No Disambiguation in the 'See Also' section?Edit

Shouldn't there be a link from this wiki to Zeitgeist (disambiguation) ?? Eulerianpath (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages go at the top of the page rather than the "see also" section; thus "This article is about the German word. For other uses, see Zeitgeist (disambiguation)." Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Untitled HeaderEdit

Should we really include a link to Generatation X for such a cool word? Why just this generation? If we really believe that "zeitgeist" refers to the spirit of the time, why would we just refer to a label that has been slapped onto one particular generation (which, in my opinion, is a lame label anyway). Tchoupitoulas 00:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


I really wonder what our Zeitgeist is right now...

[1] Zeitgeist source,german See also: (genius meaning guardian spirit and saeculum century) into the german Zeitgeist. source:* Genius seculi blog ( german php blog ) Guss 19:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but I found that genius actually originates from the Greek gen, gene. Other derivatives include: Genealogy, generic, genesiology, genesis, geneticist, genetics, genetopathy, genetotrophic, genic, genital, genethliac, genial, genion, genioplasty, genious, genoblast, genodermatosis, genomere, genotype, genuine, genus, genyantrum, genyantralgia, genyantritis, genyplasy, etc., etc. Very similar spelt and sounding words in Greek for Zeitgeist from zygo- include: zygodactyl, zygoid, zygoma, zygomorphic, zygomena, zygosis, zygospore, zygotaxy, zygote. Interesting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


My English is not so good, but i think this translation from the german Wikipedia is not correct. According to the german Wikipedia Christian Adolph Klotz wrote a text with the title "genius seculi", Herder read this and when he used this term he translated it as "Zeitgeist".--- 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, how come User:Guss (another native german speaker) missed it? :-) If you are certain, you are welcome to rephrase the sentence. Be bold. --BorgQueen 20:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
User:BorgQueen asked me to check the translation and the IP user is correct. I've amended the article accordingly. Valiantis 13:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

De StaelEdit

I'm not very fond of the use of "aggravate" here. Would "provoke" or "irritate" do better? What's the original French? Rhinoracer 12:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


I apologize, but I believe this article may bend too much to someone who has experience inside of a certain field or interest. Reading this from a layperson's perspective, after reading four paragraphs, I still have no idea what the word means. At least Wiktionary was a little more to the point. --Jmccorm 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. The article doesn't really explain what a Zeitgeist is. I had to use Wiktionary to work it out. Renquist 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The term in itself is rather easy to unterstand: "the trends of thinking of the mainstream at a given historical moment or era" - about that. But to understand its function in the development of thinking in history you should study a bit of the fundamentals of Hegel's Dialektik (which, alas, is NOT as easy). Hope this could help - Yog-S —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


This article links to Volksgeist, which is a redirect right back to here. I'm not really sure what is the policy on this sort of thing, or where to look. It seems to me that it's only useful if somebody creates an article at Volksgeist, and I imagine then they'd stick up a link from here if there wasn't one. I'm going to remove the link for now, it's pretty useless as it is. Is that right? 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Volksgeist redirects to Zeitgeist which is a huge misnomer. Volksgeist needs to either not exist as a redirect to Zeitgeist or have its own article, as it is a completely distinct concept related to ethnicity, tribalism, and nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


The key word is literally. "Spirit of the times" is the translation, and "time ghost" is the literal translation. The idea is to show the relationship between the words.

I'd tend to agree that the translation used should be "spirit of the times" rather than "mind of the times". The former is both the usual translation of the phrase and comes closer to the German connotation of "Geist" (most literally "ghost"). Scott.wheeler 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Spirit of the time" is the usual translation. I reverted User:Seafunks edit from 7 June 207. --Zinnmann 08:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the article is in error: a cohort is a statistical group determined by birth date, so the mention of a "cohort...that spans one or more subsequent generations" is false.

