Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Request for comment on reception section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The close is in two parts.

1) There is no consensus as to whether the reception section of the article should focus on the Zeitgeist movement or the films. Only a few editors directly answered this question and it would be wrong to extrapolate a consensus from that, even though there appears to be consensus that the article has historically made an artificial distinction between the two. I also note that the page has recently been moved (which this close will endorse), and that the move may affect editors' stances on the question. Therefore: No consensus.

2) The page was recently moved to "Zeitgeist (film series)", with a consensus deriving from this RfC cited in support. This close endorses that action. Even though the RfC question did not invite the discussion, there was clear consensus, at least, that there should be some rationalisation of articled in this topic area, much of which was in support of the type of action undertaken. Merging the articles about the films and their influence seems like a logical response to that, taking into account WP:CFORK. Although I would stop short of saying that consensus for the merge is strong, I think it exists, and consensus against the status quo at the time the RfC was started is very clear. If I were to shy away from declaring a consensus, this would put the recent merge into question, which would not be in the interests of the project and would be a disservice to editors who participated in the RfC. If there are editors who would prefer a different shape of reorganisation without merging these two articles, that's a discussion that can easily follow this close.

Should the reception section focus on The Zeitgeist Movement or the Zeitgeist films?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• This article is about the movement and it is rather silly to have a reception section that pretty much only mentions what people think of the movies. Plenty of material about the movement itself is present within reliable sources such as The New York Times.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, the whole Zeitgeist belief is predicated entirely on the movie, there is no "movement," not unless one could consider Star Trek fandom and Star Trek conventions a "movement." The movie is fantasy fiction, it is not a real phenomena, the movie is not a documentary and people who believe otherwise are not a "movement," they are fans of the movie, ergo the focus of the article should be on the movie.

The Star Trek Wrath Of Kahn movie, for example, could not be considered a "movement" if a significant number of people believe that the Genisys Device is real and that the events as depicted in the movie actual;ly happened. A Wikipedia article covering the movie should not talk about the film in the context of a "movement" any more than Zeitgeist should. Damotclese (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The question implies a bright distinction, that there are the movies and the movement, and that these are two wholly different things. That's not the way the sources present it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• It only implies a distinction in terms. When sources talk about the movement they are talking about the movement and when they talk about the movies they are talking about the movies. At present, this article about the movement has a reception section that barely talks about the movement and talks a lot about the movies, which have their own articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should the reception section focus on The Zeitgeist Movement or the Zeitgeist films? end quote from request for comment by T.D.A. Again you are failing to understand the dynamic of this. The movies are the movement and the movement is the movies. Probably all of the 'films' could be batched into one article. Maybe the film articles and the movement article should be put into one article. Right now it just reflects the inordinate enthusiasm of pov editors that created the multiple articles. There is no reason for so many articles on this subject which many consider a dead letter that virtually no reputable source has written about for years. I suggest all these movie articles become redirects into 'The Zeitgeist Movement' Wikipedia article. Or all the movie and movement articles be redirected into the original movie article, Zeitgeist, the movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Even if I were to agree that The Zeitgeist Movement is nothing more than the fan following of the Zeitgeist movies, it would not change that the article is about the movement. The article on the Star Trek fandom does not give people's various thoughts on the franchise. It is about the fandom because that is what the article is about even if it is just the people who enjoy the franchise. We have an article about the movement and other articles about the movies and that separation has been discussed many times. As that is the case, this article should be about the movement and the material written accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume that your pov which you have from the Zeitgeist movement and its theories is your reason for the discussion and that you are not going to change your opinion and you just want to argue your point over and over T.D.A., waste peoples time and give the Zeitgeist movements 'party' line about what it is which differs from what reliable sources say. Since you have been blocked and banned numerous times for edit warring and tendentious editing on the conspiracy articles I would suggest that a topic ban is in order for you. Another one on this conspiracy based article so that you stop your disruptive editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the articles should all be merged into the main Zeitgest article or The Zeitgeist Movement, and that having a separate page on every film isn't warranted by the sources. Per that statement, the reception section of the combined article should cover both. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 02:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Would you be interested in doing those options either of which is fine. I would support putting the movie articles, in greatly reduced form, into the Zeitgeist movement article or any other option of reducing the pointless articles on this. If you want to boldly redirect the movie articles into the movement and just put a section on the movies in the article that would probably suffice. Part of the problem here has been the Zeitgeist supporters that swamp the neutral editing editors. Your suggestion was attempted a while back and was met with a barrage of misdirection and interference from the Zeitgeist supporters that show up here in multiple guises as sock puppets meat puppets etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What a farce Earl King Jr. You're not some neutral editor. You already made your anti-Zeitgeist sentiments abundantly clear by calling it a cult or a scam. Biased bigots like yourself should have no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.168.153 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If not a scam, it is objectively a cult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no "movement" I was called by the 'bot. There is no such thing as a "Zeitgeist movement," there is only a fantasy fiction movie of that name and people who believe that it is real. For the RFC itself, the focus should be upon the movie since the article is covering a fantasy construct which is predicated solely upon the movie.

Wholly agree. There is zero evidence to support the existence of any organization, much less a movement, which expounds the views expressed in the Zeitgeist films. At best we are talking about a collection of fans. JamesBay (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There are obviously believers who employ religious conspiracy non-complex cognitive thinking who will argue that there is a "movement," and there are Editors who fall in to that class so I expect people will argue the point. However for accuracy and encyclopedia needs, I recommend focus on the movie. Damotclese (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. I would support your line of thinking and support you if you care to get involved by boldly redirectly most of the mess of the articles into the original movie article. Keeping the original movie article and updating it with information from a 'so called internet' movement which is not real in my opinion also. I see the whole thing as a marketing campaign. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Damotclese, but you don't go far enough.

Really, anything zeitgeist or venus project doesn't belong on Wikipedia since it's the promotion of a scam.The-Land's-Way (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

