Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Is this a movement or an organization?

Im having difficulty with this page because the subject isnt really consistently defined. The first sentence of the lead claims that this is a grass roots movement which would indicate a sort of bottom up spontaneous movement that is independent of central organization. However, it seems that the article is actually about a centralized organization and not a movement following it, as the article dogmatically references an official website, and the second sentence even claims that the movement defines itself as a "sustainability advocacy organization." Furthermore social movements tend not to have things like official logos or central websites - those are elements of an organization. I think the article would be much more coherent if we consistently refereed to zeitgeist as an organization because thats really all this article is making reference to. Thanks! 70.112.184.148 (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


"A Load of Trash" and A Sequel! "The Added Trash"

So I've just wasted about 4 hours including pauses watching the zeitgeist movies on youtube. In this time I could have made around $64 working. Average person so to say. Not that I am entitled to hurt the feeling of you people who believe in these two "haphazardous motion pictures". I am quite certain that you people "are aware" that a movie as this is a load of infantilism, lies, conspiracy ideas and allegoric theories that claim that there is a superior force controlling the world. That is absolutely grotesque. First of all, no organization in the world can fully understand the functioning of the world or even capitalism itself, because it is an imperfect system, with flaws, like everything else. But it's proven to be quite functional. You can't just blame a system for your misfortune. One thing to know: What is an Intelligent Person? Well to me it is a person who can adapt to it's surroundings. If you're with monkeys, learn to live like one. If there is no other choice... It sadly is like that, there are norms, social order and an established codes of behavior. Also people who seek change show typical dissatisfaction. There are several ways to note this: lack of social contact, political abstinence, corrupt moral values.

I find it funny, because I'm certain the person who made this movie believes in: a better world, is helplessly trying to be a revolutionary and is arguing with what is concluded to be exactitude. Gatherings of such an endeavor lead to problems. Sometimes, you just have to accept how things come. That's how people have been doing for centuries, although history is quite inaccurate I dare say if we go far into depth, but let's not lose our "valuable" topic. Freedom of speech gives it; this will probably be removed by some "Believer". Anyhow, Zeitgeist is probably one of these organizations that only have the power to speak for itself. The justice behind such a videos comes in willing to change the mind. I'm not sure who is being controlled here, but I won't give it a statement as it's quite obvious. Want a change? Work harder, try harder no matter what. That's how you advance in society. Not by wasting your time watching such videos. I even feel bad because I tried so hard to write and give this some attention, but in the end it's just another talk page on Wikipedia that nobody even checks regularly. So to you Mr.Reader. Do you really believe in something trying to make you "Aware"? (So as to have no balance of criticism on its Wikipedia page) Or does that show that Zeitgeist is just simply... Awesome... (irony) People I'm ashamed to say this, but now that I'm kinda done watching and reading about this, I'm off to do something more productive. Farewell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.1.38 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

wait, you spent four hours watching this stuff even though you realized it was trash? Then why do you complain? It is easy to waste time online watching silly videos, it happens to a lot of people. --dab (𒁳) 21:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

in the ideal of staying neutral i will say this if you disagree with tzgm i would say do not waste your time or valuable energy with statements like "Well to me it is a person who can adapt to it's surroundings. If you're with monkeys, learn to live like one. If there is no other choice... It sadly is like that, there are norms, social order and an established codes of behavior. Also people who seek change show typical dissatisfaction. There are several ways to note this: lack of social contact, political abstinence, corrupt moral values." in my opinion this is Cynicism (contemporary) and holds no place in a page that exist to supply knowledge not act as a breeding ground for negativity. for the record i am politically active, volunteer, am very social, and have amoral values. in my opinion there are 2 ways to live in the world as it stands, or the world you help to create. so f you would like to continue to live "withe the monkeys" please be my guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.93.129 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

criticism and decline

googling this, it seems that this project managed to attract some real attention during 2009, organizing meetings with close to 1,000 attendants. In 2009, there was an exodus due to the poor judgement and guru-like behaiour of "global administrator" PJ Morela. Basically, this was a one year fad based on public interest generated with an online documentary about 9/11 truthers and the Christ myth.

It was true in 1930 and it remains true in 2010, any leftist movement, no matter how well-intentioned, will immediately defeat itself by internal quarrels and poor leadership and fragment into numerous tiny infighting factions.

In terms of secondary sources, all this "Zeitgeist Movement" has to show seems to be two newspaper articles. The 400,000 members claim is ridiculous. By now this essentially seems to be a private online community. --dab (𒁳) 11:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I also wonder if they realize that what they are proposing is simply stateless communism but with the machines in charge. They probably do, it just isn't opportune to use the C-word in America A century ago, communist utopia was a worker's paradise. The only difference now seems to be that people today don't want to work, even in paradise, so they are happy to leave both production and decision making to the machines. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It is not simply stateless communism with machines in charge. You are projecting into the idea, with irrelevant labels that have negative connotations. The foundational aspect of the RBE concept is resource optimization. Surveying the Earth’s resources, self-contained/sustainable/streamlined city systems, strategically (through scientific analysis and survey) designing the products and services while keeping in account the depleting resources, closed loop production and distribution (recycling) and managing everything according to the carrying capacity of the Earth. These are foundational aspects of the RBE. THE ENVIRONMENTAL aspect is central to the RBE, which is never discussed scientifically by the Communist leaders. Communism’s central idea is to have a justifiable LABOR SYSTEM starting with equal pay for equal work, and in later stages, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs),” but it somehow is unable to escape from the human labor element. In fact, it’s based on it. The RBE is bolder in its concept and is focused on eliminating the human labor system itself as much as possible. It’s a more Humane concept. So one could say that the RBE’s mission statement could be, “From each according to his needs, to each according to his wishes (and not just abilities).” No communist in history has ever tried to think how human labor can become irrelevant with rising technology. Also, according to Communism, more labor should be paid more. So it means that if you have a hammer and a driller with you, you will try to use the hammer instead of the driller (which reduces labor), because using the hammer will fetch you more money. So in this way, Communism’s tendency is to favor a human labor system, whereas the RBE is against such human waste and toil. It attempts to free humanity from such drudgery. Finally I would say that Communism still does not understand the fallacies of the “growth based system”, which is dangerous in the long run for the resources are simply not infinite. The system’s approach to Earth’s management of resources is central to the RBE, which has nothing to do with Communism. Communism was an ideal state where everyone will go according to one’s needs and will work according to one’s capability . Well that condition never reached . However RBE will never try to reach a final frontier or an ideal final state. People in future will always try to update that or even change that. 217.172.92.12 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, 217.172, Surveying the Earth’s resources, self-contained/sustainable/streamlined city systems, strategically (through scientific analysis and survey) designing the products and services while keeping in account the depleting resources, closed loop production and distribution (recycling) and managing everything according to the carrying capacity of the Earth, this is exactly how a technocrat would describe the concept of "the machines are in charge". As I say, technocratic stateless communism. You are basically just repeating my point in so many words. I am not saying this grew out of the existing communist movement, it is just people watching an extremely bad movie and then coming up with the same set of ideas the communists had a century ago, this time with the additional twist of free humanity from such drudgery by robot labour. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