Geist can mean intelect, spirit, or ghost. It is rarely used for the word ghost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As a native German, the statement 'translated literally as "time ghost"' really bugs me. Even taken completely literally, Geist does not mean ghost in this context. It means spirit/mind/something like that. Compare for example the phrase "Brüder im Geiste". Not even remotely related to ghosts. (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


I've given it two weeks semi-protection. If anyone objects let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist is not a loanword in DutchEdit

As a native Dutch speaker I don't think that Zeitgeist is a dutch word. Van Dale, one of the major dictionaries stated (when I searched for it)

U hebt gezocht op zeitgeist:

Het door u gezochte woord is niet gevonden in het eendelige Van Dale Hedendaags Nederlands. Dit kan komen doordat het er niet in staat, bijvoorbeeld omdat het te nieuw is, of omdat het niet voldoet aan de opnamecriteria. Maar ook is mogelijk dat de spelling niet correct is. Kijk ook eens bij de zoekinstructies.


You have searched on zeitgeist:

The word searched by you has not been found in the one part Van Dale Contemporary Dutch. This could be because it is not in it, for example because it is too new, or because it doesn't comply to the admission criteria. But it is also possible that the spelling is not correct. Also have a look at search instructions.

It might be in the dictionary, but it is very unlikely.

Though it is occassionaly used in the Netherlands, it is not uncommon to just use foreign words occasionally. The Dutch would just be tijdsgeest. You pronounce zeit as tsite and tijd as tite roughly, and they mean time. And as you can see geist and geest are quite similar. In Dutch it is has a less common use of ghost (as the lingering spirit of a dead person), which shows the relatedness of dutch to english. However, in dutch the primary meaning is something in between mind and spirit but it is not that spiritual in nature. It has a very rational mentality to it.

Tijdsgeest is interpreted similarly to zeitgeist. I think that when used in Dutch the specific group of people is often assumed implicitely. In Dutch I have often interpretted it as a global mentality too. That is also a big difference I think. In dutch it means mentality rather than spirit. You just don't use the meaning underlying the word spirit just like that. That would irritate the cultural mentality I think. Spiritual and non-concrete beliefs are generally (though obviously not by all, including myself) agitating slightly. Guidocalvano 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist is not a loanword in SpanishEdit

The Royal Spanish Academy in its main published dictionary (DRAE) does not recognized zeitgeist as a spanish word. [2] If someone thinks I am wrong please let me know. Sorry about my English. I can't edit the article so someone have to do this work for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm spanish and I've never heard that word (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Zeitgeist it's also a movie:

i'm new and don't know how to create another page, for the movie. :)

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a wicked movie, would be great if someone could add some info on that subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the very first movie of the series (There are three, perhaps more differential titles towards the others) To my knowledge the Zeitgeist movement is popularized in renewable resources, zionism/capitalism, and otherwise insightful documenting. Perhaps a "legacy" tab or similar may be added in the future? I'm sure it would help clean up claims such as redirects and the sort-[GenericDrone] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenericDrone (talkcontribs) 12:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Our article is here: Zeitgeist, the Movie. El_C 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Claim about Spanish and DutchEdit

I looked in the official Spanish dictionary at, and as you can see, the word "zeitgeist" does not appear. The claim that zeitgeist is a loanword is Spanish should thus be reconsidered. I don't speak Dutch, but it seems to not be in the official Dutch dictionary either.Bjhecht (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Article Addition called EXAMPLESEdit

The Zeitgeist entry is in need of additional information, especially because when people here the word Zeitgeist they falsely associate it with the idea of conspiracy (do to the Zeitgeist Movie). The fact is the movie has nothing to do with the word Zeitgeist. Therefore, because of the confusion surrounding the word and because the information in the current article is scant and not does not provide enough clarification, I am proposing a section called Examples. The content for this section would be as followed:

