. You tandem edit mostly now. You do not address the issue above of splitting certain information from certain information for effect, what could be called positive effect, which I pointed out. That is bad to have misleading information in the article. It is pretty obvious that SDS manipulated that information to 'present' a certain feeling. Do you really want to be a part of that? That is misleading people that want honest information here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

So this supposed 'consensus' is arrived at by dismissing the views of everyone who disagrees with you? Very convincing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "honest information" according to Earl King Jr., : ) -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You do not follow consensus. SDS you manipulated the information by partially giving it to reflect superficial 'pro' Zeitgeist aspects. Look at the link diff I gave. That is apparent. You also do not comment on the very blatant issue I just brought up above. The information was chopped in half for effect. This presents a huge misrepresentation of the information in the article now. Because you are tandem editing with a pro Zeitgeist editor that has already been blocked previously for tendentious editing and edit warring these particular articles, are you really ready to forget all that and present a fake version of the Goldberg article? That is the bottom line which you are not addressing for what ever reason. Your comment above is also way out of line. If you think you can use any kind of rhetorical misrepresentation you like while discussing this like your constant dissing then you are wrong. Stick with the issues, stop saying I dismiss the views of others. That is rhetorical blah blah blah. If you have to resort to rhetorical non points to try and get over and not address issues, you have lost any kind of realistic argument. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

'Stick with the issues'? The issue here is that you have claimed that there is a consensus, but entirely failed to demonstrate that it in fact exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No that is not it. The article is giving incomplete information now so its manipulative toward a point of view. It was chopped off into a part, to present the movement in a certain light and you and S>D.S. are maintaining that edit. Why? It does not make a lot of sense. This issue was also discussed in other threads and consensus was that the information was only objected to by S>D.S and yourself. This is apparent by the diff [2] Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

So your evidence for a consensus consists of an edit summary where you claim to have a consensus? What exactly is that supposed to prove? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop being a confrontational Dick on this page. Is that clear enough? Read other threads and you can see for yourself. After seeing how you treat other people and your weird interpretation of events, I may no longer respond to you at all because it does not seem worthwhile after trying. You two tandem editors for yourselves have been against page consensus in most respects, recently especially. And don't bother to respond then to the issue I brought up if you do not care to about framing the information wrong. You or your editing chum. I have zero regard for your offensive style. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no consensus then... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets not misdirect things with a rhetorical polemic that is not being discussed and I remind you that I warned you about edit warring [3]. The issue is this, Some information was falsely presented by chopping off the content in the Goldberg piece for positive effect by SDS. He put the honeyed version in the article about numbers of people being attracted etc. That left out the rest of the authors thoughts about the subtext that most do not know about. You understand. Do not throw up a fake smokescreen about consensus. This has to do with basic misrepresenting that authors thoughts by chopping them off in mid thought from her article. You get that? No? You do not seem to. That has zero to do with consensus unless consensus is for confirming manipulating an article with bad information. Look at the diff I gave above. It is pretty obvious and its pretty obvious that you are not addressing the issue nor is SDS. You do not need consensus to repair a misrepresentation of sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Smokescreen? It was you that claimed there was a consensus, not me. And as for your 'warning', you can stick it where the sun don't shine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Failure or refusal to "get the point" - You have a bad case of not answering the question, the point brought up. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Earl, you didn't have consensus before to keep this material [4] and you don't have it now. -- It's a clear violation of WP:Weight. -- You need to explain why this somewhat obscure source carries more weight than The New York Times. -- You also need to explain why this material deserves so much weight when no other source used in this article, including The New York Times, mentions anti-semitism. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful. You explain falsely presenting information by chopping off the content in the Goldberg piece for positive effect, her statement about people gathering 'to' the movement, without adding the rest of the content that proceeds that which puts it into a completely different light. That clearly misrepresents the information from the Goldberg piece. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Jew-baiting subtext" is nonexistent, it's slander, total nonsense.

Which is why TZM was "genuinely baffled" when in "2009 a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism."

We were banned for what we generally advocate, the end of trading or the free market in favour of an open source social system.

We weren't banned for anti-Semitism since I don't advocate anti-Semitism, I'm against ALL religions or the right to belief since it's socially corrosive. Anyone who can understand how religion is manipulating and relies on ignorance sees it's destructive under the guise of "freedom" or the "right to believe"

Some official looking article slandering TZM will not make the slander true.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoting headlines