O.k. I more or less agree with The Lands Way and others here that currently we are over-killing with these articles. So lets do redirects of the various Zeitgeist articles into one article. I guess the first movie article? Zeitgeist the Movie is appropriate since that is what started the ball rolling. Its either that or make all the movie articles go into the so called 'movement' article. Which is best? Does someone want to boldly do either one? It looks like the Zeitgeist supporters that edit here will buck that idea but NPOV editors seem to agree that it would be better that way. Thoughts? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I merged, redirected, the movie articles, three of them into this article page The Zeitgeist Movement. Zeitgeist the movie, Zeitgeist moving forward, and Zeitgeist Addendum. I hope this is close enough to the consensus here of slimming down this multiple article over kill of Zeitgeist related things. It probably is doubtful that there is a real movement beyond a kind of commercial enterprise I would agree with others here. There has been virtually zero written about Zeitgeist and its ideas for years as far as serious journalism. Anyone willing now can make one section to lump the movies together in this article (The Zeitgeist Movement) and I would suggest that not more than a title of each movie is really needed, when they were made and a one sentence idea of what they were about. I have no doubt that the Zeitgeist supporters here are going to freak out but lets just say that the consensus is not for Wikipedia to advertise these movies or the movement and maybe cursory space is appropriate for them. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Once more proceeding with your soft deletions of the other Zeitgeist articles I see. You do not have consensus for what you are doing, nor have you provided any sources. What you are doing is arguing on the basis of your opinion, which appears to be what others are doing above. Consensus is guided by reliable sources and policy, none of which are being cited here to justify this move.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with Earl King efforts to merge these articles into one piece of article space. I don't yet know what what the parent article should be. I would think since the movement is nonexistent that the first movie should probably be the only article.--MONGO 01:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I hate to talk about you, but you are a pov pro Zeitgeist in all its multiple needless articles, editor. Did you read the comments above? There is almost no support for those extraneous articles above except by yourself T.D.A. and you have a block history as long as your arm for tendentious editing, edit warring on conspiracy articles and were blocked multiple times for that and taken to task multiple times for that and sanctioned from even editing them twice previously. So lets cut the crap and consolidate these articles which many people here think are overkill to this subject, which as someone above said, is not really even a social movement probably and mostly internet generated junk to sell DVD's or Pay Pal donation click button stimulus. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous deletion discussions and merge discussions that rejected this exact move and previous rejection of unilateral efforts by you to redirect these articles to a single target suggest otherwise. Also, you "hate to talk about" me? Since when? Seems whenever we have a discussion all you do is talk about me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Merge all zeitgeist stuff into one article so readers don't think there is more than just the one thing in multiple formats. --DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly... which article though. I'm going to move all the articles into Zeitgeist: The Movie in a day or less since the only person arguing against that is The Devil's Advocate and he's overdue for a site ban anyway.--MONGO 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• You are not even allowing a formal discussion of this issue. All you are doing is hijacking an RfC on another issue to try and force a decision that has been rejected in more active discussions that were actually about this issue. None of you have pointed to where reliable sources actually support this action. Every argument you have given has been essentially your personal opinion on the subject without any regard to sourcing or policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, merge all the articles into one. As a first step, the movies should all be merged. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. Could you or someone else then take that step please, with support from this discussion? It seems like this is as good a time as any to do this in one fell swoop also. I don't think that T.D.A. is going to let anyone do anything unless he is reverted by the N.P.O.V. editors. He is just rejecting any redirects that I do and turning a blind eye to the overwhelming consensus of consolidating. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Let us first decide which article will be the one they are redirected to. I would think, as I mentioned yesterday, that the article about the first YouTube movie should be the only article.--MONGO 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but the same people who have been pushing for eliminating these articles still pushing for eliminating these articles are not a consensus. You are going to need to start a new discussion in a formal process and I will be sure to notify any other parties who have an interest.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No reason to be sorry T.D.A. about all this. Also, you are way out of sync. with the other editors here. Also, canvassing other pro Zeitgeist or middle of the roaders as I see you have started doing is called canvassing and that is not a good idea. This RFC has pointed out a lot of things from uninvolved parties and gets right to the core of why all these promo articles mostly by the movement members and hangers on are not really good for Wikipedia. O.K. so lets put the movie articles into the first movie then. Lets go with the first Youtube movie then Zeitgeist The Movie. Redirect the 'movement' article and the other 'movies' into that one. If someone wants to do that now I support that idea. Also noted that redirecting articles is not 'getting rid' of them. In this case it is just sparing people the trouble of unwarranted bits and pieces of information spread out over Wikipedia about this subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where the discussion should be, but there only needs to be one article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As a first step, I've merged and redirected Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward to the (already existing) Zeitgeist (film series). Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Did not know there was a "film series" article but now that I do, I see that your merge and redirect is an excellent plan. Other articles should probably soon merge into the one you found as well. This article should also be merged there I should think....and the template at the bottom should go to TFD after that.--MONGO 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'll trim the movies a bit, then see about merging more in, or anyone can jump in and do it without waiting for me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it, why does wikipedia need to have any articles for anything zeitgeist? it's a confidence trick, a fiction, false advertising, peter joseph's cult and so forth.

In see also it already mentions, Technological utopianism, if not scam, anything zeitgeist should just redirect to that.

Is Wikipedia in the business of allowing deceptive, malicious groups a platform? Zeitgeist doesn't need article, either no recognition or redirection to the appropriate article.The-Land's-Way (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia in the business of allowing deceptive, malicious groups a platform? Yes, in a limited way because it tells a lot about many subjects some not cute in some peoples minds. Wikipedia itself does not take a stand on the issues its covering but just presents things. There may have never been a real movement or if there was one it could have peaked and could well disappear. We don't know but time will tell. Its an adhoc group. Its not a company or corporation etc. Its probably impossible to tell the number of people involved, its doubtful there are any records. The article is fairly good now. Its not really complimentary and its not too hard on them either. Doubtful its a real movement now because there are zero citation sources from recent times.

Reminder, if you can find a notable journalist or essay or book that has your opinion then that would carry some weight. But, as a person that just 'thinks' your thoughts on this, that is not going to count unless you are published or notable in connection with this subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, it's great that you POV-pushers have found a way to hijack an RfC that wasn't even about this issue to achieve a goal you had been pushing with no success for years because of your own personal beliefs rather than because it was supported by sourcing or policy once nearly all those who would object are finally not paying attention or have been successfully driven away by your toxic hostility, but nothing you are doing is actually addressing the initial concern raised about reception of the movement actually being reception of the movement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate...please Assume Good Faith! Calling others POV pushers and claiming we have toxic hostility without proof is very uncollaborative on your part. I think the next step is to roll this article into the one the movies are all at now...making a nice easily contained bundle so it's easier to keep vandalism at bay and for the pusposes of consolidated information.--MONGO 12:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That is the next step, yes, and feel free to do it as it has overwhelming support. T.D.A. comment above about hijacking??, no I don't think so but nothing you are doing is actually addressing the initial concern raised about reception of the movement actually being reception of the movement.--The Devil's Advocate That was addressed in spades in the comments above and was also dismissed as being out of line with Wikipedia standards, that is your original concern. The article can not be a mouth piece of Peter Joseph information. It can not give the 'party line' faq's information from Zeitgeist websites that there is no connection of the movement to the original film. That is just what they say but our reliable sources plus the opinions of many Wikipedian editors says that this can not be true. I would echo another editor here and say that this new article of movies and movement is a big improvement because all the information will be together. It is virtually impossible to find any news on the Zeitgeist Movement now because it is very doubtful that it is taken seriously in a notable way. It appears to have sort of faded out the last few years, but that is just my opinion from not seeing any information or serious writing about it. It may have flamed out like Angry Birds pop culture. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

if this page is "necessary", which I don't think it is, it deserves deletion, There's a lot of things about this article which are just false. First of all, it's not "doubtful" if zeitgeist is a real movement or not, it isn't. Presently the article although says it's a movement it implies it's an internet cult by mentioning TZM being "directed" by its leader peter joseph, why the implication? why not just say what it is: a deceptive internet cult which promotes an Utopia, which relates to communism looks good on paper, disastrous in reality, it used brainwashed people's real money to promote such material under this "zeitgeist" label.