With hindsight we can understand the personality of any given era . . . what it did right . . . where it went wrong . . . and the people (influencers) who shaped it, for better or for worse. Whether it was the Zeitgeist of the 1960’s, the Renaissance or the Zeitgeist of pre-Nazi Germany, behind every era are people of influence who affect the masses and thereby define the personality of any era (e.g., musicians, poets, novelists, authors, philosophers, essayists, movie directors, etc.).
Consider one's own personality. It was partly shaped by one's genetic makeup, but also by one's parents. What parents are to children, influencers are to the Zeitgeist. Not only is every person shaped and moulded by their parents but also by their culture, by the Zeitgeist.
We are a product of our times, that is to say, we are a product of the Zeitgeist. Just as one’s parents can affect the way we think so too does the Zeitgeist affect the way we think and act. One’s parents instil certain values and ideas and these ideas become part of one’s belief system, likewise with the Zeitgeist. The problem is, when we are in the Zeitgeist we are often not fully aware of its manifestations; how it affects us and how it directs the future . . . sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
Consider, for example, how one particular Zeitgeist in North America promoted the ‘idea’ that woman were inferior to men. In fact, the Zeitgeist went so far as to say that woman were not “persons”. To affect the Zeitgeist all it takes is one person to act as a catalyst. A Canadian woman, for instance, by the name of Emily Murphy sought to be a Senator; however, she was unable to. Why? Because she was a woman. Recall the words of America’s third President, Thomas Jefferson: “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor am I.”
The Zeitgeist of that time said (according to the British North American Act) women were not allowed to vote because they were legally not “persons” therefore a woman could not be Senator. Murphy’s motion to overturn this ‘idea’ – to overturn this one facet of the Zeitgeist– became known as the “Person’s Case”. The most important constitutional case in Canadian history. Her motion was denied by the Canadian Supreme Court. In deviance, she courageously sailed to England in 1929 to appear before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the British Empire, which at that time was Canada’s final court of appeal.
Sometimes when influencers communicate their ideas they become ideologies. Ideologies affect how we think and as a result how we behave. For this reason, influencers have grave responsibilities. Their ideas will live on long after they die and potentially affect future generations. Consider, for example, people like Aristotle, Darwin, Marx, Gandhi, Hitler, and Martin Luther King, etc. These are people who, in one way or another, affected the masses and moulded the Zeitgeist (the ethos and milieu) of their era.
With hindsight, it is easy to understand past Zeitgeists like the 1960’s, for instance. Because we have hindsight we can see how certain people’s ideas, namely, influencers, affected the masses and thereby defined the Zeitgeist of the 1960’s. Ideas can be very powerful. And because ideas can change how people think, ideas can effect how people act. If we were to closely examine the 1960’s we could connect the dots, as it were, of those people who ‘created’ what we now call the Zeitgeist of the 1960’s. For example Michael Lang, the co-creator of Woodstock; Musicians like The Beatles, The Doors, Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin, & Jodi Mitchell; Intellectuals like Isaac Asimov, Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, Jean-Paul Sartre, & Alan Watts; Activists like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Mario Savio, Gloria Steinem, & Abbie Hoffman; Directors/Producers like Ingmar Bergman, Woody Allen, Michelangelo Antonioni, & Dennis Hopper; Artists like Peter Blake, Bridget Riley, Sol LeWitt, & James Rosenquist; Poets like Robert Frost and Basil Bunting; Authors like William Faulkner, Truman Capote, Jules Ralph Feiffer, Louise Fitzhugh; John Steinbeck, & Betty Friedan; Playwrights like Joseph Heller, Gore Vidal, & Tom Stoppard; Religious Leaders like Pope John XXIII, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Billy Graham, Franklin Merrell-Wolff, Irina Tweedie, Sri Aurobindo, & Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
This list of course is not exhaustive, but it at least illustrates how people’s ideas influence the masses and create what is known at the Zeitgeist. In short, ideas have consequences and actions are born from ideas and ideas/ideologies are generated by influencers who in turn define the Zeitgeist.--Charles vanier (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a request for a third opinion (WP:3), with the question "Zeitgeist Article Addition called EXAMPLES original research?". However, before asking for a third opinion, you're supposed to "discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process." Please have that discussion here, paying attention to the WP:OR policy. Then, if there is a disagreement between only two editors, summarize the disagreement here, and make another request at WP:3. Mesopelagicity (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source? I hold a PhD in philosophy so please explain how a PhD does constitute a reliable source?--Charles vanier (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
See your talk page; learn to note patterns like new additions go at the end of talk pages; etc. Quaeler (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I did as you suggested with regards to adding my addition to the discussion section, but I am unclear what the next step is since no one has commented. Thank you. --Charles vanier (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It could be that you ignored both of what i said two above; in your comment just now, you didn't indent and, more pertaining to your root gripe, you just slapped your comments at the top near 2007.. Once again i ask you for a little bit of rule following in your editing styles. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You and I both know that making minor mistakes in a discussion board does not warrant the exclusion of an addition to an existing article. I would appreciate your honest response and site what Wikipedia policy warrants you blocking the addition I am suggesting. I am beginning to wonder if you are blocking my addition for personal reasons. Thank you. --Charles vanier (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
My honest response is that you're pretty damn tiresome, incapable of researching anything about wikipedia yourself, and seemingly unable to grasp the most simple concepts of human behaviour. Addressing your last entry in order:
• Putting something in the wrong order on a discussion page, especially when it's so simple and straightforward to put it in the correct location, makes the contribution look sloppy; it's pretty basic human response to give the contribution little weight/value — as such, it's unsurprising that no one has bothered to comment on your addition.
• To cite (as opposed to site) the exact wikipedia policy that you're ignoring, read this. (Which one assumes you would have found by starting here had you spent an eensy fraction of the time you spent formulating your repeated attempted additions in attempting to learn how wikipedia works)
This is the end of our interaction; i've provided you with enough hand holding and, again, suggest you pursue the issue on the discussion page, or give up. Quaeler (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Quaeler has unilaterally removed an addition I have added to the current Zeitgeist article which is scant at best. He has also unilaterally and without discussion blocked me Charles vanier.