As has been noted e.g. at WP:RSN, it is frequently a mistake to assume that article headlines are written by the journalist named - they are often written by subeditors and the like. In the case of this edit [5] I reverted, it seems self-evident that Goldberg wasn't responsible for the headline. She wrote "At times, [TZM] even seems like the world’s first Internet-based cult..." - an equivocal statement, and not one that concurs with the headline's "The Zeitgeist movement is the first Internet-based apocalyptic cult..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You returned the same bad information in the process, a chopped off description of her statement about people gathering 'to' the movement, without adding the rest of the content that proceeds that which puts it into a completely different light. That clearly misrepresents the information from the Goldberg piece. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well since there we can't seem to agree regarding if and how the Goldberg piece should be used, the correct procedure would clearly be to remove it entirely until we can, rather than replacing one misrepresentation with another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just realised that my revert still left Goldberg being misrepresented - I've now removed the section entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Looks a lot like you are edit warring and now have removed information you do not like in an article that had very few good sources. You stripped out one of the few legit sources. What you did is not making a lot of sense. It makes sense to view it as a willful disruption of the editing process and tendentious editing at its worse. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that statement "TZM is an Internet cult.", in short: No Weren't not, but there are those like Earl who label me as such because they don't like what I advocate and have gotten comfortable to our sick social attributes, most notably: Property and Trading, because they lead to poverty and war.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you persist in using this talk page as a forum, you are liable to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If zeitgeist is propaganda, cite credible sources and add that to the article. James Gilligan who's a violence expert says that "Punishment is the most powerful provoker of violence we've yet discovered", I'm glad you're fascist?Aeon-characteristic (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's it. I've had enough of this crap from the lot of you, and, am taking this article off my watchlist. I'll leave it to the batshit-crazy conspiracy theories of Earl King Jr., and to the pig-ignorant drivel of the halfwit Aeon-characteristic, who thinks that the "right to belief" is 'socially corrosive', yet insists on parroting TZM's lunatic belief sytem here. And for the record, yes, TZM is a cult, and yes, I am quite prepared to believe that there are more than a few antisemites amongst them - their ideology, in so much as it has any coherence at all, has a great deal in common with early Italian Fascism - not just the elitism, but the technocratic utopianism, and unfailing belief in the inevitability of their cause. Fortunately though, this isn't 1920's Italy, and history as moved on. Soon enough, TZM will just be another minor footnote in the long and tedious history of obscure political cults, and will be otherwise forgotten as the delusional horseshit it clearly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That all may well be, but having got that out of your system now I suggest you keep editing the articles but with some new perspective and less aggressively and more just reflective of the reputable information about the group. I never did understand why you wanted to remove the fact that the first movie is made up of excerpts (film clips) of Alex Jones material and has a lot of its intellectual influence, if it can be called that, by way of the John Birch Society. That is not being negative or making an editor a pov pusher to include that, it is just the background sources that Joseph used before discovering J. Fresco and then thinking he had a brilliant idea with Venus Project. I think there is a large comic aspect to these articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy, like I said why not cite some credible sources which show TZM is a cult?

For example the Scientology counter websites take the "beliefs of Scientology" and examine them, deconstruct them for what they really are, Brainwashing techniques: Staring straight into people's eyes for an hour has a hypnotising effect which is why Scientology use such a technique.

Saying TZM is a cult without providing credible sources from at least a few cult experts, with concrete evidence/arguments of brainwashing techniques, is no different than the TZM hate-blogs which supposedly "counter" TZM with outright slander, in some ways they do stop critical thought because people want to be comforted with bullshit lies. Attempting to source the most negative articles about TZM is propaganda.

Replying to your bullshit: an Open Source social system of Science is not "an ideological fascist cult of elitist technocratic utopianism" like you say.

And the right to prayer is socially corrosive since prayer is violence since it's a lie to claim that god exists and you must pray to him etc, it's a social cancer, a pure scam.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Earl, it appears you cannot tell the difference between a Movie and a Movement? since you still want to draw a dubious connection for the sake of slander.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, zero forward progress is possible with your continued participation on this topic due to an obvious conflict of interest and your calling other editors slanderers and fascist.--MONGO 11:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Aeon-characteristic has been blocked indefinitely. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Reception section - Michelle Goldberg neutrality problem ("Jew-baiting", etc)

Earl King Jr. recently added this material to the Reception section:[6] -- She went on to say: "Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement. Many were genuinely baffled in 2009 when a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism. Others seem a bit embarrassed by the first Zeitgeist; they’ll often say it’s “irrelevant”—one of TZM’s favorite epithets—because it came out before the movement got started. But no one is disavowing it, and so a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia. (my bolding)

This addition violates neutrality in 2 ways. First, that amount of material clearly violates WP:Weight by the size of the addition. Tablet magazine is a fairly obscure source and doesn't deserve more weight than everything else in the section; using it as a source in the article is not a problem, but the way that it is being used is. The other neutrality violation is that before he made this addition, that section already mentioned antisemitism, and from the same source, by stating, "and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", which is still in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup - it seems undue to me to be repeating the same allegation from the same source twice. Laying it on with a shovel isn't 'neutrality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

On the fence for me....on one hand it is a modest importance source and bloggish, on the other, none of the sources are that great really. But it does fit since much of the 9/11 conspiracy theory bullshit is based in "Jew-baiting" nonsense and that is what this "movement" espouses...at least historically.--MONGO 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the article expressly states that most TZM members were "probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement", it is difficult to see how it could be cited for an assertion that they 'espoused' Jew-baiting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever....hugs and kisses.--MONGO 16:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed the section header that for some reason someone put on. The discussion should not veer off if same discussion with too many separate talk page headings, unneeded.