First point to dab, Communism is by its very definition a stateless society where workers take over the means of production directly. Other than that, it is pretty ambiguous and very much undefined about what Communism is supposed to be. Second point, Communism is about elevating the working class as the highest and most prestige class; many Marxists and Communists agree that it is not that due to the very essence and nature that TZM wishes to eliminate class and take control of production through means of automization, this is completely opposite of Communism and saying that it is, is simply as the person said, a "projection" that is ill-informed. Finally, If you wish to discuss this issue on a forum, please do so. But not here, Wikipedia is not the place for forum discussions.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

'Reason and Logic shall always prevail' - except on Star Trek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.92.232 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie

Still not seeing enough independent coverage on this to justify its own article. I'm proposing a merge of any relevant content to Zeitgeist: The Movie. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


NOOO... lEAVE IT ON HERE I LIKE IT!! :):) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafeson90 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because the article is constantly being vandalized. The movement has nothing to do with the The Movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.62.86 (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We have been through this all before. The pattern is for people to remove notable content from the page, then challenge it, and try to delete it, or move it back into the movie. In fact, this has been done once before, and then this page was created again. This is an extended edit war. The movement has numerous sourced media mentions in places such as the NY Times (although source references are continually edited out, both by critics of the movement, and by supporters). Whatever is said, an article about a movie, and an article about a movement, are two entirely different kinds of things, and it is not possible to objectively document both within one article without a lot of confucion. On a movie article, for example, one might refer to elements of the plot and characters which are fictional, as if they were real. In the context of a movie, if makes sense to do so. When talking about a social or political movement, such text is very confusing. A review of the edit histories of the movie pages and movement page makes this amply clear. The answer is not to repeatedly move the page, but to create an objective article which clearly cites the many notable media references, both positive and negative, and which contains a well documented and objective criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelhunter (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If merging articles is necessary, it would make a lot more sense to merge this article with The Venus Project, as it is a closely aligned organization as opposed to a semi-related movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.117.1.212 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Noelhunter, what "many notable media references"? Most of the article as it stood was sourced to the movement's own websites. I looked for sources a while ago, and all I managed was to add one about a musician being influenced by the movement. I would support a merge, but I am unsure of the correct target. Fences&Windows 21:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The films are the Movement's main recruiting tool, they are what the movement believes, they share a name with the movment itself and were created by its founder. If they were not then the official links to the films would be taken down and the films disavowed by the Movement. They have not been. Hadashi (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean about 'recruitment'? Can you please specify? René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Censorship and biased opposing editors

Warning any attempts to deface this Wikipedia article is an act of censorship, let the information be provided as is an not be biased by the myriads of opposition, i ask that all mods of Wikipedia truly investigate into what the zeitgeist movement is before changing anything on this page. Please watch this(http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261) to truly get what the zeitgeist movement advocates and its goals. Move this into the discussion section once it has allowed to be seen by all who monitor this page. Whats wrong with how the article used to be written?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs)

I should get it out first that you won't get very far on Wikipedia assuming that everyone who disagrees with you must be biased against the Zeitgeist Movement. Wikipedia editors, ideally, are not for or against any movement. If we are, that is not supposed to affect our editing, which is guided by the neutral point of view, and not by our own feelings.
Anyway, the problem with that version of the article is that it was based almost entirely on the movement's own website, which runs into issues of self-published content and undue weight. This is a movement that has received only marginal attention from reliable sources, and so the depth to which it is covered by Wikipedia should be similarly marginal. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "get the word out", or help fight the censorship of the mass media (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok i guess i was wrong, i thought this was an article on THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT. What other sources then the home of this movement could possibly be a better source in explaining what it is!!!? This is not about getting the word out, this is about having a reliable article about a movement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as such it should explain exactly what the movement is and its goals and advocacy's but nothing more, except maybe since its an online update-able encyclopedia movement events and updates as it progresses. When someone comes to this article on wiki they expect to find enough information to get what it is they where looking for, the zeitgeist movement. You can't write an article if you don't first understand and know what it is. Everyone who edits this page should have at-least seen the zeitgeist orientation presentation, unless its for minor edits regarding Wikipedia rules and style. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261 The content of that video could even be considered as a source as it is produced for the movement by its founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have coverage and external sources it isn't notable enough to warrant much more than a stub. Hadashi (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
True. A description section for the movement, and a criticism section for, well critique. A pro/con section might be appropriate. René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the criticism section

It looks like this article is unbalanced. We need 3 criticism sources that aren't blogs or forums. One would be Noam Chomsky's letter. Find more please or delete this article or tag it as unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.81.117 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be that this doesn't have any notability, just a bunch of people active online who try to pretend it has notability. Something that doesn't have notability will also not get too much criticism, positive or negative. If you have a statement by Chomsky about this, feel free to add it. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased. I have put on the POV-tag.HopeBox (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd do a lot more help by telling us where the bias is so we can fix it. We can't read your mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that virtually all of the content on this page is sourced to primary sources affiliated with the movement itself. As such, it reads like a vanity page written by proponents, and there's no critical viewpoints represented. Only that which can be confirmed by secondary sources should be written about. (And that's where the notability guidelines come into play - if something isn't noteworthy enough that reliable sources have written about it, it's impossible to write a reliable article on Wikipedia about it.) Fran Rogers (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, we have some newbies demanding the article exist because it's so significant. It somehow exists in the near-complete absence of reliable sources, and now we're stuck with an article sourced almost entirely to primary sources. This is why the whole Zeitgeist movement/movie/Fresco/Venus affair should be on one page. Every year or so there's a tidbit of news coverage about it – never enough for a whole series of articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The problem is in getting a merge accepted. There's always a group of believers who oppose it, and we wind up spinning our wheels. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the Merge proposals is that people keep wanting it to be merged with this article which makes absolutely no sense. People need to try to make it merged with the article on it's founder instead to make it more relevant. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The article still has the problem of being esentially a press release touting this "movement", based on primary sources. Then there is a "Media reviews" section which consist entirely of four soundbites.

I do not have the impression this movement is in anyway notable. It is an online fad, and as such automatically generates an inflated number of google hits. Its impact outside of chat fora and social media is minimal. There have been a few meetings of a few hundred participants each. Well, the same is true of every tour of any notable rock band. So in these terms, the "movement" would be comparable in notability to, say, Virtual XI World Tour. We have a Virtual XI World Tour article, so we can well also have a The Zeitgeist Movement article, but people need to stop trying to inflate the topic's notability. As long as such attempts are being made, we need to keep the article tagged for NPOV review. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

When dealing with the question of "real world" notability of online fads, it is useful to turn to google books. Online phenomena which are truly notable will eventually turn up in print. Check out "Facebook": about 130,000 hits since 2008. Take this as a benchmark for the number of google hits for an online product with undisputedly significant impact on the "real world".