Given the same “logic” Quaeler uses to remove my addition then why has Quaeler not deleted the entire entry for Zeitgeist (or removed the first two external links)? WP:OR policy is being used indiscriminately. Quaeler's arguments are consistently ad hominem. --Charles vanier (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I saw this claim elsewhere and just want to point out that the block log for user Charles vanier is still empty as of this writing. — Athaenara 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I freely admit that, by this point, i wish i could block him but, alas, i have no such powers (i only slightly jest); i have, though, attempted to make an robust list of his sockpuppet-ing here and perhaps it is this to which he is attempting to refer. I stick to my original claim, with respect to his long entry: it violates WP:OR. Secondarily, i would mention that what shades my view of his attempts is that he's made epsilon efforts to adhere to an editing process within wikipedia, and his usage of multiple accounts, and anonymous-ip, is damn smarmy. Quaeler (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinionEdit

Hello all! I have read the article and the talk page comments about this issue. I don't really see the problem with the article. Yes, there is a possibility of confusion with the various uses of Zeitgeist, but there is also a link to a disambiguation page that gives the alternative usages. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to insure against all possible misunderstandings by every reader, just most readers. I think that the article provides a very good explanation of the term and its meaning. If an editor disagrees and wishes to add a large section of text to the article it is the correct procedure here at Wikipedia for that editor to either hold a copy of the updates in their own user-space eg: in "User:Username/sandbox/new article" or on the articles talk page and to solicit comment from the community. If no comment is forthcoming, then the editor could try updating the article. If anyone complains at that point then that's their issue and they should not revert the change unless it has been first discusses (as the changing editor did) on the talk page. For an example, see the article I'm trying to improve here.

For what constitutes a reliable source (and the simple possession of a PhD does not constitute a reliable source, I have two) I have an example that I use sometimes, it is here if any wants to read it. Thanks fr33kman t - c 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is totally misleading.Edit

The movement is a series of films to help people understand some of the things that are going on in the world right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Spirit/Zeitgeist of Vatican IIEdit

Wouldn't the expression spirit of Vatican II count as a form of Zeitgeist ? Even if it does, some have argued that such an expression is inappropriate within the context of the Church, since the Church tends to live apart from the cosmopolitan modern State. ADM (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Zeitgeist in German restricted to past events only???Edit