Earl, don't mess with another editor's material on the talk page, which can get you blocked. -- Read the edit summary here.[7] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So, no problem it is now only referencing antisemitic once instead of twice [8]. Too much valuable information there to toss, plus consensus is divided. No doubt many Zeitgeist supporters have come to the page and said exactly what M. Goldberg is saying they say even though that is neither here nor there for a talk page it is a good source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No Earl, it's still in violation of WP:Weight. -- We need to give this a few days or longer to gather consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Its confusing for you to put the same discussion in two places next to each other S.D.S. the topic is already discussed above. I removed the part that was complained about. If we white wash sources for the article we are not going to be left with much that accurately portrays the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is addressing the specifics of the material that you added. Please explain how your addition doesn't violate WP:Weight. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. You have started a new thread on the same topic above, which has confused the talk page S.D.S. I will be responding above not here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's fine if you respond here or above. So far you haven't shown in either section how the material you added doesn't violate WP:Weight. If you are unable to do that we can remove your addition and close this thread. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to use the thread above. Giving editors either\or issues is not really cooperative editing its disruptive, tendentious, its that kind of stuff that got you blocked previously on the article. Your Jew baiting title of the thread was not appropriate either, or your emphasis on which editor was involved. The information is sourced and as far as weight it is accurate to many things written about the so called movement. Its good to source the many many things written about the movie and its purported, overwhelmingly purported right wing anti-Jewish rant with historic connections to anti Jewish groups and people and phrasing. The John Birch society probably embraced Zeitgeist before Peter Joseph did an about face and decided to join the liberal one worlders. Michelle the author of the citation does a really articulate job of saying all that which many sources touch on. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the only thread I've started regarding this material. You should not have added "Jew-baiting" to the article if you didn't want it to be discussed. The fact that you still think it's appropriate is beyond me. As another editor noted above[9] you really don't understand some core aspects of Wikipedia. I've clearly explained at the beginning of this section why the material in general violates WP:Weight, and continues to. Your ranting about the first film shows how little understanding you actually have of the material you're editing, which is really problematic. And given that the majority of your edit history is related to Zeitgeist in some way[10] this is also problematic. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the only thread I've started regarding this material. Yes, but as pointed out there was already a thread on this issue which you have not participated in much so it adds to talk page confusion. You should not have added "Jew-baiting" to the article if you didn't want it to be discussed. I did because its cited information for the reasons above and have discussed it from the beginning above in the other thread. Stop editing tendentiously on the talk page with false points. I added it because a noted journalist made it integral to her article. It has nothing to do with me as you are trying to say. The fact that you still think it's appropriate is beyond me. 'Appropriate' is a very vague term in this discussion regarding this. We have to keep the article real and not a politically correct plaything for Zeitgeist supporters. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Earl, you need to discuss the material in relation to WP:Weight. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

It's slander, fear propaganda, it doesn't need to make sense, just source it to give a negative perspective of TZM, yeah that would be a "good source". Regarding TZM history, I believe it's too focused on Peter Joseph's history rather than the movement's. So I think it would be approprite to add a short sentence like: Most recently, Sam Vallely a member of TZM released his first documentary, Will Work For Free (2013), which describes technological unemployment, the idea that machines are replacing jobs which the movement speaks about. This has a third party article, I'd like to know the verdict if it's a "reliable source". http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/news/clackmannan-tulliallan-kincardine/articles/2014/02/04/487267-clackmannan-man-produces-first-documentary-will-work-for-free/ Aeon-characteristic (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC) It is a reliable source for an assertion that a TZM supporter from Clackmannan has produced a documentary. Why is this supposed to be of any significance to our article though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC) In the history section of TZM there's a focus on "Peter Joseph's History" with the movement, which is a bias/implication that TZM is lead by PJ, especially with the "Key People Peter Joseph" false label as well. If you want the article to ne neutral, without the "PJ is the leader" implication, history elements of TZM would be allowed on the article from third party sources.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Sorry? You are suggesting that this man from Clackmannan is a key TZM member? That isn't what the source says. It says nothing at all about the history of TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) It does present recent TZM history, the release of a new documentary about technological unemployment. There are no "key members of TZM" that's pure slander. Someone is "key member" when they express TZM's train of thought, the focus on Peter Joseph = leader just because he started it off is basically the accusation that TZM is a cult, and there's been trolls who hang around cult expert forums and when the trolls don't agree with the cult experts saying, "no TZM is not a cult", the trolls proclaim themselves as being more of an expert than them.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC) The article says nothing about TZM history. It cannot be cited as a source on TZM history. As for the rest, this is not a forum, and your personal opinions are of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC) I can't see how the article says "Nothing". If this article is meant to be neutral regarding TZM's activities, it seems like "TZM is the world's first internet cult" and "Peter Joseph is a key person" is more relevant in the "Reception" section than Most recently, Sam Vallely a member of TZM released his first documentary, Will Work For Free (2013), which describes technological unemployment, the idea that machines are replacing jobs which the movement speaks about. If not "Histroy" maybe it belongs in "Currently" then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeon-characteristic (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Doubtful as to the articles origin. It looks like a publication that solicits people to upload their stuff for content so it can do advertising while looking like a real paper. Probably not a reliable source. The person that produced the movie must have uploaded a Youtube video and then placed this product description in this online shopping paper? As far as Peter Joseph it was him that introduced the Zeitgeist idea into society via his movies and he created the movement. whether that makes him a leader is rhetorical in argument. He runs the thing. The party line of the group is that it has no leaders but that would go against any kind of known anthropological ideas about humans and groups, but that is my opinion. s.D.s. got these threads all mixed up now and probably for comments on Michelle's article they should be put into the area above this one, that is the one that originally was discussing this. This is a separate thread to that one now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Regarding the article I which I think should be referenced for will work for free in the TZM wiki, it would be counter intuitive to claim "it's advertising while while looking like a real paper" "the person that produced the movie must have uploaded a Youtube video and then placed this product description in this online shopping paper?" No, the person who made will work for free did not create that article and it's an Anti-commercial or Anti-advertising documentary, how do you "advertise" a documentary which is against "advertising" (well made lie designed in such a way to get someone to buy a product/service)? and I still think it deserves a one sentence mention, like in media reception or something since wiki is meant to be unbiased, and the TZM wiki includes a bunch of slanderous false claims about it Peter Joseph is not TZM's leader (the implication of being just like L. Ron Hubbard creating Scientology). The Science which shows trading or free market capitalism is bad for human health is simply sourced in Moving Forward, Addendum, and therefore sourced by TZM. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to find third party articles which show TZM is a cult, money making scheme, religion etc. That would very much help me relinquish my involvement with TZM :P Aeon-characteristic (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Stop talking about slander and Wikipedia promoting slander. You are way off base. Just because you have a chip on your shoulder and suspect evil forces are hovering around this article, because Peter Joseph says so, that does not mean that is so. No one cares much about Zeitgeist, very few editors bother about it. Some of the members of the group show up and edit but usually get in trouble because they do not understand how the system works here. Whether you quit Zeitgeist if you find out he is begging for money for promoting his new project and sells DVD's for 10 bucks a copy is up to you, have you donated money to Zeitgeist, as a member? As far as it being a cult some of our sources say it is. If you find other sources that make an argument that it is not bring them here so we can see them. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Out of all the Cult Experts I messaged one replied with "Don't have time, sorry" (Daniel Shaw), since I can't get cult experts to speak about TZM, that must mean some journalist is right, with the other source stating I'm a member of a political movement.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) And Rick Ross has got better things to do as well, damn, I guess a biased journalist can say TZM is a cult and get away with it. "There were some comments and a flame war about this at the message board. I am not interested in getting involved at Wikipedia, which I regard as a worthless mess when it comes to controversial issues and editors with an axe to grind. Rick Ross"Aeon-characteristic (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Goldberg citation and info