Now, how many hits for "Zeitgeist movement" since 2008? two. Two mentions in three years. Of these two mentions,

  • one is a citation of the zeitgeist.com website in a bibliography. The movement isn't even mentioned in the main text.
  • the other, single remaining mention that turned up on google books is: Michael Sturgulewski, The Zeitgeist Movement and the Historical Jesus: Separating Fact from Fiction CreateSpace, 2009. CreateSpace is an online self-publishing outfit where anyone willing to pay for it can turn their pdf files into ISBN'd books.

That's it, that's the entire notability of this movement over the period of three years. In other words, I very much doubt that this topic can be argued to have a notability even approaching that of an article like Virtual XI World Tour. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone who is well informed about this movement and is not biased willing to rewrite the "criticisms" section? It looks like the criticisms sound like being a debate; for example, the phrase "which is false" sounds authoritative. What do you think? Raigainousa (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT

<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present]</ref>

Request Full protection

{{editprotected}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs)


Why? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You guys crack me up. You’re a world wide organization—I have no idea what your world wide strategy here is, but good luck with it because it must be succeeding :) ---(Gharr (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC))
Technocracy - born in the thirties, indistinguishable to me - where's the link to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.145.192 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter Joseph on 'Russia Today' Sept 14th '11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_btXktBTEi8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is part of a Zeitgeist profile-raising and advertising campaign

This article is fundamentally partisan because it was created specifically to raise the profile of the Zeitgeist Movement in their attempt to get more traffic so they can market their merchandise.

Groups like the Zeitgeist Movement are obsessed with using the figures of their traffic and email recipients to build an exaggerated image of mass membership because they know it raises their profile. A Wikipedia article is one of their ways of creating this false image of significance. The Zeitgeist Movement's membership statistic is based on an email list, which accounts mainly for people who merely hovered on their site for minutes and then left. The notion of mass membership is false. There are at most 20 people involved in the management of the Zeitgeist Movement and they are mainly trying to sell merchandise such as printed t-shirts through hype. Even Jacques Fresco, the person ZM is supposed to be supporting, is not a member of the Zeitgeist Movement and has discouraged the movement. This article is essentially an ad for a minor cyber-sect, it has no informative purpose for Wikipedia browsers, and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.150.96 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Article does not explain what movement is

I came to Wikipedia because I didn't know what the Zeitgeist Movement was. After reading this article, I still don't. Is it possible to put aside the various disputes on this talk page long enough for someone to write a few sentences about what the movement is, what its goals are, who participates in it, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.243.210 (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll try my best to explain it. The Zeitgeist Movement is basically supporting a "Movement in the spirit of the times", or more precisely a change in our behavior. Scientific research and 'common knowledge' clearly shows us that our current system (monetary system IN COMBINATION WITH technological improvement) is unsustainable. That is why the movement promotes an erosion of our current socioeconomic ways. This stems from the Venus Project (which should have most of the credit of the idea of a resource based economy). I hope this clearifies things a bit. It's easier for me to answer direct questions than give a full explanation of the train of thought within these new movements (Zeitgeist Movement, Venus Project, Occupy Movement, Freeworldcharter.org, Open Source thinking etc.) René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement

I propose we clean this page up, it bears all the hallmarks of something written by the guys who run Zeitgeist and I think most of it needs to go. I vote we remove the 'Rational Skepticism' tags because, frankly, as much as I think 'Rational Skeptic' is generally code for 'holds a very biased and negative view of certain subjects which they are committed and determined to debunk no matter what', we are talking about a group of admitted and rather dotty conspiracy theorists here. Real 'rational skeptics' don't like them very much.

The Zeitgeist movies are farcically bad, so bad they would be funny if they weren't so outright manipulative, their creator is a troll who accuses anyone who criticizes them as being 'insane', a fair few of their supporters think the Haiti earthquake was a man-made conspiracy and even quite a few of the 'Truther' movements are against them. Hadashi (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done some clear-up, however I think this will probably be reverted immediately. I couldn't get the system for placing the same citation (<ref name=ZD2009 />) twice to work so there are currently two instances of the New York reference. Hadashi (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
About WP Rational Skepticism, if you're sure this article isn't within their scope of interest, you should take it to the project's talk page to actually ask the actual members of the project. Before that, please read about the goals of the project here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, and maybe you'll agree that it's beneficial to keep the article in that project's scope. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, Ok, that seems fair enough, I only raise this because TZM members often identify as 'rational skeptics' and I was trying to discourage this as they are plainly not. Hadashi (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Lots of maturity here. I don't know who all you trolls are but this is absurd. Those of you that choose to manipulate this page to paint an unfair picture of TZM will not be tolerated. Wikipedia is about what is happening and what is stated when it comes to an org. Not what your opinion or disagreement is. TZM also is a seperate idea from Peter Joseph's films so those posted such references are also out of line. Please people - have some respect and get your facts straight. Reinventor098 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding criticism to a page does not "paint an unfair picture", and nor does it make us 'trolls'. Your language makes you seem positively totalitarian. I've heard these same arguments hundreds of times before - your movement is not immune to criticism. If the criticism is invalid, fair enough, but the stuff that was put on the page relates to a film made by the founder of your movement as a way of spreading its ideas. Hadashi (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Skeptic Project" flamers need to stop trolling this page