Obviously better worded than that, but this article fails to say what the "movement" really is showing how gullible whoever is editing it. So is it Wikipedia's job to inform or deceive? The-Land's-Way (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog so could you stop cluttering up the talk page with your personal thoughts about this? If you want to start a blog elsewhere you can for free, such as Google or Facebook etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Anything "zeitgeist" IS a "mouth piece of Peter Joseph information.", I'm guessing you just can't see this. The only neutral and sane thing to suggest on this talk page is this page's deletion.

No I don't want to "start a blog" I'd like to see zeitgeist deleted and events banned as much as possible.The-Land's-Way (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"<snip> The only neutral and sane thing to suggest on this talk page is this page's deletion. <snip> I'd like to see zeitgeist deleted and events banned as much as possible." Good luck trying. Signed, ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 21:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

zeitgeist shit shouldn't be on wikipedia, it's false advertising, and that's not neutral.

That's how it is, the subject itself cannot be neutrally discussed since it's utopian fantasy bullshit, therefore this page should be deleted.The-Land's-Way (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? All the serious people here are in love with Peter Joseph and his ideas and consider him our salvation because he has exposed the secret lizard based cult. The world is a better place because Peter Joseph has got the right stuff. Someday Peter Joseph will be the president of the whole world and then they will take away the chips and mind control devices. Feel better now? You see why opinions of editors do not count now? Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As you say: "Consider him salvation". Whether online or in real life, cults shouldn't be tolerated, they wreck people's lives. What's worse is that it's considered a movement and not at the very least a religion. That's "what".

it's a total bullshit made-up fringe group, it seems as if anyone makes a bullshit group on any site it should be cataloged for some reason. Zeitgeist is worth deleting not mentioning.The-Land's-Way (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page situation

Why is it so hard to have a Wikipedia page on the zeitgeist movement, this shouldnt be complicated. There is nothing to polarize or make neutral, make the page about what the zeitgeist movement is. Not about advocates or critics opinions. Im probably wasting my time since its known how critics have been having their way with Wikipedia on things that are highly debated. Its easier remove content then to fix or add. Looking at you Earl King Jr, if you would want to prove that your not acting with the wrong intentions of controlling information on something you disagree with, write a better article that actually meets wikipedia rules and that is an information page about the movement.

The main question precluding any page in wikipedia is, WHAT IS. Now make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.108.66 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement has a membership of at least half a million last I checked, probably far more than that now, and exists independent of any art projects by Peter Joseph, who is also a leading figure of the movement (leading as in how visible he is due to the movies, but not a leader of it per se). If a bona fide organized effort like TZM has no place on Wikipedia, I regret my Wikipedia donations... deleting pages because you're ill informed about the content doesn't strike me as the way to go. 79.133.30.101 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no claims that the "Zeitgeist Movement" is organized, and no reliable claims that it has a large number of members. If you can provide evidence otherwise, it's possible an article about the movement might be re-split. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. From http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/structure one can follow to numerous state-specific and nation specific local groups, all with web presences, many with organized meetings on a regular basis, and collectively that is the de-centralized and cooperative Zeitgeist Movement that IS NOT the same as the art projects by Peter Joseph. If you erase the page on the grounds that it isn't an organization you may as well go remove the sections on the Republican Party. 79.133.30.101 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires independent sources to verify such claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The page was not erased it was moved over to the movie article page. There is no evidence what so ever that the Zeitgeist Movement is any more than a type of fanzine internet construct with many bored Youtube users pushing their button out of curiosity. The person that originated Zeitgeist movies was a Wall Street money broker and also worked as a Madison Avenue marketing sales person and probably branded the so called movement in a certain way to make it Google up as a movement. That may sound cynical but beyond a few articles from the past, there is no media attention being paid to the movement.Also, if you read the request for comment above you can see very clearly that the consensus here is that moving the information to the movie page is a good idea. We can not use the Zeitgeist material itself for an encyclopedia article except as the basic reference of what it is. Only the movement members view the films and the 'organization' as two different things probably because that is their instruction from their official website. Maybe Peter Joseph 'blew it' when he called the two things the same thing because the baggage from the first movie is not going to go away. Its not a plot. No one here of the serous editors really cares about Zeitgeist pro or con, but the articles can not be a mouth piece for their Faq's material. It should be noted also that the group is adhoc and not formal and has zero official presence as far as being incorporated or non profit etc. etc. and that does not lend itself either to a paper trail even confirming that it exists as a real legal entity. It may have been a short lived cultural phenomena. Its impossible to say but maybe in 10 years we might know. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. This is white knighting at its finest. 2007 was a long time ago and the movement has developed identification on its own and Although A film maker used the term in a film that is in no way ownership of such a broad term.

"Zeitgeist" was used by google long before the film for fucks sake. Every editor here who trashes the term seems to forget that this term exists outside of the film series... or even Peter Joseph for that matter. These so called "neutral editors" Are a disgrace to this community.

A "Zeitgiest Movement" is such a simple term... it simply means "the ideas of a generation". Google literally uses that definition in its search indexing. With the advent of the internet, we all have this debate on a global platform and are participating in the spread of ideas across borders with instant ease.

Sure the term is so simple that does it really worth mentioning? Well yes!! Think about the term "cultural lag". Don't you think that The Zeitgeist Movement is a little more relevant seeing there are so many important ideas on the internet that would be helpful for many of the more isolated countries on earth?

Seriously guys, don't get so caught up thinking this one guy is a "cult leader". You simply demonstrate your lack of understanding of the term.

The idea is a persistant one, so lets embrace the term that strives to share the fruits of current scientific and cultural fruits and not turn this into a "films only derp derp" approach. End of unsigned and non robot signed comment by anon. above.

• Really its a waste of our time for rants by followers of Peter Joseph. Please go away and don't come back unless you are going to learn a bit of Wikipedia operational stuff. Stuff like

A "Zeitgiest Movement" is such a simple term... it simply means "the ideas of a generation". Google literally uses that definition in its search indexing. With the advent of the internet, we all have this debate on a global platform and are participating in the spread of ideas across borders with instant ease.

Anyway, this page is not a blog for you and Zeitgeist. I suggest that you go to a De-programmer, if you want my opinion of your opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim that "the Zeitgeist Movement" is a zeitgeist movement is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There may be five members of the "movement"...this whole charade has been a scam.--MONGO 21:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence you exist either MONGO, there's programs that can type the stuff you've been typing, see what i did there? :) You and your "american dreamer" friends use outstanding ivy league language however searching for evidence to verify your claims, which is 1 google away btw, seems to utterly defeat you, in the meantime 20 pages worth of comments have passed and all you advocates of the fact that "the zeitgeist movement doesn't exist" managed to do is tell each other your opinions in the most positively idiotic ways possible. 5.13.192.162 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Info.