Has been removed by SomeDifferentStuff arguing that it is in the wrong article which is a nonstarter argument and accusing an editor of pilfering the info. from the other article. This is not only a breach of editing civil discourse in his edit summary but the same issue which recently flared and people commented that removing the Goldberg material from the article is not a good plan. It is true that SomeDifferentStuff does pov for Zeitgeist movement as history shows and that is not a good idea. Removing good citable materiel in this article really should stop. Just because a lot of Zeitgeist supporters end up here, is no reason they should control the article with there slanted pov. Neutral presentation demands information be put here regardless of the Zeitgeist supporters anti Goldberg tendency. Zeitgeist movement is based from a spin-off of the first movie, the second movie introduced it. History is clear on that. Lets not repeat the tedious business of taking this information from the article over and over. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, first off, I made the edit, not "SomeDifferentStuff", and I only removed the info that was about the film. The citation and her calling it a cult remained. I actually added in some info about the movement at the same time. My comment about "pilfering" was not meant as some sort of insult, but more about giving you a ribbing for copy-pasting a paragraph from the movie article over to this article with effectively no change. This article is about the movement and you just copy-pasted material that was predominantly about the movie.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

TZM is a Movement, not a Movie, Earl King.

The Movement is represented by the Orientation Guide(s), it explains why free market trading or property is unsustainble: it's based on selfishness, and why a transition to a Resource based economy (Open Source Science) would be better.

It appears you've got the slanted pov.Canobanbon (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You back again already [11]? Looks like another Zeitgeist Sock for Aeon or one of the others. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah got the editor who changed the Goldberg information wrong it was TheDevilsAdvocate. Sorry. For some reason the supporter or pro pov editors insist there is not connection between the first movie and the 'movement'. That is wrong as reliable sources prove. Because the official view though from Peter Joseph says otherwise people that sympathize with Zeitgeist things are always trying to change the article to pov that way as was done recently [12]. That issue has been trashed back and forth on the talk page a lot and keeping perspective from outside sources to Zeitgeist material is important. So, the edit was reverted to give the actual background of the movie according to the Goldberg citation, a reliable source that pro Zeitgeist supporters have been adamant about either not including or changing the focus of some of the information from the Goldberg citation or spinning it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, the movie and the movement are connected, but they are not the same thing either. The movie is a separate thing that we have an article about. Material about the movie should be in the article about the movie. Only time we should have mentions of the movie here is when discussing its connection to the movement. You literally just copy-pasted material from the film article over to this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably just got indeffed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

the reason why people want a "connection" between zeitgeist the movie and TZM is because the first fim does not discuss what TZM is about whatsoever and it's used as a tactic to pass off the movement as a group of "conspiracy theorists".

But the fact remains that free market capitalism is completely disconnected from Nature and is therefore unsustainable with its promotion of poverty, war and pollution.Nanforgon (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes Nanforgon how could we forget you since you are a sock puppet meat puppet that was blocked a couple of days ago and keep incarnating here to lecture on the beatitudes of the Zeitgeist. Why not start a free blog somewhere instead of wasting our time and not learning anything about the mechanics of Wikipedia?