Listen Anti-Z people: You can fight it all you like in your little blog world. However, Wikipedia is about what is happening and provable, not what you think the quality of TZM is. It just pathetic to those who come here and post crap blog rants about TZM about pretend it is a source. Live and let live. I will be watching this page to profile you trolls who continue this and will make sure you are removed from Wikipedia. Reinventor098 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Listen Pro-Z person. Wikipedia isn't here as your own personal soapbox. And throwing threats around isn't going to improve the article. Find proper sources for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You just exposed your bias and hence your epic fail. Listen- this is an article about what TZM is. If you don't want them on Wikipedia, then ask for the articles to be removed. Otherwise, you are just trolling Reinventor098 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. And how do you know what my 'biases' are? In any case, this article must be sourced properly, and primary sources affiliated with the movement aren't unacceptable, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Skeptic project has plenty of [good sources] from what I can see. The films you guys made (which you are rather embarrassed about and keep editing) has none. TZM is not immune to criticism, people have (and will continue to) criticise you. Organisations like this all have criticism sections, and need them. Hadashi (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
TZM is not about the original Zeitgeist film. What are you, high? If you want sources, I have hundreds, but I don't even see a point in trying to mod the article with all the fucking trolling going on. 68.106.97.206 (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Adding a criticism section is not trolling. Swearing, throwing around insults, and threatening to get people thrown off the website, however, is trolling. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The Problem is not a criticism section, the problem is that there are certain individuals now that come up out of no where and wanting a crap load of stuff removed because they say that it doesn't have relevant third party sources, without naming parts of the article and even antagonistic towards others who would challenge their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This article doesn't have a lot of reliable third-party sources, and a fair amount of this article does need to be removed or rewritten due to a blatantly promotional tone. Zazaban (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
And what exactly are you referring to as "blatantly promotional tone?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
What you just re-added isn't part of what is the issue, which is dubious claims about the widespread support and significance of TZM. Voiceofreason, please assume good faith, stop assuming that every edit you don't like is biased, and drop the confrontational tone. Zazaban (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I seem to be confrontational, I just think people should be wary of individuals using specific buzz words and what the history behind these words being used to describe the movement is to detail. That was my main purpose, that and I do have a sort of unconscious reaction towards these words being used to begin with. That being said, I haven't made any referent to an edit being biased just cause I don't like it. I have only ever done this once in my entire time and that was towards Dingle when expressed a personal opinion of why he edited the article. I did leave room for the article to be removed still by those who could at least demonstrate why it should be removed using Wiki's article. I have not disputed any of the changes that most of you have decided to make considering you base it off of the rules of Wikipedia and even though I am a member of TZM, I agree with the neutral tag as I have yet to dispute it at all. I have seen a lot of edit wars going on where one or two users would try to overtly abuse Wiki's rules in an attempt to draw controversy over an article to get it deleted where their was no dispute before the edit wars started. So apologize if I was starting to assume vandalism on anyone's part as a result where there was none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
So is this an accusation of my "edit being biased" or is it a retraction of the accusation? It might be a good idea to review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially the part saying Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are sourced from third-party reliable sources.

Except this one apparently, which has precisely one source (a 2009 NYT article) that isn't a product of the 'movement' or its associates. Before I delete swathes of this article as the unsourced puffery it clearly is, does someone care to find evidence that anyone is actually taking any notice of them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Third Party sources depend on the context. In the section regarding what The Zeitgeist Movement is and does, only its own internal sources are valid. This is not an issue of opinion but an issue of fact. Reinventor098 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:RS. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
NYTimes and Huffington Post coverage suffices, I'm sure they've been covered in at least one other reliable third-party source, so notability is clear. You can also see from the previous AfDs that this has been discussed earlier. And besides that, it's okay to use primary sources as references, just not for all kinds of statements.
And, people, please keep it cool. WP:CIVIL is a policy. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Primary TZM sources can be used for their opinions, certainly. They cannot be used for statements of fact. So no, the NYT and Huffington Post coverage can only be relevant for what it says - and the vast majority of this article isn't sourced from them. It is for those providing content to provide acceptable sources - and that is all I'm asking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So what exactly do you have a problem with? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have a problem with assertions of fact being sourced from TZM. The article still has far too many of them. If this movement is as significant as the article claims, there should be more evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I get it, but which ones? All of them? Or which ones do you think are so controversial or dubious? According to Wikipedia's policy, references are needed for statements that have been questioned or can reasonably be expected to be questioned. I wouldn't have expected that someone would question the fact that the first Z-Day was held in 2009 if primary sources say it was. If you're biased against the subject and want to question every single statement just to have a maximum amount of contents removed from here, then I can't even WP:AGF anymore. Try to be more compromising.
The article doesn't claim that the movement is "significant", btw. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
"WP:CIVIL is a policy", as you said earlier. Again, I'm being accused of being 'biased against the subject'. I'm not. I'm biased against articles that use primary sources to promote organizations. Where are the third-party sources to support the 'Chapters' section? Where are the third-party sources reporting on the media sections? And how is Travis Walter Donovan of the Huffington Post a reliable source? His article seems to be another TZM puff-piece. I suppose that we'll have to ask at WP:RSN, but his piece hardly reads to me as a neutral assessment of the movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
CIVIL is irrelevant, I said I can't AGF endlessly when you're acting like an antagonist. I really don't see what the problem is in using primary sources to describe how their own internal structure and such things work. It's to flesh out the article.
If you think there's an issue with the HuffPost author, take it to RSN yourself. The article is published on Huffington Post and that's good enough for me. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If you "really don't see what the problem is in using primary sources to describe how their own internal structure and such things work" then I suggest you read WP:RS. Organizations can and do make all sorts of claims regarding membership, structure and the like. We have no way to verify if they are true, and no need to anyway - if such material can't be sourced elsewhere, there is little reason to include it in an article, given that it can be of little interest to anyone other than those already involved. I've now done some searching, and there seems to be little media coverage of this 'movement' - certainly not enough to make "claims to hold over 1000 regional chapters across 70 countries" seem remotely plausible. If it is true, then provide the evidence.
As for the HuffPost blog, I'll need to look into this further, but I suspect it will end up at WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a "blog"? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what the source says - just above the author's name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

misrepresentation of the topic and eating up the article edit by edit

[1] The organization is specifically about replacing opinions with the scientific method. This shows you not to know what the topic is. Perhaps we need to word this more clearly. The way you grab the microphone and pretend to represent the organization isn't appropriate. That part is obvious.

Also replacing the mention of 600 simultaneous events with a single one not just seems like an attempt to marginalize the topic.

original text:

  • In March 13, 2011 there were more than 300 events held in 60 countries around the world. Lectures were given to an audience of 1100 at "Friends House" in Euston, London.

Your idea of coverage:

  • In March 13, 2011 lectures were given to an audience at "Friends House" in Euston, London.

Clearly an attempt towards marginalization. The source might be primary, it will do just fine unless some one objects. Your objection appears nothing more than an attempt towards misrepresentation. We already had a lone admin who thought it was cool to lock the article and misrepresent the movement pretending it should be perfectly cool with everyone while it obviously is not.

http://zday2010.org/zday-events/zday-2011

That and the number in the NYT should be good enough.

  • [2]"the Worldwide Zeitgeist Movement, which, its organizers said, held 450 sister events in 70 countries around the globe."

But what am I even talking about, you've basically deleted the entire article line by line.