I think this is good information [1] According to author Sarah Posner 'The Zeitgeist Film Series website elliptically describes “The Zeitgeist movement” as calling for a “new social system:”' Any one disagree? If so why? It is one of the few sources that comment on the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Disagree? Yes. Because it tells us precisely nothing that the article doesn't already say, only in a messy and confusing manner. You have quotes within quotes, and the word 'elliptically' hanging there for no obvious reason - because you aren't quoting a complete sentence. Your quote ends in a colon, and the original continues with an extensive quote from the film website which illustrates what Posner means by 'elliptically'. Without that, it makes no sense at all. If we needed a source for TZM calling for a new social system (we don't, we have plenty in the 'advocacy' section) we could simply cite Posner for that. It is poor practice to cobble articles together from quotes - they should be used sparingly, where the author's exact wording is significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So then add the more complete picture of what she is saying The first of Joseph’s three films has been criticized, among other things, for perpetrating 9/11 conspiracy theories, as well as for denying the existence of Jesus. The Zeitgeist Film Series website elliptically describes “The Zeitgeist movement” as calling for a “new social system:”. Then you have the complete picture of what she is saying. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You have entirely failed to address any of the points I have made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think time spent on this is possibly wasted so I have not studied the issue in detail, but the idea that a random commentator should be quoted so the word "elliptically" can be used does not make sense. Even if it were WP:DUE, what does it mean? Is it good or bad? That's in the eye of the reader I suppose, but we can say that it is not encyclopedic info. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

My question is why you are trying to use references to the first film to debase the views of the movement? --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Technocracy and Technocracy movement

Technocracy is already listed in the links on the article in See Also. No reason to also put Technocracy Movement. The link to Technocracy already given already has the information about the Technocracy movement. So, its like giving the information twice if both links are used. Just having the Technocracy link there covers it as that article also contains information on any movement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Four links is not a huge amount of links. Technocracy and Technocracy Movement are clearly separate topics which is why they have separate articles. We should list Technocracy Movement in the See Also section as it is a group that was very similar in purpose to the zeitgeist movement. Not listing it worsens this article. OnlyInYourMindT 03:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No point in turning the article into a link farm. Please re-read the above comment again. There is a section in the Technocracy article that includes The Technocracy Movement. Its pointless to over link this article when the information is covered already in the Technocracy article. Also there is no connection to the Technocracy movement in Zeitgeist. If you differ find proof in some reliable source. It is a real stretch to say there is a connection to Technocracy ideas at all. There is no mention of Technocracy in the body of the article. Zeitgeist is trying to be a global group while Technocracy was related to N. America. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Geography is irrelevant in the marketplace of ideas. American geometry derives from the Greeks even though the Greeks never came to N. America. My grandfather's clock had Roman numerals, but it was not manufactured in Rome. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's 2,000 search results that connect TZM with the Technocracy Movement. Stop wasting our time. OnlyInYourMindT 06:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No those are an assortment of blogs and forums that almost endlessly can be accessed differently by Google. I don't see one reference that is notable. Reddit does not count or Youtube or Facebook Zeitgeist groups. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What do these words mean: "that almost endlessly can be accessed differently by Google."?? No doubt you had something in mind. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The first entry on the search tying Zeitgeist with Technocracy is an article in a peer reviewed journal:

The Journal of Evolution and Technology (JET) is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal published by the IEET. JET welcomes submissions on subject matters that many mainstream journals shun as too speculative, radical, or interdisciplinary on all issues relating to the future prospects of the human species and its descendants. Since its inception in 1998, JET has had five editors-in-chief: Dr. Nick Bostrom, Dr. Robin Hanson, Dr. Mark Walker, Dr. James Hughes and and (currently) Dr. Russell Blackford. All submissions deemed to be of sufficient quality to merit consideration are reviewed by internal and external reviewers. Historically, the journal has had an acceptance rate of roughly 25%. Submission guidelines here. -- http://www.ieet.org/index.php/IEET/publications

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Current pending edit

An editor wants to restore The New American reference and an article written in Hebrew and translated by an unknown editor. Possibly the Hebrew article is translated by a Wikipedia editor previously editing. The New American is an obscure voice of an obscure political movement known as the John Birch Society. This is not mainstream and not a good reference to get their take on another obscure conspiracy group, the Zeitgeist group. The John Birch Society reference should not be used nor the Hebrew article. This is English Wikipedia and using a Hebrew reference with an unknown translator, not a good idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• (1) John Birch Society is far from "obscure," and an incorrect personal opinion don't cut the mustard. Please revert your edit.
• (2) There are no "Quotations and citations in this Wikipedia article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English." The article should cite the Hebrew article as source for the statement and be done with it. Please restore the corrected footnote. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Policy does not permit editors to discriminate against reliable sources because they believe the publication is not mainstream enough.
2. Policy allows for sources to be in any language. We all have access to machine translation. OnlyInYourMindT 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Former consensus led by former editor and now retired Andy The Grump was not to use the obscure political group and their non notable scribbling in regard to another barely notable group as in Zeitgeist. It would be like using Zeitgeist to source a reliable report on the John Birch Society. Non notable and not encyclopedic, more like a blog report than a real paper or magazine. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the objection to the JBS wasn't that it was obscure or non-notable, but that you were attempting to quote mine criticism of the film series from one of their op ed pieces and weave it into the lede & synopsis. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recall may be in error. I was not aware of the New American article previously. As an aside, discussion of a film content is ALWAYS opinion. Even on government grants, the professional dolee class has not attempted to establish scientific consensus about movie content.  ;-) But in this case, once again, Earl King has stated his reason for defacing the article, and his reason is wrong. Let him repair his vandalism, and you can make your edits with your reasons as you see fit. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Defacing? Vandalism? Whoa, lets talk content and not editors. There is archived discussion where The New American piece is discussed along with John Birch Society in regard to sourcing. I wanted to use it. Now retired, Andy The Grump, opposed using it and the weight of his argument prevailed. Look up that discussion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting content and sources without good cause is vandalism. An editor who cites to policy should cite the policy -- and you have not; hence, vandalism. An editor who refers to an archived discussion should cite the discussion -- you have not. I will not undertake the fool's errand of searching for a discussion that probably does not exist in order to prove it does not exist. You cite it, you find it and link it. Otherwise in the eyes of this forum, it does not exist. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling names can get you blocked. This article is controversial and requires calm discussion without resorting to the language you are using. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not vandalism. There's an explanation of what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia at WP:VANDALISM, especially WP:NOT VANDALISM. Please do not dilute the term. There's too much of that going on at Wikipedia already. Willondon (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read those Wiki pages more carefully, particularly the section on "sneaky vandalism". The editor you defend has been working for more than two years to delete these pages on Zeitgeist and/or prune them to nothing. He has announced that intention on multiple occasions. He succeeded in deleting this page for a while. The issues have been brought to arbitration more than once, and King came within a hair of banishment. King has also violated copyright rules on many occasions, which is also vandalism. In this case, King invents the rule that an English page cannot cite to a Hebrew language source -- and reverts the edit. He calls a well-known source "obscure" -- and reverts the edit. I call a spade a spade, and when I name the action for what it is, King calls it "name-calling" -- again, misapplication of Wiki policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That kind of rhetoric does not score a lot of points. That is not vandalism. There's an explanation of what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia at WP:VANDALISM.