• And then there is the Devils Advocate editor saying Obviously, the movie and the movement are connected, but they are not the same thing either. The movie is a separate thing that we have an article about. Material about the movie should be in the article about the movie That pretty much is your opinion and that is not going to wash here. That is your and Peter Josephs and most of the Zeitgeist that says that. The M. Goldberg article is an actual source and you are not. Also you have already said that I copy pasted information from one to another but guess what? That does not matter. I did not copy paste the article but an arrangement of information that is pertinent to this article. It is part and parcel of the Zeitgeist supporters and you are one in your pov here on this article, to try and disconnect the two by one means or another and the neutral editors are not going to let that happen because we are following the citations and sources not the Zeitgeist FAQ's material. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• The issue is that this article is about the movement and there is already an article about the movie. Material about the movie should only be included insomuch as that material directly concerns the movement. In other words, the material should somehow tie what is being said about the movie to what is being said about the movement. What you added does not, mainly because it is copy-pasted from the film article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:DENY WP:FORUM for obvious sock of Canobanbon, who reminds me of User:Zeitgeist-Movement-Member
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is pretty much your opinion that I am a "sock puppet, meat puppet". If the membership of TZM is "sock puppets, meat puppets" why not provide credible sources to prove this? That's something that can be proven since political parties have been known to hire support for campaigns on social media, like bots for instance. Wikipedia: sockpuppet A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. Tough allogations, how is saying "competitive trading relies on deception since it's about both parties getting the better end of the deal" deceptive? Wikipedia: Meatpuppet Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position. Tough allogations, where's the proof TZM is hiring or bribing members to support TZM? Oh that's right there's none. Back on Topic: "It is part and parcel of the Zeitgeist supporters" Here I am, a zeitgeist supporter who says: "zeitgeist the movie does not discuss what TZM is about whatsoever" But some "editor" or "critic" can say the exact opposite and ignore what a TZM supporter says right in front of him because he wants to support deliberately or ignorantly slanderous sources. The ignorance is so blind...Nanforgon (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate. Wrong on all counts. Please stop your usual in line editing as a Zeitgeist movement supporter as history has show you are in that pov zone. In Tablet Magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being "steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories," and called the Zeitgeist Movement "the world's first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity." She went on to write that the film borrows from the work of Eustace Mullins, Lyndon LaRouche, and radio host Alex Jones, saying that Zeitgeist: The Movie portrays a cabal of international bankers purportedly ruling the world.[11] In an interview with TheMarker, Joseph stated that while the film does mention bankers it does not seek to place blame on any individual or group of individuals. He argues they are merely a product of a socioeconomic system in need of change. was added to the article. It is not copy pasted from the source and it is the writer M. Goldbergs take on the movement. Stop mis-characterizing it. You see the quotes? You see the connection she is making between the first movie and the movement? So I assume you will drop the pov Zeitgeist argument now. Please do not repeat the copy paste argument for a fourth time. It was wrong the first time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Only the statement about it being "the world's first Internet-based cult" was about the movement. The rest was about the movie, because you just took a paragraph from the Wikipedia article about the movie and copy-pasted it over here. I did not remove material about the movement, and actually added more material about the movement. What I removed was material about the movie.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you are not going to let up with your fourth argument about copy paste though that is not the case as explained. It is no wonder that you have been blocked, topic blocked multiple times on 911 articles for edit warring and tendentious editing and have a pro 'inside job' concerning 911 issues which this article also falls into because the original movie claimed 911 was done somehow connected to the U.S government. Goldberg makes a direct corollary of the movement and the first movie as does all of the reputable citations on this subject. For better or worse according to reliable citations this is the case while the main disagreement to that is given by Zeitgeist pov supporters here that claim 'no connection', but the fact is we can not use the Zeitgeist Faq's material or Josephs opinion on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Dude, this is like, really simple. I am not saying the movie is unrelated to the movement, but that when material is added to this article it should point out how a given detail is related. Most of the material you added does not connect the details about the movie to the movement. That is because the paragraph is identical to the one on the article about the movie. Perhaps you can rewrite the paragraph to show how she links these details to the movement. Should you be unwilling to do that then I would have no problem doing it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

According to what you want to believe are "reliable citations", if you knew anything about TZM you'd realise that TZM is not a "9/11 truth movement". Since you personally don't like the goals of TZM, (an Open Source, environmentally sustainable Society) you want it to be a "9/11 movement" and seek sources which you want to come to that conclusion so you can abuse the group by giving it false labels.

Along with calling science a "political movement" and saying science is "propaganda" or "soap-boxing", and saying "TZM members are sock puppets" or "paid to advocate TZM for deceptive purposes", which are all lies which wiki editors seem to lovingly support.Listitgamedelaywales (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that :You back again already [13]? Looks like another Zeitgeist Sock for Aeon or one of the others.

I have to tell you guys that we here are members of the new world order and we control the article relentlessly. We all believe in free market capitalism and that climate change is not real and that the Huffington Post and New York times are ridden with Satantanists.

Not really, just kidding. No one in a group controls the article here. Ideally most of Wikipedia is neutrally done. It could be that because conspiracy minded people come here often from the movement sometimes, they may be confused about what goes on generally here. Read some of the guidelines for editing and if you don't feel you can abide them look into Wordpress or Google where you can say what you like. They offer free space for people to vent or make a case for things. Perhaps you do not understand that the talk page of an article can not be used for homilies about such and such or opinions about some aspect using your own original research. Please either learn about this or just stop what you are doing since no one is going to take you seriously because of your approach. Earl King Jr. (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Earl, could you offer your opinion of my previous edit? MONGO reverted it with a rather uninformative statement and has not responded to my request to discuss the issue. Perhaps you could be more accommodating.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

After you joke, what you say afterwards is the real joke.

"conspiracy minded people come here often from the movement sometimes,"

First off that's a contradiction, it's either "often" or "sometimes"

Secondly, don't be specific, be as vague as possible, to the critical mind, that doesn't make you seem like you know what TZM is about whatsoever or maybe you don't want to understand?

How can't you believe in "free market capitalism"? since you want to label a group using "credible sources" which advocates an "Open Source sharing Society" without war or poverty, with as much bullshit as possible.