An historic event only has to be note worthy in that time frame, when such notability is established it doesn't just vanish over time.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The NYT wrote that Zeitgeist "organizers said" the events were held. It isn't a source for an assertion that they were. If events have taken place, provide reliable third-party sources that actually say they did. As for 'historic events', I don't think that you are quite in the position to make an objective judgement. We aren't going to hand the article over to you to spin. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources are good. Just deleting the entire article line by line does not qualify as productive editing. You are not improving anything. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It now says: "Zeitgeist claims that In 2009 there were more than 450 events held in 70 countries around the world"[3]

Exactly the way it did a week ago.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia be interested in what Zeitgeist claims? Our articles are supposed to be about notable events, not unverifiable spin. If Zeitgeist wants to claim things, it can do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources provided offer any credible evidence of a global event. All "facts" regarding a large scale event such as 300+ global events needs some reliable sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seagram (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is constantly vandalized

Listen: If you don't like TZM- good for you. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a correct, basic unbiased representation on Wikipedia. I will be reporting all actions from here out if this biased vandalism continues. There is a basic set of simple data about Press, Actions and true references to the Mission Statement of The Zeitgeist Movement. If you want to "invent" their purpose to spins it -- please do so on the many hate blogs out there -- have some respect for what wikipedia is supposed to be doing here. Seriously.Reinventor098 (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'movement', unless you can provide independent reliable sources that say so, as far as Wikipedia (and reality) is concerned. Just another insignificant cult... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy! Thats nice. Good to see how qualified you are to edit this page since you have a clear hatred for the group. Keep vandalizing so I can keep reporting you! Reinventor098 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating your stupidity and paranoia. I don't hate the group. I do however dislike people misusing Wikipedia to promote their organisations, whether they are large or small, significant or insignificant, and then hurling abuse around like a schoolboy when told that they have to conform to policy, the same way that everyone else does. And where have you reported me? Unless you have been editing under another name, you've not posted at anything but this article, and the one on Peter Joseph. Of course, if you do want to report me, I'd suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first. Otherwise, unless you've got something constructive (like reliable sources for relevant information on TZM), I suggest you troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Read WP:VANDALISM and don't use the word "vandalism" to attack people who you disagree with.
I'm not sure what exactly is the nature of the perceived problem, but there exists a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and at the top of that page there's a box with links to other noticeboards. Choose the most applicable noticeboard to report people or issues at. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It is prudent to understand that the only ones that ever use the term cult to describe TZM are individuals who's only interest is in defaming those associated with TZM for their ideological purposes OR they are specific trolls who frequent the forums of conspiracyscience.com Which are you AndyTheGrumpy or are you the exception to the rule that I have all too often experienced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I used the term cult as is it is understood in the social sciences: a small inward-looking ideologically or religiously-driven group characterised by a sense of its own uniqueness and an unrealistic assessment of its own importance, often seeing the outside world as conspiring against it. Of course, if you want to believe that everyone who refuses to acknowledge the universal wisdom of your great political insights is a Freemason, a CIA agent or a shape-shifting-lizard, I doubt that I'm going to convince you otherwise. In any case, all this ridiculous waffle about 'vandalism' is achieving is making the 'movement' look even less worthy of attention. If I'm wrong, an it has the massive support and mainstream credibility that it claims for itself, prove it: show us the evidence. That is all that is being asked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The majority of the people I have talked to, the lectures I have witnessed and even everything else regarding the social system in which they advocate does not warrant the claim that the group believes in a secret kabal of conspirators, and neither is that my view. What you just engaged in is an ad hominem thank you very much. As for your definition of a cult; their are psychological and sociological parameters a movement must meet before being given that reference. What is your evidence and psychological parameters your referring too? I also made a keen observation as to those who use the term cult to describe TZM Andy; it is a verified FACT that the only ones who have ever used the term cult are individuals on the internet with their only intent being is to defame the character of activists in order to get them to stop (my YT account was hacked by such trolls) or people with a deliberate dislike for the movement based on ideological differences. I asked which were you as a means to sort of flush out whether or not you would even dispute being apart of these and perhaps express confusion, since you have not I think it's a worthwhile guess that my assumption was correct. That being said, I don't mind if the article is deleted because of a lack of notice, I also don't mind adding a criticism section so long as the criticisms are actually valid and not just created strawmen. I am not against any of these things, what I am against is people editing the page with an apparent bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
None of this has the slightest bearing on article content. I'm not interested in reading more delusional conspiracy theories - and since it is a fact that I'm not one of the "individuals on the internet with their only intent being is to defame the character of activists", the fact that you imply I am - on the basis on no evidence whatsoever - confirms my characterisation. As for 'ideological differences', my politics are none of your business. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The subject of this particular thread is about the article being vandalized and since you were called out on it and made a derogatory remark about the movement being a cult, I pointed out a keen observation as to those who engage in such rhetoric. You then referred to me as being a conspiracy theorist in that I believe in an NWO regarding Freemasons, CIA agents or shape-shifting reptilians when in fact such a comment steams of only an ad hominem and adds nothing but in your attempt to get me to engage in a flame war with you. I also did not imply anything about you being these individuals, I am stating that the people engage in the use of the word "cult" to describe TZM are people who have engaged in such acts, and this is an EXCLUSIVE phenomenon related only to these anti-TZM trolls or people with ideological differences. My accusation of you being one of these in the first place with sarcastic to begin with (in the sense that I did not think you were, but considering your constant reference of trying to defame my own character just to make me look bad on this forum here seems to speak for itself. That being said, I only accuse others of vandalization based on their history of edits or based on the edits made. I don't think you are here to vandalize this article, but the more you try to character assassinate me here in this thread and the more you act antagonistic towards those who are asking for clarification or trying to correct you or even challenge your assumption as well as being generally disrespectful to those in this talk page who don't take your side, I am inclined to think otherwise. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay guys, take your personal disagreements outside or stick to discussing the actual contents of this article. While you take a moment to chill, have a read over WP:VANDALISM ("vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, don't just throw that word around), WP:AGF (assume good faith), and WP:NPA (no personal attacks). The above convo about trolls and cults is not very interesting or helpful for the rest of us. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that as originally posted, this section was in itself a personal attack on me. [4] - The next time I see this sort of behaviour, from anyone, I shall report it. Likewise, any accusation of 'vandalism' that doesn't come within the definition in WP:VANDALISM will be reported. Consider this a final warning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