Adding non notable book

The self released organization book is not notable. Listing a pdf for it does not mean it is notable. Not everything a notable person or organisation does is significant - and you have provided no evidence that the book has received any meaningful analysis or critique by third-party sources (or even that it has been read by such sources). Please do not edit against talk-page consensus. end quote AndyTheGrump from the archived discussion here [2] Archive_8# Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A book written by a group or person is always appropriate in the article about that group or person. Book notability is the standard only in determining whether the book should have its own article. And AndytheGrump did not write Wiki policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Annual events

Just popped in to see how everybody was! Before this article was seperated, it was pointed out that the refs don't speak of annual events, they speak of a 2nd annual event being held in 2009. While the ref for the 'annual media festival' is from 2012 and does not mention any other festival at all, let alone annual festivals going up to 2015 (the implication of the text). Are you all happy to extrapolate from these paper-thin refs another 6/3 years of festivals? Pincrete (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few references to events in other years.[3] You are correct that the article should be fattened out. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't see any on that search that would count as RS, almost entirely 'self-sourced', ie not independent of the subject, the 'ticket agency' for the 2014 event, lists the venue as 'The Federal' 'gastro pub'. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a list of events from obscure groups, the events being non notable so it becomes more of an advert than encyclopedia reporting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The foundation of this argument is only a bog of bitterness. The consensus has already established that the Zeitgeist Movement is notable enough for its own page; it is too late to re-fight that battle. The most notable fact of the Zeitgeist Movement is its annual virtual global convention. Therefore, we mention it, just as we mention the books written by obscure people when we establish they are not obscure, the ideas of obscure groups when we establish they are not obscure, and the accomplishments of obscure historical figures -- when we discover they are not obscure. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's use the same standard that every other page uses.[4] Primary source statements on non-controversial subjects are permitted. Zeitgeist should not be held to a different standard. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Using an untranslated Hebrew article in the article

Citing non-English sources. Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. If the article in Hebrew was translated by a reputable source that would change things. Including two links to the Hebrew translation from a foreign language paper is over kill, there are already 4 sources saying Zeitgeist wants to change the economic system. [[5]] Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

it is it, if is reasonable, sufficient evidence to make them think it might join. Why should we trust the "new era"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.178.98.246 (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Efforts by Zeitgeist members

There has been a general call by Zeitgeist websites to come here to argue the information for their Faq's material to be the basis of the Wikipedia article. They have lots of members so no doubt a few more will arrive here to tinker the article according to their pov.

Example,statement by *Melarish Ish: Been trying to edit the criticisms to end the association with Zeitgeist: The Movie. Not going too well. I can't edit any more or I might be banned so I'm continuing the argument on the Talk page. Source from Zeitgeist [6] end quote from the Global Zeitgeist Movement Facebook

I don't mind that Malarish is a Zeitgeist member/advocate, but mind that he edit warred the article and is trying to extend the Zeitgeist orgs. information to encompass the Wikipedia information.

Another example of how the group itself comes to this article from the large number of followers generated by Zeitgeist and tries to influence their members to come here and edit [7] Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny how you questioned the number of followers/members and even the very existence of any organization:

There is no evidence what so ever that the Zeitgeist Movement is any more than a type of fanzine internet construct with many bored Youtube users pushing their button out of curiosity.

But now acknowledge a large number of followers because, of course, coming here and questioning the impartiality of the admins requires more than button pushers. (: 201.86.161.236 (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no strength in numbers if guidelines are not followed. Meat and sock puppets for the group have no value hre. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting you claim no bias Earl King Jr., you always beg people to assume you're always editing in good faith but then again you do your own research around the internet, see the material TZM publishes, the meetings with thousands of members filmed around the world and chose to dismiss all of them in favor of reinforcing your belief, while your fellow groupthinkers(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) reinforce your opinions further. No matter, the movement does not need wikipedia to publicize ourselves, and before giggling at that claim, ask yourself some questions about why certain ideas are penetrating 1st world media nowadays, ideas that otherwise would be considered dismissable within the society you live in.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always." Mahatma Gandhi 94.177.145.25 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it as to encouraging you but really you can not blog here about sweetness and light and good triumphing because of things like Zeitgeist. Its best you go where you are appreciated but that would not be a talk page discussion on Wikipedia. Here it is more about more mundane things like citations and sources and notability. We have to assume that you are one of the Facebook groups of friends of Zeitgeist and want to wave the flag for them. But, read a bit of how Wikipedia works and learn some editing things and then maybe you can contribute. Deprogramming. article might make an interesting read for starters. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point dodging skills are legendary my dear sir, I tip my hat, you managed to ignore everything I said. And no, I am one of the thousands of active members you claim after "extensive research" do not exist and "never have existed". About deprogramming, why would anyone within the movement need it, there's problems within the world that require change no political system can commit to, someone has to inform the masses about them since the mass media and people such as yourself are keen on ignoring them as much as humanly possible. 94.177.145.25 (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am surprised you know. Its true that many of us here are card carrying members of the N.W.O. and as such we have to suppress groups like yours otherwise they would become wildly popular overnight and Peter Joseph who really deserves to rule the world because of his super brain would become our new god like ruler instead of the current group of secretive bankers and politicians who pay us editors to suppress your group.

Now, apparently you are not going to listen to anything I am saying or suggesting. I suggest you get familiar though with policy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, you don't have to be from NWO or other such nonsense, your problem just seems to be the inability to break away from the pattern of absolute rule following, for the sake of rule following or the absolute faith that things can get better if they can get better - but don't quote me on that one. As far as sources are concerned, what would it take for you guys to acknowledge as a valid source, in order to accept the existence of the zeitgeist movement and thus justify the existence of this page - don't send me to the rule page because everything there is very vague? In the meantime remember the fact that TZM doesn't require explicit membership, thus it is nigh impossible to create statistics as to how many people are actual members or advocates. Also Peter Joseph is not a leader, he isn't even part of the administration as far as I know besides some podcasts once in a while and some speeches here and there, he does not do much else. The movement does not require anyone to do anything and it's main focus is coordinating and engaging in spreading of information, think of us as a fringe news agency that is voluntary based and doesn't have a absolute hierarchy. I recommend reading the book, it's on the main site [[8]] and you can judge for yourself if it's propaganda that bases itself on belief or something else, it is a very good read for anyone that acknowledges there are issues within the current social paradigm that need to be addressed and has very well sourced content. 94.177.145.25 (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum, this is a place to discuss article content and changes based on references. If you have none please refrain from posting, thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as sources are concerned, what would it take for you guys to acknowledge as a valid source, in order to accept the existence of the zeitgeist movement and thus justify the existence of this page - don't send me to the rule page because everything there is very vague? So far all press sources were removed, show good faith and give an example of what you guys would agree is a decent source for the existence of the zeitgeist movement. 5.13.192.162 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources, things like newspapers for example. If you have a question about a particular source you can bring it to WP:RSN. The rules for a reliable source WP:RS are actually pretty clear. 'You guys' refers to wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just people who watch this page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are such things as policies and guidelines, however no policy or guideline has ever edited any wikipedia page, nor will it ever. :) 5.13.192.162 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime does anyone care to check if any of the sources listed on this page qualify as valid sources for the existence of the zeitgesit movement? http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press 5.13.192.162 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines represent site-wide consensus, so they do represent the will of cooperative editors. If that clashes with POV-pushers, tough for the latter. You say you've been editing here within the last year, and yet the edits under your IP only go back two days. I found two more IPs from your location, but again only for the past few days. Which account were you editing under? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty apparent this person I.P. above has edited here many times under different names and i.p.'s. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand you guys have been waging a war here for a long time(the tzm facebook post shows more than a year has passed since this page is in dispute), but have patience, I am here in good faith, I will assume good faith, so I ask for us to return to the source discussion that I proposed upper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.192.162 (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