Saying such lies like "science is propaganda"

Or "Science is a political movement"

"TZM is a 9/11 truth movement"

Or even worse, "I don't believe in Science, it's all just a matter of opinion."

I think you're totally confused about what TZM is about.Listitgamedelaywales (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is going to respond to you anymore unless its a fellow sock puppet or meat puppet Listit.

@ The Devil's Advocate I think mostly people are also tired of responding in any way to you since you just wait for some pass to go ahead and relate for the movement and edit with their pov when possible and that includes clouding information to their benefit. Your record is clear. You are a defender and apologetic writer that is not neutral and it shows by all the edits you have done, like your last one which was not thought neutral and I would agree. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Goldberg's article is about the movement. The quote is informative and consistent with the mainstream view. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree...except for the entire argument that there even is a movement...we can prove there was a movie but aside from vague innuendos, there isn't any evidence that the YouTube flicks have spawn a bona fide movement.--MONGO 14:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I brought that subject up previously wondering if there was any written information on that with someone taking apart the mechanics of it and origin etc. Another editor got extremely angry and said I was speculating. It is true Joseph was a Madison Ave. advertiser so would know how to get people to 'do' things, I suppose like buying anything whether its Cheerios or Blue Sky. His past also was Wall Street brokering. He used really crap information from Alex Jones and a bunch of awful sources to base his original approach on, though that is just my opinion. He claims to have just stumbled onto being a media star. According to the Goldberg info. that could well be hype. Movement these days could well just refer to DVD sales, T-shirts etc. I don't see it as a real movement either probably because there is very very little serious stuff written about them even on the internet. Part of the issue of these articles is finding sources and then not using them over and over because of the lack of good ones. When the article was stripped of one of the few good ones no doubt it left a hole in the information so its good that some bits and pieces are now back. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate more on why you reverted my recent edit? You described it as "clunky", but I fail to see how copy-pasting a paragraph from the movie article to the article about the movement without making any changes to reflect that these are different subjects is somehow less clunky. The material should be changed so that it is about the movement and not the movie, otherwise it is simply out of place in the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about by copy paste. You have said the same thing now 7 times. The Goldberg piece does not differentiate between the movie and the movement excepting giving the historic timeline. It gives the history of the movement as a chain of events. It is only from the perspective of the Zeitgeist supporters and their information that makes creates the division of not thinking the movie is really the beginning.

I can scarcely imagine how you could be confused. The paragraph in this article is the same as the one in the article on the movie. You copied it from there and pasted it here. Not sure if you just have trouble understanding this or if you are just deliberately misrepresenting my comments. Seems the same with your comment about the connection between the movie and the movement. The issue is that this article is not about the movie. You can't just take something that was written about the movie, plaster it over here, and act like it fits in just fine here in an article about the movement. No matter how connected they are, the movement is still a separate and distinct thing rather than interchangeable with the movies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the excerpt in the Movie article also. It is paraphrased from the Goldberg piece. It is important to put it here also to round out the information. It is not copy pasted from the Goldberg article and that is what counts. I am not going to respond to you on this again. You are a Zeitgeist supporter as shown in the past. Your premise is wrong on this edit anyway. Just like the rest of the Zeitgeist supporters you support their information via Faq's and Joseph or whatever. Refusal to get the point on that is tantamount to wasting every ones time. Not hard to see why you were blocked for tendentiousness before on conspiracy things. You are not at all with any consensus. Your view is proven wrong by reliable sources what little of them we have. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist "critics" have an agenda towards confusing what the movement is about: an Open Source Society.

Either deliberate or pathological lying: the strategy is to confuse zeitgeist movies with a movement out of ignorance to shrug off TZM as not a real group of activists.

When simple searches bring up real advocates of TZM which communicates TZM's goals. But according to slander here, apparently I'm a "sock puppet" or getting paid money to promote TZM, a group which is against trading. The irony.

the idea that "zeitgeist supporters" are biased by default is nonsense, obviously anyone who doesn't like "zeitgeist supporters" hates Open Source.Wowormsbase (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is going to respond to you anymore unless its a fellow sock puppet or meat puppet Listit. Perhaps deprogrammed is the word I am looking for. You might try Googling in your area for that. In the mean time best you stop posting here because its not a forum for you to talk about P. Joseph's movies. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Goldberg movie material RfC

Should the material sourced to Goldberg's article be edited to note the linkage between the movement and what she is saying about the movie?

Survey

• Yes The material in question was copied from the movie article with no changes. As such, the material says many things about the movie but does not indicate a direct connection to any specific criticism of the movement. If the source makes a connection then that connection should be noted in this article within reason. Best practice would be to start from scratch in writing material based off the Goldberg source rather than trying to fashion material originally written about the movie into material about the movement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No Copied from the movie article with no changes? No it was brought to this article from another Wikipedia article and paraphrased from the Goldberg article. Lets not confuse things. It was not copy pasted from the Goldberg article as you seem to imply. It is very basic limited information from the Goldberg article. The Goldberg information previously was taken out of the article by Zeitgeist supporters and another now departed editor. Recently you tried to take the article out of the conspiracy theory article headings. I guess that speaks to the problems of the article being loaded up with Zeitgeist pro sock puppets, meat puppets and sympathizers who constantly chip away at the article toward a Zeitgeist pov. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Goldberg's article is about the movement (to the extent that there is a movement.) Anyway, making a big distinction between the movie and the movement is not something the sources do. No doubt there are other equally good ways to summarize Goldberg's points, but my eyes are starting to glaze over. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