It is not important or relevant that the current members of the group/movement don't want to be associated with The Venus Project, it's a historical fact that TZM acted as the activist arm of TVP (and was very largely inspired by TVP's ideas!). Please stop removing mentions of TVP from the article. You can present the movement however you like on your own websites, Wikipedia serves a different purpose. It's also true that the Zeitgeist films spawned the movement, whether they're officially considered to have done so or not. It's also true that people outside the movement probably can't name anyone else but Peter Joseph from the "leaders" of the movement, he is definitely a "key person". You'll notice there are other fields in the infobox for actual leaders and such -- we didn't use those fields. "Key people" is a milder term. It doesn't even mean anything official, it just means he's one of the visible people associated with the movement, which he is. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We need to make this absolutely clear. This isn't TZM's article. It is an article about TZM, as reported by reliable third-party sources. That is the way Wikipedia works. This isn't optional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Not really. There is such thing called WP:ABOUTSELF which clearly states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" Avashurov (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, really. WP:ABOUTSELF:
Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
If you are going to cite policy, read it first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I did. And the presented information about movement Structure, Activities, Direction, Organization, Projects, Affiliation and so on does not violate any of the counts. If you disagree point at the part that does.Avashurov (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly - you are making repeated self-serving claims about the organization, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Do you rally think we are going to take the word of a political movement regarding the scope of its activities - and do you really think we care about every blog or press release from your organization, or about the vaguely-complementary remarks of an actor toward a film that wasn't made by TZM? The whole article is being transformed into a puff-piece for TZM, based on nothing but unverifiable spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I've just yanked out the "reception" section. It was pure quote-farm that was only positive quotes. It was not in any way encyclopediac in nature. Something like that is fine for a group's website but not for a WP article about the group. Ravensfire (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This is Social movement, not a political one.Avashurov (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
From our Political movement article: "A political movement is a social movement in the area of politics". A good enough definition in my mind, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that a movement with the objective of "the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered the Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions" wasn't operating in the area of politics. Not that it matters - we rely on how reliable sources describe such things, not our own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Andy again really? "Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social change." That is from Social Movement here on Wikipedia, so yes TZM is defined as a SOCIAL MOVEMENT as it is talking about and pinpointing structure, social, political and economic flaws in the systems that uphold them and advocate for a new social system without politics or monetary based economics. This is specific as they are targeting systems rather than a broad social arrangement, you're talking about the presentation for which they use to explain this, that is a totally different thing in and of itself. I think you might want to get your definitions straightened out before hoping to it.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This is of no relevance whatsoever to article content. If secondary sources say that TZM is involved in politics, then so will we, if they don't, we won't. That TZM has a peculiar interpretation of the word 'politics' is their problem, not ours... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I have just removed a lot of detailed information about the organisation's activities sourced entirely to its own publicity. If the world outside has paid no attention to these activities, then neither do we. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy, if my comment is irrelevant to the content of the article, then you're comment is as equally invalid. I only added the clarification in case someone saw your post about it being a political movement and decided to add that tag to it or make a necessary edit as to it being a political movement. So yes, my comment is valid to the content of the article because it is defining what TZM would be, which would be apart of the article itself. You also seem to have made it a recent habit of stating that others' comments and responses to you for which you have no rebuttal or reply to as declaring it irrelevant even though you're previous comment before the reply would have made the exact same criteria. Either stop engaging in kettle logic and be consistent or don't reply to irrelevant posts. Now to Dingle, you engaged in a specific removal of information about the activities of an organization based on your own personal opinion, this is a violation of Wikipedia's standard editing process regarding Bias, I suggest you look it up yourself. I will be undoing your editing as a result of this, if anyone else wishes to delete this based on Wikipedia's rules then go right ahead, just be explicit about it is all that is asked.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Put it back and it will be removed again. It was not removed due to any personal bias, but because it was inappropriate in language and without third-party sources, as has been explained repeatedly by several different people. Zazaban (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The information that was removed was regarding the relevant projects by Dingle and he has done this in his own expressed words, "If the world outside has paid no attention to these activities, then neither do we." This is an expression of personal opinion, not an expression of it violating wikipedia's article. Now if you would like to give me an explicit reason based on the rules of Wikipedia why the information regarding TZM's project's should be taken down then by all means go ahead; but this is expressly about one recent edit that was made, not the previous edits made you're apparently referencing.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it is an expression of this website's policy. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We do not need details of every small event that this movement holds, especially ones that only it reports. Zazaban (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This is not "personal opinion", it is a core policy. To spell it out in tedious detail -- the assertions I removed were sourced only to the organisation's own web site, a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF 1, 2 and 5, and hence not appropriate for the content in question. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I am having a hard time understanding the case being made here, might be because of a lack of sleep I do not know really. But for the record here is what I am disputing the legitimacy of it being removed: "Other projects include a weekly radio show that features different project and Chapter Coordinators [tzm_radio_shows], a media project, an official blog for contribution, a user submitted site for science and technology information. [5]" These are sources and everything that I did undid as a result. So Dingle, if you can explain to me how this violates what you say it does, it will be greatly appreciated as I am having a hard time understanding how a reference towards various projects TZM has going on is "unduly self-serving," "involve claims about third parties," and "the article is not based primarily on such sources." However, Dingle you gave the reason you edited it as "If the world outside has paid no attention to these activities, then neither do we," which makes no reference to anything regarding WP Standard for editing and read by anyone else, they would regard it as "your opinion. I apologize if I misunderstood you, but when in doubt clarify. Also, if Andy could give his reason for it violating the tags he indicated that would be helpful too. It might just a simple misunderstanding on one of our parts, or maybe its just the lack of sleep.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Material must be supported by "reliable, published sources that are appropriate". These are not, since they are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The exception for self-published material does not apply since the material is self-serving, in that it promotes the activities of the organisation, and in the state I found it the article was indeed based primarily, indeed almost entirely, on those self-published sources. We demand appropriate sources and if those sources do not exist then we do not, indeed cannot, write an article on that subject. A snappy summary of that is "If the world outside has paid no attention to these activities, then neither do we". Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see now, so it had to do with the content of the source itself rather than the way the source portrayed the original claim being made. I was a bit confused there for a moment so I guess I didn't understand Wikipedia policy like I thought I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It is the nature of the source. That is, is it a reliable source on which we can base verifiable encyclopaedic content? Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Reception section

The reception section was a collection of carefully chosen, pro-Zeitgest quotes tossed in the article with nothing else. I removed the section as a quotefarm, POV and not encyclopediac in nature. Avashurov added the section back but removed the quotes, so it's now essentially a list of articles/sources. No context. No information. Just a list of article. I removed that with the edit comment of "Still removing the section - that's basically a list of sources. You need to write it in summary form and include both sides". Avashurov reverted that, saying it was my opinion. Rather than continue into an edit war, let's discuss this. The section, as it's written adds nothing to the article of an encyclopediac nature. That's contrary how article should appear on WP. A reception section is probably valid, but it MUST be written in summary style, based on sources and be balanced in it's coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is important as it adds to notability. It also includes both sides, for example New York Times criticized it "The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life." If you have other critique from reliable sources, please, fill free to include it.Avashurov (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Then it needs to be written in summary form. Not a collection of quotes. Not a collection of articles. A summary of the reception the group has had from various areas. As it currently stands, it's not something that should be in a WP article. Ravensfire (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There only dates, names and titles are left. Are you suggesting a summery of the articles instead. Then it would have to include quotes and would be about 5 times bigger.Avashurov (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No, extensive content from the articles is even less needed. We don't need to detail the contents of the articles here, all that should be there is a list of where the movement has been mentioned, with sources, probably only a short paragraph. Maybe one brief quote from one article, but nothing more. Dates names and titles should go in the footnotes section and not in the main part of the article. Zazaban (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Venus Project section