So how many names and different I.P.s have you used 5.13.192.162 and why are you here? We have already said the movement page is not gonna happen so apparently you are just blogging on Wikipedia, but that is not really a good idea. Overwhelming support was to condense the movement into the movies page. The discussion ended a long time ago. Look at the archived information if you like. Just because Facebook is calling on its Zeitgeist members to come here and include for instance their FAQ's does not mean its gonna happen. Discussion over. Even the talk page if you waste peoples time and use it to blog will be a problem and I assume you have been blocked before for tendentiously asking the same question 100 times. So, please desist now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It is my 1st time here actively posting on a talk page, I don't understand who are these "we" that decide what is included or not on wikipedia, care to reveal where is your authority drawn from? I consider your tone as an attack so please dial it down. As for the movement it's alive and well, and there plenty of evidence out there to support that claim, I am only posting now to find out what can be accepted as sources in order to return this page, since the consensus you speak of was obviously missing some key information. Lastly why do you consider new sources cannot emerge in the future, or have emerged already and are listed the link I gave above? 5.13.192.162 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You are editing here tendentiously now. This is not a forum for general discussion about The Zeitgeist Movement. No one cares here if its 'alive and well' or 'dead and buried'. Any of your comments may be removed or refactored now because of your behavior of blogging your group. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Zeitgeist Movement at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk, but otherwise I would predict you are going to be blocked from editing if you continue in this vein of wasting peoples time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

On User_talk:The_Devil's_Advocate you confused http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press_releases with http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press which is a link to various press sources that have talked about TZM in various capacities, I wouldn't have brought that page to attention if it wasn't about actual sources, I advise opening a page before assuming what it is about, it saves time you claim to be wasting.5.13.192.162 (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Again what you are trying to do is not going to happen. That page is not going to be resurrected. Consensus is clearly against that. You are basically harassing editors now redundantly. There was a large debate which is archived. You are wasting our time. Its a primary source also from Zeitgeist so it does not count. We already have their website listed in the article section for itself. As a Facebook Zeitgeist advocate with a conflict of interest because you believe in it I suggest you read guidelines for editing instead of trying to willfully get your way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And the page arises from the dust and ashes with facts, opinions, sources, and all the meat and potatoes of an Encyclopedia topic. Ain't that grand. Resurrected. With consensus. Time not wasted. Let us congratulate the successful efforts of sincere encyclopedia editors. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Disperse the brewing flame war please, and as far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be a significant amount of bias on the actual page.175.38.131.50 (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Zeitgeist the movie is a conspiracy theory movie that explains the world through classic conspiracy themes. The movement is based on the Zeitgeist movies. Though it is denied by the so called Zeitgeist movement that there is a connection from the movies to the movement our sources say otherwise, so Zeitgeist Movement should be in the conspiracy theory category though recently that category has been removed [[9]]. Our sources tell us that the chain of movies are conspiracy oriented [10]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The movement is full of conspiracy theories, yes, but it is NOT a conspiracy theory in itself, it's a movement. So I agree with the removal of the tag. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is little more than a pejorative. It is never applied to US government allegations against the the Al Quaeda, or Knesset allegations against Hamas. It has little value beyond propaganda, as a review of the conspiracy theory web page shows. The sole purpose of its use here is to say the editors have strong antipathy to the Zeitgiest Movie statements. Generally, a serious encyclopedia should avoid such childish and emotionally loaded terms. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors opinions are one thing and sources are another thing [[11]] Goldberg on that There are lots of strange things about the Zeitgeist phenomenon, but strangest is how it got started. It’s a global organization devoted to a kind of sci-fi planetary communism, but it was sparked by a 2007 documentary steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. The first Zeitgeist documentary borrowed from the work of Eustace Mullins, Lyndon LaRouche, and conspiracy-mad Austin radio host Alex Jones to rail against the cabal of international bankers that purportedly rules the world. It was this documentary that reportedly obsessed Jared L. Loughner, the disturbed young man who allegedly shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Mullins alleges a little something to offend everyone, and it doesn't matter whether Mullins is telling the truth. Didn't Mullins also write that Zeitgeist is anti-abortion, but the movement sells foetuses out the back door on weekends, too? Shouldn't we quote that part? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What? This is about it being a conspiracy movement. The citation and many others cite that. If that was a joke it is pretty bad and I suggest you remove or refactor your comment. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Goldberg's essay more carefully. The conspiracy angle was restricted to the first film. The Zeitgeist Movement did not form until after the second film, which presents Fresco's solutions, not problems. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Goldberg 'undue weight'

Laval, I have removed your 'undue' tag since there seems to be no discussion here about the weight to be attributed to the Goldberg piece. There is quite a lot of 'Goldberg isn't right', here and at the RSN. An editor there had this to say 'Goldberg's piece mentions that Jews are not specifically mentioned but it contains anti-Semitic tropes nonetheless. You may or may not agree, that is fine. If you have other RSes which take a contrary view, you can add them to the article.' That is the proper meaning of 'weight' Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There is no mention there of the 'truth', 'fairness', or 'logic' of the viewpoint only of the weight, relative to other RSs on the subject.

I have not been involved with this article for a long time, when I was previously involved, the biggest problem seemed to be the lack of any RS positive or negative. I don't think that has changed much, another review (Kinney), also commented on how close some of the ideas in the films were to far-right and anti-semetic ideas The nefarious International Bankers meme has been propagating itself since at least the mid-1800s and has long been a mainstay of radical right-wing circles where it has often overlapped with mutterings about Jewish cabals … … The over-all temper of the video is rather like the John Birch Society on acid. Given that at least two of the small number of RS mention the connection with 'far-right' and anti-semetic' ideas, I find it difficult to see how this is a 'weightless' viewpoint, especially as it is clearly labelled as Goldberg's opinion/criticism, not as fact. Pincrete (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The undue tag was misplaced. No particular weight was given to Goldberg's opinion, it was merely summarized and sourced. Context matters. Simply having her opinion here cannot be argued to be undue if she is a reliable source, and the consensus at RSN was that she is. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead addition

"Originally the ideas connected were based on a societal model by [[Jacque Fresco]] a [[social engineer]] with [[Jacque Fresco#The Venus Project and later career|The Venus Project]] company.<ref>http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/the-view-from-venus/Content?oid=2248863 Retrieved April-2-2016</ref>{{r|socialeng}}" was added to the lead by Earl King Jr, but then removed as undiscussed by SAnjit45. So let's discuss it.