For the record, I never once stated or implied that Earl was copy-pasting from the source. He seems to wrongly take my comments about him copy-pasting from the Wikipedia article about the movie as being about copy-pasting from the Goldberg article. As to his other comments, one need only look at the edit summaries.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent Goldberg edit

Please refrain yourself SomeDifferentStuff from adding the Zeitgeist Movement viewpoint from their faq's material that the first movie is not connected in any way to the 'movement'. Despite the fact that you have/had no backing for your edit you have made this same claim over and over and over and are showing your tendentious failure of not getting the point, the reason you were blocked from editing these articles previously [14] diff. I hate to upbraid you this way but you just keep doing the same thing over and over and removing information from a reliable source that contradicts your (Zeitgeist official view) gets tiresome. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never read The Zeitgeist Movement's 'faq' and even if I had it's not a reliable source. --- Regarding what an Administrator said about your edit warring here[15] that has nothing to do with you failing to demonstrate consensus for your recent edit. --- And let's not forget these: [16]& [17]. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That was one Admins opinion that did not understand what was going on in the article and did not translate to any sanction. This is the link which demonstrates actual edit warring on your part [18] I hate to do it but if you continue to edit tendentiously I will report you. That subject of that information has been gone over and was thought by the neutral editors here minus the sock and meat puppets to be included. It appears that a topic ban is in the works on this subject for you if you continue to take away information from the Goldberg article and slant things toward your group. I have to assume you are a pro pov editor on Zeitgeist related subjects due to your pov edit history being manipulative to presenting their views instead of the neutral presentation that Wikipedia insists on. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Realistically I'm trying to remove any neutrality regarding TZM and I desire strong negative publicity of them because I don't like Open Source. But since there are no mainstream sources for TZM at all, the TZM article, the Moving Forward Article, the Peter Joseph article, should all be removed.Groshnte (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(Previous edit warrior returns against consensus. ProZeitgeist editor removes and soapbox's for the first movie not being connected, which the article says 'is'. Original research from the Zeitgeist Movement. Stop.

This "connection" is an obvious distraction away from what TZM's goal is; an Open Source society. Because Peter Joseph started a movement, a piece of work which doesn't relate to TZM's goals is related to TZM's goals because you want to reference an article which slanders TZM? That pretty much sums it up.Groshnte (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not need your opinions. You might think about seeing a programmer. You have changed identities now five or six times. You are what we call a sock puppet or meat puppet. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

saying "TZM members are sock puppets" or "paid to advocate TZM for deceptive purposes", is a lie which wiki editors seem to lovingly support.

"You are what we call"? is wikipedia a secret society now?

Science is not an opinion, you might want to check the meanings of the words you use.Nhtgrfjtf (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, 06:36, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+385)‎ . . Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement ‎ (→‎Recent Goldberg edit) (current) An edit history of one edit.

But you are what we call a sockpuppet or meat puppet for a banned user.

Wikipedia has been a secret society yes for a long time, how you found out about it we will never know but we are checking carefully. Normally we never get called out about this but I guess you are super smart because of that damn Peter Joseph guy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Another user with a record of tendentious editing on this article removed the comment above and has followed me around to my talk page and other places to bother me. Stop S.D.S. - The person above a sockpuppet for a blocked user is being investigated now if anyone wants to add their two cents [19] Otherwise, S.D.S. lets not get our roles confused. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep calling me SomeDifferentStuff? Are you not bothering to read who is making edits or are you trying to imply something? I filed the SPI in question and collapsed the above feuding with the apparent socks because it is pointless and disruptive. Just because a duck is quacking at you, does not mean you have to quack back. In fact, it is discouraged. Please, inform an admin or report the sock to SPI or ANI rather than feuding here or leaving comments on the sock's talk page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You and your editing partners are pretty much interchangeable on this article so it gets confusing. Sorry about that, but as I said elsewhere you also seem to relish any wikihounding my page or others that I contribute on. Guess I am tired of pro Zeitgeist editors harassing me with fake Ani's and annoying advice on my talk page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems you believe wikipedia is a secret society considering the self-referring of the term "sock puppet", the reluctance recognise the definition or hide behind it: Basically someone who's paid money to promote propaganda, to deceive or mislead, in this case the zeitgeist moment, and the reluctance to display any evidence whatsoever to support this accusation? There's still None by the way.Grsgrsgse (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. You have been checked out and your socks also [20]

keep up that ostracism of zeitgeist members since they express views which you personally disagree with so you can misrepresent TZM as much as possible. Such as the belief science is a political movement, or Peter Joseph is the "leader" of TZM or TZM is a cult. None of which is backed up by any real evidence.Hngtjtdf (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Article rewrite

This article seems to advance the movement and is written for commercial gain, per WP:COI.

"Joseph's films which form the basis of the Zeitgeist movements ideas are critical of market capitalism and the price system in general. Joseph created a political movement according to The Telegraph, that assumes future generations will view religious ideas as a misleading method of controlling society and embrace sustainable ecological concepts."

Should be rewritten to:

"The Zeitgeist Movement..." explain that it was the product of Joseph's films. The Telegraph reference should be removed, with multiple references at the end of the section.