The tag about copyright violation placed by Ravensfire is inapplicable as there is no copyrighted material presented. The information presented is important as The Venus Project has played significant role in The Zeitgeist Movement's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avashurov (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If material is copied from elsewhere, we have to assume that it is a copyright violation unless evidence to the contrary is given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
What copyright violation? The information is from FAQ section of the movement's web-site it describes.Avashurov (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It is - and at the bottom it reads "© Copyright 2008-2011 The Zeitgeist Movement ®. Portions Licensed under the Creative Commons License" - not entirely clear, but we have to be careful. Note that it is the wording that may be copyright, not the information - all that is required is that it be paraphrased. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Bingo. Avashurov, please read WP:COPYVIO for more information.
That's hardly the only section with possible copyright problems. Take any of the techno-speak phrases in the article and google them and you get hits. See From the lede and from the RBE section as examples. I suspect there were more but trimming and non-SPA editors revamping the language has helped. Ravensfire (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
And to be clear, there's nothing to prevent say small portions of the FAQ being quoted directly - as long as it is properly attributed. It's copy-and-pasting text without putting it in quote marks that is the problem - and actually, even if it isn't a copyright violation, an unattributed copy-paste is considered plagiarism by Wikipedia - we need to have a proper record of who actually wrote what. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Zazaban Please, provide justification of your neutrality dispute so I can improve it or remove the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avashurov (talk • contribs) 06:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that almost all of the article is sourced to TZM, rather than to third parties, I'd have thought it was obvious. How many times do you have to be told that this isn't your article, it is Wikipedia's? AS long as the article lacks proper sourcing, it will remain tagged - or be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing is the reason it's tagged with POV tag. I'm not sure about that tag as WP:ABOUTSELF seems to allow describing itself. Who better can define the movement's structure and organization then the movement itself? However the neutrality tag is not justified. If some part of the article is not objective enough, please, point it out.Avashurov (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
No. We have already explained this. We don't give a rat's arse what the "movement" claims about its "structure and organization" - unless it is is reported in third-party sources it isn't going in the article. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
TZM is not a reliable source about itself, as, after all, it wishes to paint itself in the most positive possible light. Wikipedia never users primary sources. This article as it currently stands is essentially an advertisement. Judging from the talk page, there are members of the movement keeping an eye on the page to veto any additions that are anything but highly positive in tone, which is beyond unacceptable. The 'Activities and Publications" section should be cut to at most two paragraphs, and I just removed a pamphlet-like "and more" from the end of the list of events, and I should not have to explain why that does not belong. Zazaban (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Re neutrality, it's understandable that the pro-TZM people here can't see it but the overall tone of the article is subtly (or not so subtly) promotional or approving. That combined with the excessive use of primary sources and being written by editors with a WP:COI, warrants the neutrality tag, which should stay until the article is clearly neutral. Regular editors have been trying to fix the issues but the (Redacted) keep returning the article to its POV state. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy and it mandates at WP:SELFPUB that
Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
At present it looks like this article is in breach of 1, 2 and 5. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Philosophy section.

Can somebody explain to me what is trying to be said here? It is so stuffed with buzzwords that I can't make heads or tails of it. If it means anything at all it should be rewritten in plain English. Zazaban (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And Avashurov's revision of this [6] is even less intelligible. Can I ask that those making substantive edits to the article at least attempt to communicate in something approximating to the English language? AndyTheGrump (talk)
I have read it over and over again and even asked somebody else to try reading it, and the conclusion I have come to is that it is, more or less, an extremely fancy way of stating 'the movement promotes a society where the facilities of logic and the scientific method, though advanced technology, will be used to find the best possible solutions [imp. to the world's problems],' or something of that nature. Which is still vague almost to the point of meaninglessness. (What movement doesn't claim to aim for 'the best possible solutions?') Zazaban (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup. A technocratic utopian socialism, of sorts. Tony Blair's New Labour 'things can only get better' meets William Morris at a Star Trek convention. Marxism without dialectics. Humanism without people. Political analysis without theory - or anything much in the way of analysis either. But that is my opinion, and as such irrelevant to article content. If TZM are capable of writing a coherent explanation of their philosophy, we can of course quote them directly. They are the best source for their ideas - but only when we can understand them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I am attempting to improve clarity, but it is somewhat like wading through mud with metal boots on. Zazaban (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether we understand it, and the article talk page isn't a place for discussing its meaning or debating its validity. If the organisation itself puts out a suitable short summary of its own philosophy, then we can and should quote it directly, duly attributed, whether or not you or I think it makes sense. If an independent reliable source, or an identifiable consensus of such sources, can interpret it, or place it on the political spectrum, or in a social trend, then we include that interpretation, again duly attributed. What we do not do is original research to try to work out what on earth it means. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right, and I will revert back. Zazaban (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is we are taking Avashurov as a source for TZM - and we can't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
If the consensus here is that a certain portion of text (in the voice of the encyclopaedia) is meaningless, then of course it must be removed. But if a quotation is accurate, then our views on its meaning are irrelevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It is almost meaningless, since what it states is so general that it could apply to almost every social movement, but it does in fact mean something. I don't think it's a direct quote, however, and it is about 70% wooden language. Zazaban (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Since there appears to be no independent source for the organisation's philosophy, probably best to directly quote something from them that can be identified as a summary of the beliefs, if there is such a thing. If not, then we say nothing, because there's nothing verifiable to say. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the philosophy section is necessary at all, what we're aiming to cover can be covered in summary in the Activities section -- the section describes what they do and what they promote. It's not like they're a philosophical movement, most of their focus is on practical reality. If there's anything valuable in the current Philosophy section then I vote we rephrase it and move it to Activities (we can of course also rename that subsection if there's a better alternative).

Not that it's very important but I was a TZM supporter a couple of years ago (and still find TVP fascinating) -- I don't agree with the above notions that their actual views are vague and meaningless. I don't know what they're up to these days, but in any case the portion of text that you're confused about is not the same thing as their actual views.