I don't think there is a doubt that it's true, and there is a source. I have no problems with the addition. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This is redundant and misleading since the z movement hasn't been involved with venus project for 5 years. It is old and belongs in the internal, not the lead. JWilson0923 (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the body. The origin of the movement is absolutely an important enough bit of info to put in the lead. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But you aren't moving it, you are deleting it. That makes your arguments seem like excuses. Also, the movements ideas are pretty much the same, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

nb, the Telegraph says: 'The alternative action movement was popularised in a series of films critical of market capitalism. Shot between 2007 and last year, a series of films inspired a political movement etc.' I am adding this here (though only indirectly related), not to refute the 'Venus' argument above, but to refute simplistic arguments that 'Venus' was the ONLY 'parent', ie that the films are unconnected to the movement.Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we change the wording to "Zeitgeist's economic and political ideas were originally based largely on a societal model by Jacques Fresco" to avoid the implication that is was the only inspiration. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: But it is not quite accurate. According to the Orlando Sentinal, Fresco's ideas did not enter the picture until after the first movie. A movement was formed of people who followed Fresco and had seen Joseph's film. Fresco's ideas appeared to be a solution to the problems posed in Joseph's first movie. After this melange cooked for a while, Joseph made his second film from his own take on Fresco's ideas. Incidentally, Goldberg's commentary is a mine of usable material. She attributes the films to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then says the movement shares the Communist ideas that led to the Tea Party. Also, the film is the reason Jared L. Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. And much much more, all totally reliable and completely accurate. Great stuff. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I sense non-constructive sarcasm, but will try to ignore it. This article is about the movement, not the first film and not Peter Joseph himself. The first movie is really nothing but a collection of very slow and boring conspiracy theories, it contains no economic, political or societal ideology at all. That only happened with the second movie where the second half of it really is all about how Fresco's ideas is going to save the world. And it's only after this it becomes a movement; as only then does it get an ideological content and start being about changing society, and it's only in 2009 that the organization is created, well after Fresco got involved in 2007-2008.

The movement has clearly, from it first became notable and since before it was organized, been highly inspired by The Venus Project. Now it is trying to distance itself from it, since a falling out between Peter Joseph and Jaque Fresco. But I don't see why we should follow suite and try to pretend that the connection doesn't exist. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with your statements about Fresco and the Movement, except for the "falling out" which is news to me. From your previous, I thought your "originally" statement referred to the first film, which I was trying to correct. Maybe the "sarcasm" you see in comments about Goldberg's essay is simply my irrepressible incredulity that the sweeping range of movements and political ideas all come from the same source. In its scope, it is almost a cosmology. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been rather quiet about TVP and Zeitgeist lately, perhaps they have had an falling in which I missed. The falling out was several years ago. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

'Falling out'/'parting company', is in the 'Orlando weekly' source: But it didn’t last – the partnership ended in April of this year in an apparent power struggle. OpenFuture, I have no problem either way with your suggested edit ('based largely'). The principal source for that claim is dependent on an interview with Fresco, but other RS clearly put the film as the inspiration. Personally I think this is not answerable, sourceable, nor interesting beyond both being connected. I only made the point above, because of some reductive arguments being thrown around at RSN in an attempt to put a distance between the films and the movement.

Grammar'sLittleHelper ludicrous misrepresentation of Goldberg damages your credibility much more than it does hers. But even if what you claimed she wrote were wholly true, it wouldn't matter two figs, she does not have to prove the 'truth', 'logic' or consistency of her arguments to you, me or anyone at WP.Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I accept your personal attack, and I turn the other cheek. Make your day. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. It critiqued your argument, not your person. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

nb edit confict

Grammar, Ms Goldberg simply doesn't say what you claim above that she says except 'a latterday elders of zion'. Even if you think she does say it, passing the 'editor's truth or logic test' is not a criteria for inclusion. There may be flaws/unfairnesses in her logic (real ones, not simplistic misrepresentation of the very kind you accuse her of), hopefully some RS will point those out, or the reader will note them. Misrepresenting Ms G doesn't contribute much to discussion. Pincrete (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Lede

How come the lede is short? It does not summarise the body. QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it summarizes it very well. The article is also short, and there isn't really that much to say. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movement and democracy

In reference to this edit: [12]

The Zeitgeist movement do NOT want democracy, see for example "Rational Consensus" in their FAQ, where Democracy is called "mob rule". [13]. Peter Joseph also frequently talks about Democracy as something negative. It is quite clear from their own writings and videos that Democracy is not included in the TMZ vision. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(He actually said he wanted to abandon democracy again in a reply to this article, but that reply is unfortunately gone, and not archived, it seems. However, Gilonis respons to the reply is available, and mentions this. [14]) --OpenFuture (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah but we can not use him as a source, Joseph that is or the article would wind up being his mouthpiece of information,.... right? Zeitgeist Faq's material does not really count either does it? Joseph originally supported Libertarian stuff via Ron Paul, then Fresco, and now I don't know. There is virtually no recent information on Zeitgeist. Is it really a movement or was it a soundbite after one of his movies. Is it a political movement or a social movement or neither. Is it a promo concept for Josephs media projects. Zero information and the same old tired references from years ago. No media has written anything on them for years. It could be just some Forums on the internet. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a few people showing up on these Zeitgeist days, but nobody knows how many. And we can't write "Nobody knows what they actually want, because it's just vague mumbling about how great everything will be if we don't have money and build circular cities" without a source either. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I made the original 'cit' tag, I have no idea whether Joseph or Fresco want democracy and barely understand what they claim to believe. The point of my tag was that a) Gilens is a student writing in a student Mag b) Gilens is intentionally writing in terms intended to discredit TZM. Fine as Gilens' opinion, but it is here being presented in Wiki-voice as part of TZM's beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That is arguable. He may not be trying to discredit it all all but trying to accurately portray it. Hard to say without taking some side pro or con. Interesting that Joseph went from Ron Paul To J. Fresco which is a bit of a leap. The story is that Fresco contacted him after Fresco saw the first movie. That might be a good thing to mention in the article even though they are not now associated. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That "leap" is the product of a one-dimensional view of society. Hitler was a socialist (left-wing) dictator (right-wing). The extreme members of the Politburo (left-wing) were called "right wing". The so-called heir apparent of the left-wing party in America is winning because she is subsidized by selfish billionaires and ruthless trillionaire corporations (right-wing). The whole left-right one-dimensional measuring stick is nonsense. Joseph followed a logic that he could see, documenting his understanding as he went. Regardless of who cannot follow his logic, the problem is not with Joseph -- it is with the measuring stick. Ron Paul may be "right-wing" in the view of some journalists, but he gives voice to some left-wing ideals of liberty. Fresco may be "left-wing" in the cyclopian eye of his critics, but he marches to the same ideals of liberty and intellectual freedom as Ron Paul. You cannot sort all races, all languages, all people, or all ideas on a one-dimensional line. But anyone can make a mockery of someone else's ideas. They simply fail to understand, and when they retell the story, it's baby barf. You should hear Lucile Ball explain particle physics. Grammar's Li'l Helper 05:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating essays! But you are still relying on a student magazine for factual accounts of TZM's beliefs, up to you. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to listen through DAYS of Josephs rambling videos to find exact primary source quotes if you want, only to have somebody say "That's just Peter Joseph's opinion, not the movement's" and remove it. If you want it reworded, make a proposal. Don't just complain. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, saying that there aren't any RS to identify clearly what Joseph/Fresco or TZM believe isn't a very good argument for using poor sources, but my involvement here is marginal and I leave it up to you folks as to what you are happy to use. Pincrete (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the source is poor. It's good enough to Peter Joseph to publish a reply to it. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I did reformulate it a bit. It's also notable that TZM claims to be internally organized by something very similar to a technocratic expert-rule. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, and no. There is really a huge leap between Ron Paul and Fresco, but it's economical, where Paul is on one extreme and Fresco is in the other. But quite clearly Joseph does not have the slightest clue about how economy works ("Utopia comes through no money and circular cities!") and then the leap becomes much smaller, as the economic leap disappears. But you are right that to see that the leap isn't very big in that sense, you need a multi-dimensional political understanding. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See political compass - the distance between libertarian left and right may be smaller than authoritarian left and libertarian left. Martinlc (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bravo. Grammar's Li'l Helper 15:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Perry Gruber