Dark Liberty (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is in a conflict of interest? Are you saying that an editor here is? The second paragraph of what you said is not really intelligible. I probably have to say there may be a competence issue here with your editing. Could you explain other than original research on your part why a citation such as The Telegraph is not acceptable? Are you saying that Peter Joseph is somehow involved in editing the article for his personal gain or one of his employees or supporters? That is highly doubtful given the history of the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reception section's focus on the movies

Although the emphasis on the movies in the reception section has been a recurring problem, this most recent edit by Earl has made it worse. This removed details about the diversity of the movement among other details, but kept commentary that was solely about the movie. It also removed an article from the Palm Beach Post that was entirely about the movement and could be useful in further expanding content on this page. We have multiple reliable sources that are almost entirely about the movement and only mention the movies as necessity requires yet the reception section, which constitutes about half of the article, is almost entirely commentary about the movies. This problem needs to be rectified.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. The movement is a spinoff of the first movie. It is overwhelmingly sourced that this is the beginning of the Zeitgeist group. Joseph was supposedly asked about alternative ideas connected to the first movie and introduced Zeitgeist in the second movie as a ready made movement or internet cult type of culture that rapidly found an audience though that audience has perhaps declined now. We know this from reliable sources. My guess is that because you have been blocked so many times T.D.A. for tendentiously editing and edit warring on articles concerning conspiracy things like this article, to the point of even breaking your editing sanctions and editing even more, that it is going to be hard for your edits to be thought of as reasonable since you seem to have a stake in presenting Zeitgeist things more toward their pov, that is more toward their primary sources and presentation and not so much from other sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that this article is about the movement, yet you are gradually removing any material that is actually about the movement in favor of material that is about the movies. I mean, this isn't even a POV issue. We are just talking about a problem where the reception section says basically nothing about the movement itself, but a lot about the movies that all have their own articles. Not sure why you go into attack mode over such a thing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not attacking just stating some things. As said we can not use the Zeitgeist material to form the article here. Their party line says that the two things are separate, 'movie' and 'movement' but most reputable outside observers differ to that line of thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say we should use Zeitgeist material? I said we should use the reliable sources such as The New York Times, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Weekly, VC Reporter, and even Tablet Magazine, to detail various aspects of the movement and its reception. All of those discuss the movement itself in some detail and not just the movies. I am not suggesting we avoid mentioning the movies, but that we recognize that this article is about the movement and thus we should only discuss the movies insomuch as they relate to details about the movement. A lot of details about the movement mentioned in these reliable sources are not mentioned in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You just keep repeating that and that is the crux of the argument, in which you have mistakenly taken that view point. The Movies and the Movement are integrally entwined. The movies are the movement. It is an internet based phenomena of people watching the Zeitgeist movies. Reliable sources repeat that over and over. It is only the Zeitgeist enthusiasts that differ on that point. I suppose that you fit into that camp because you espouse their approach to perceiving the information, that the movies and movement are separate things, which pretty much goes against most all reliable sources. So, its not right for you to use the pov of the Zeitgeist website on the article unless its backed by something else. There is zero serious news or articles about Zeitgeist now and I doubt whether there is a real social movement these days. I can't find any outside info. on it by reliable sources except from years ago now. The movement might be history at this point. Most of the things they predicted never happened and they have taken a lot of heat for their extreme theories also. Fresco leaving them did not even make news. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, the New York Times article has exactly three paragraphs that mention the movies and that is mostly to note that the movement arose from the films. The rest of it is devoted to discussing the movement, its members, and its ideology. I have rarely looked at anything on the Zeitgeist site and only then when it is a page already cited in this article or others. We have an article for each movie and that is where reception of the films belongs. An article about the movement should have reception of the movement. Nothing even remotely POV about that and I am not suggesting we act like the movies and movement have nothing to do with each other, just that we actually make the material in this article about the movement rather than the movies because this article is about the movement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then we should merge all this stuff into one article. There is no "movement" for all practical purposes...its just a scam or internet meme.--MONGO 05:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem The New York Times, VC Reporter, Orlando Weekly, Palm Beach Post, The Daily Telegraph, and even the rather biased Tablet Magazine disagree with you on that front. All of them consider it to be a movement distinct from the movies, albeit closely related to them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Another option is to simply have your edit warring nonsense put to an end with a topic ban on this topic. I've reached the point that I see an edit from you almost anywhere on this website and I feel it should simply be reverted on sight just on principle.--MONGO 05:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All of them consider it to be a movement distinct from the movies, albeit closely related to them. end quote T.D.A. - What? Why is it that you have the information upside down and backwards? It seems a waste of time to try to explain this over and over. The so called movement is just a bunch of people that watch Youtube and meet in some coffee shop to talk about the ideas of Peter Joseph who makes some money selling C.D's of these 'movies' on his websites, Amazon, etc. To say the movement and the movies are different?? does not make a lot of sense. Oh and knock off the for fucks sake kind of response in the future it is not cute and probably counts as personal attacking. This is not your local bar. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New York Times Select Quote

This NYTs article is about The Zeitgeist Movement and therefore any quotes from the New York Time Article should relate to the writer's view of The Zeitgeist Movement and not the films. peter joseph or the like.

This is basic, common logic.

The following as been added to describe The New York Times actual statements about TZM's work:

The vision of "a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life."

The prior statement: "An article in The New York Times noted that Zeitgeist The Movie may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job” 'perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population', a point of view Mr. Joseph said he "moved away from" (as of 2009 in an interview)

Has nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement and ignores everything the NYTs reporter has to say about the actual movement's work itself and the event he attended. This is clearly being placed here to distort the view of The Zeitgeist Movement by people who prefer to not properly represent TZM.

SweetGirlLove (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You omitted the context of "The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of..." That quote is more about how TZM sees themselves, not how they are seen by others. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)