In my opinion (as a native German speaker), the statement "included in common understanding of the term is the allegation that Zeitgeist may only be observed for past events" is untenable. I and many others that I know use the word also for present days "Zeitgeist". Since there is no citation proving trueness of the statement, I would recommend to delete it. ThomasB82 (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion noticeEdit

There is a move discussion that would significantly affect this page. Please see Talk:Zeitgeist (disambiguation)#Requested move and comment there. Powers T 03:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist AfD closed as Keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew ArnoldEdit

Should it not go in this article that it was Matthew Arnold he introduced this word to the English language?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What is a good source for a proper definition of Zeitgeist?Edit

Thanks in advance-07:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontknowwhothisis (talkcontribs)


'Illusions of our errors not being readily apparent to us because the shared beliefs and assumptions of a particular era support them come from the Zeitgeist.' This sentence is, I daresay, supposed to have a meaning. What is it ? The only one I can work out is this: The 'spirit of the time' (an expression that seems to owe a certain amount to an earlier (as it might be, Renaissance) Latin expression 'ingenium loci'= spirit of the place) conceals the illusion of our mistaken beliefs, which are based on beliefs and assumptions of a particular era. But I could easily have misunderstood (Pamour (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)).

Zeitgeist MovementEdit

Wikipedia Bigotry

On a more unfortunate note it has come to our attention that the English Wikipedia page of The Zeitgeist Movement has and continues to remain non-representative of TZM's work, controlled by anti-TZM editors which systematically remove basic data, while biasing the article in the most trivial and negative light possible.

Wikipedia is known as an collaborative encyclopedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is hardly a scientific process in form as it is lends itself not only to a kind of 
"mob rule", it also allows biased angling for content control by teams of editors that systematically override viable data. 
In this light, Wikipedia has become a powerful tool of propaganda for controversial subjects, as it is one of the most searched web sites online.
We invite all thoughtful, balanced editors to review TZM's Wikipedia page and help to place actual, tangible data about the Movement and overcome the negative/dismissive bias clearly evident in the article.
Basic problems include:
- Clear and present non-neutrality of the article's tone.
- The notability of our global activist day "Zeitgeist Day" is currently ignored overall/being censored. 
- The extremely bigoted, un-notable yet highlighted "Criticism Section", as put forward by fringe, right wing web sites are flagrantly listed. 
- The complete removal of most all core projects/web sites central to TZM, including the refusal to allow The Zeitgeist Movement Defined book, which has been mentioned in 3rd party press reports many times, is apparent. 
- The page is currently design to read like a "fan club" and not a true institution, with editors removing anything that hints at a dedicated, focused and global organization with an enormous following.
There are two core anti-TZM gatekeepers: "AndyTheGrump" & "Earl King Jr."
Here is a recent quote by Earl King Junior who mostly dominates the page, expressing his bias and intent clearly on the Talk page. 
"Zeitgeist really is a fringe group cult and that is why the usual media does not bring it up much, its just not taken seriously except by the zealots that believe in it. As you may know it has been called the worlds first large based internet cult...
Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)"

Is this the kind of person who should be dominating TZM's Wikipedia page?

In Solidarity,

TZM Global 

About The Zeitgeist Movement About TZM: The Zeitgeist Movement is a global sustainability activist group working to bring the world together for the common goal of species sustainability before it is too late. Divisive notions such as nations, governments, races, political parties, religions, creeds or class are non-operational distinctions in the view of The Movement. Rather, we recognize the world as one system and the human species as a singular unit, sharing a common habitat.

Official Websites of The Zeitgeist Movement:


Global Chapters
Official Blog
Official Forum
Zeitgeist Media Project:
ZeitNews Technology:
Zeitgeist Day Global:
Zeitgeist Media Festival:
Global Redesign Institute:
TZM Global on Twitter:!/tzmglobal
TZM Global on Facebook:
TZM Global Youtube:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 

Poor quality psychological examplesEdit

This section is all based on one source, rewritten from a textbook. It is written as if each statement is a fact when it is mainly speculation/theoretical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Return to "Zeitgeist" page.