A section was added about Perry Gruber and his attempts to make an implementation of ideas "similar" to the Zeitgeist movement. I'm skeptical to this for several reasons: 1. It's not actually exactly the same ideas, in fact, it's only same as it thinks getting rid of money means getting rid of poverty. 2. I'm highly skeptical to people who claim to have invented something that is better than capitalism, but asks for money. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The new section is about "various groups" of which Copiosis is only one. True, Gruber is in one of those groups, but not mentioned by name in the new text. The newspaper says the projects are similar to Zeitgeist, but with the added element of a route to instantiate "the model", indicating that the ideals are substantially the same. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Deleted the whole selection. Really not connected. Sources are for something not at all connected. There is a Forum thing about this on Zeitgeist forum but that sure does not count, at all. Please do not re-add. No connection to this article what so ever. [15] Completely different concept. Zeitgeist has no implementation policy beyond trying to get a movement going and that appears to be limited to chat rooms with few participating. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The section really only was about Gruber and his group. And of course the ideals are the same. Everyone's ideals are the same. Ideologies and movements like this only have different misunderstandings about how the world works. We can't say that two groups are connected just because both of them doesn't understand what money is. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Earl King, you really need to get over your WP:OWN problem. Even though you have worked for years to eliminate it, this article has a subject and an existence. And other editors are gathering material to create an encyclopedia. Notwithstanding OpenFuture's thoughts on the universe, Other Editors: This is the text that Earl King just deleted without consensus. Would you perhaps read it to him, show him that it comes from a reputable news source, and tell him it is relevant to the Zeitgeist Movement?

== Implementation == In 2015, the Portland weekly, Street Roots, reported that a number of groups in Portland and in Chico, California are attempting to implement the economic model of the Venus and Zeitgeist movements. As reported, various groups and individuals are working on a series of demonstration projects, while another is developing a software backbone, called Copiosis, to improve society's utilization of knowledge, skills, labor, and resources. The software is based on the work of sociologist, author, and computer programmer, Larry K. Mason.

Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 07:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Consensus is not just votes (where I add mine to Earl's) it's also who has the correct arguments. And TZM is mentioned briefly in the article, but this is not TZM trying to implement their ideas, this is another group trying to implement other ideas, which definitely have broad similarities, but they are not the same. So no, it is NOT relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wording it to make it seem like Fresco or Joseph are somehow in on that concept for an implementation of those two groups is original research and as such does not apply to the article. If you had Joseph or Fresco discussing that person and that concept then maybe, but it does not appear they have talked about it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

sfarney, I think a See Also wikilink to a Copiosis WP article is justifiable, but this article isn't making any claims about TZM. It only references the ideas. This would be a good source for a Copiosis WP article. OnlyInYourMindT 21:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wessex citation

Current revision [16] I changed the wording a lot because the previous edit did not accurately give the information. It seemed to water it down or just take a couple of things while leaving out the gist of the information. If that citation is going to be used its better not to cherry pick or rephrase it for its good parts or less controversial parts. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify this, EKJ. Are you saying that more controversy is "better"?

Chapters

Is that Chapters section really meaningful? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No, especially as the substantive example in Toronto is in fact a formal not-for-profit not a chapter, as the source clearly states.Martinlc (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain that at length, please? So far, the reason is not reasonable. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 06:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. It would be ok to have a section about an organisation/movement's local branches if they could be identified and described from independent sources (otherwise it would be UNDUE). The section had three sources, two of which we vague statements that a Chapter might be established, and the other which was a news report that someone inspired by the movement had been involved in the Toronto chapter and then created a not-for-profit to develop the concept further, building on the wider local currency / time banking movement. If we are to take the Movement at its word that a network of branches exists we should expect that the Chapters' activities would appear in RS. As it stands all we can really say is that the Movement had that intention.Martinlc (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The more this unfolds the more it seems there is no movement or the 'movement' was killed off when it diverged from Venus project. Yes the section can be removed because nothing indicates it is anything but some forums and an occasional meetup and its not documented by reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering that there seems to have been two competing Media Festivals in 2015, it is indeed highly doubtful that it is a movement. But, as usual, that would be OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's unfounded speculation on your side - see: Non sequitur (logic): why would it be more than one movement if there are multiple media festivals? Wouldn't one expect so if there are also many local chapters? TZM is a loose and broad movement with members hosting all kinds of events at various days.

For the chapters section: I do think it's meaningful and should stay. It's an important aspect of the movement and there are enough sources for a basic description of its regional structure. The length and content of the description depends on the references (seemingly only the Toronto chapter got enough coverage for some more in-depth details). --Fixuture (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

Basically the 'movement' originally is based on Fresco's ideas and when the two groups split it might have in effect ended the 'movement' though that is hard to say but it certainly is not written about now and it was when they were connected. Regardless I have added more information on Fresco and that relationship which I am guessing is important to understanding the two groups and their past situation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

and when the two groups split it might have in effect ended the 'movement' though that is hard to say but it certainly is not written about now

Short note: that's original research and also false. --Fixuture (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Looking around for more sources, critical or otherwise, I found found this. Its old also but what is the sentiment? Could this be a source or citation for information in the article [17] Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Stallman is a notable expert on several things, but it doesn't appear his comments on TZM are based on any of his fields of expertise. On the other hand, we do seem to value critical opinions from journalists (who are otherwise not experts in anything), so perhaps Stallman's criticism is valuable simply because he is a well known figure. And for that reason, perhaps even more valuable than a journalists criticism. Of course, an expert would seem to provide the most valuable commentary. OnlyInYourMindT 21:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, but probably not quotable. Stallman does not present himself as an expert on economy, and does not apply standard scholarly measures. Stallman seems to base "value" on the present system of numerical prices, while resource-based economy has a radically different foundation for distribution. The one thing that might be quotable is his statement that he does not trust computers to distribute goods equitably, partially because commodity values are complex and fluid. I added a reference earlier where a Portland group was attempting to build such a computer system, but it was reverted. Now King wants to add a piece that says it cannot be done. Hm. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)