If anyone has time, the fourth and fifth faq may be useful (in looking for their own description of their philosophy): http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq4 — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be important to mention somewhere: "Out of a general respect to TVP's work with what they consider to be the proprietary notion of a "Resource-Based Economy" [RBE] and its definition, some in The Movement prefer to adapt to the term "Resource-Based Economic Model" [RBEM] to separate from the Fresco-specific association/definition and allow for a more general flexible understanding of the Train of Thought." (The movement itself uses the term/abbreviation RBEM, which should be mentioned in the article.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right about the summary being the same as their views, but as I said, we have to go by what the sources say. If no independent reliable source has thought it worth commenting on this philosophy then there is nothing we can write about it, and so we should write nothing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed the movement really really likes technical sounding buzzwords and abreviations, and it likes capitalizing them too to emphasize their importance, but I don't know if they all need to be mentioned here just because TZM likes to use them. 'RBEM' is essentially insider jargon, meaningless to the uninitiated. And, pardon me, the differentiation between it and 'RBE' strikes me as an attempt to assert uniqueness though semantic hair-splitting. Zazaban (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I vaguely recall that the term 'Resource Based Economy' was trademarked or something of the sort by TVP, so using an alternative term might've been because of that. (And on a sidenote, I don't believe they deliberately over-do it with the jargon.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven at one blow

The article has just been tagged for advert, fansite, globalize, onesource, technical, refimprove and toofewopinions all in one go. Discussion of one, some or all of those would be useful. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they're all unjustified. Basically all statements have been properly referenced (in the current version, but watch out for the fanboy edits), and since it's an organization then I don't see why it would be mandatory for critical opinions to be included. Of course if such opinions existed in RS then I'd include them but if they don't then I don't think the tag is very helpful either. It's not like we have put undue weight on the org's own views here, I think we have barely enough, in fact. The article should sufficiently explain what their views are and what they do, to actually be informative, if it's written in NPOV then it's not an 'advertisement'. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as including critical opinions is concerned, we need to accurately reflect what independent reliable sources say. If it so happens that they are largely critical, then we give due weight to that. (I don't say whether or not they are in this case.) Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Duh, but they're not, that's the problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
What are "direct scientific resource management" and "crowd sourced volunteer technicians", which both crop up in the lead. Such terms should serve as page links or be expressed in a more readily understandable manner; the article currently is a very grim tale. The last paragraph also excessively details minor insignificant details in an undue manner. It is not an encyclopaedic article but an aggregation of minutiae that would be better condensed into a couple of lines.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, are you sure you know what you're doing? Why did you revert that edit of mine? I made the part about the 2011 and 2012 ZDay events a bit shorter since they didn't receive outside coverage. If that wasn't okay then I'm sorry I'm not a mind reader and can't tell what your actual issue was. And can you or anyone maybe point out where these alleged 'buzzwords' are so we'll know what to fix? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General practise is to try to identify the problem before a removal of a tag and a subsequent reversion. You may not be a mind reader but you also appear not to be much of a page reader either. Read the post immediately above yours; perhaps the language was too technical for you to understand it first time?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the buzzwords, the tag and necessary repetition. For example, a "resource-based economy" covers the meaningless argot of "economic decisions are arrived at using scientific resource management". I have similarly removed unverified claims.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to unwatch this now, feel free to ruin the article as you please. Ankh, I had edited both of those terms that you quoted and either way they didn't seem to qualify as 'buzzwords'. But thanks for insulting me anyway. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, buzz-phrases or buzz-sentences would be more apt. Removing "direct" from "direct scientific resource management" was hardly a significant improvement to your incoherent mumbo-jumbo. I suggest your confine your proselytising attempts to your "numerous global events" and stop treating Wiki as your pulpit.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Ankh, I didn't write the original sentence, and you really seem to be mistaking me for someone else here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my previous allegation; my mind is somewhat addled from explicating the inpenetrable blabber.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

neutrality-delete?honeypot - who cares= delete

The article, which bases mostly on orginal sources, cannot be held neutral, because of zg people trying to influence it in their way of thinking. It should better be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogotron (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More false accusations of 'vandalism'.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated false accusations of 'vandalism' etc at The Zeitgeist Movement article. Since the person reported isn't the only one making such false accusations, I suggest that other TZM supporters take note, and consider their actions before engaging in such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see we have a new batch of TZM sock/meatpuppets attempting to spin the article. This isn't going to work. THere are only two possible outcomes: (a) a neutral article on the movement, based (with the exception of statements about what the movement believes in) to reliable third-party sources, or (b) no article at all. Wikipedia rarely appreciates POV-pushing, and appreciates it even less when it is done in complete disregard for every policy and guideline we have. This infantile behaviour can only reflect negatively on TZM, in any case. If TZM wants to be taken seriously as a movement, this is a bizarre way to go about it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that someone made false accusations, and to see that any individual is 'responsible' for the entire movement.

The article still doesn't reflect what the movement is, and that is unfortunate. For example, the critizesing of the fractional reserve banking system, needs further explanation. The socalled 'critique' stems from observation and research into the current socio-economic system. It would be great if we could come to an agreement of what should be written in the article and what should not. And for the criticism source; a criticism section. For the sources from the Zeitgeist Movement; they are the main description of the movement, as they are from the movement. Not forum posts, but mission statement and such.René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and it would also be great if someone could point to some independent reliable sources that would allow us to give a neutral description of the movement. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The trouble is that this organization is barely notable. It only gets in the media when it occasionally releases a movie or holds an event (and that one time a kid spray-painted the word "Zeitgeist" on the side of a building). And even in those cases, reporting on what the movement actually is is limited to journalists regurgitating what it self-reports rather than doing any real research. It's a sad fact, but some articles will never be complete or even good, because they only just barely farted across notability line. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The education of a newbie

Ankh.Morpork, thank you for the feedback. Could you please explain exactly what is meant by 'more POV gobbledygook' and your objection to the resources I cited. I believe the resources are reasonably reliable. They contain articles in the NYT and the Huffington Post, and interviews in Russia Today (RT) and on the Larry King TV show in 1974. The references also contained books by Jacque Fresco and James S. Albus, a US government engineer and prolific inventor and author. As regards the reference by Elbus, I clearly articulated he does not mention TZM in his book, and I mentioned there are differences between Elbus's solutions and TZM's proposed solutions, but I also I explained that there are significant similarities between Elbus's views of the problems of the current global socio-economic system and the views of TZM. So respectfully could you please explain why these resources are considered 'unreliable.' I realize they are not peer-reviewed articles in academic/ professional journals. But the vast majority of resources in the vast majority of wikipedia articles are not peer-reviewed articles in academic/ professional journals. Why apply a different standard to this TZM article? Or am I wrong on this or missing something?

This may be an issue of Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. If I'm an inclusionist and another editor is, say, perhaps a deletionist, does the wholesale removal of my edits imply that the deletionist must prevail? Is this some sort of power play? Not sure.

But perhaps the most disturbing thing that happened is that all my edits were reverted wholesale, without a single edit remaining. This included not only the wholesale reversion of my attempts at trying to explain the basic principles of TZM/ RBE (since several previous readers commented on this talk page that they still don't understand the basic principles of TZM/RBE), , using what I believe was a reasonably neutral tone (and considering it is probably impossible to maintain a perfectly/ ideally neutral tone on such articles, because the subject matter is considerably out of the mainstream consensus). But perhaps just as disturbing is the wholesale deletion of my other edits which were only minor and moderate corrections of typos, modifications to clarify (but not significantly modify) existing sentences that existed on the page previously to my edits, and other similar minor to moderate edits that did not contain any POV (unless one applies a very liberal definition of POV)... all these edits have been censored, without exception, even those edits that had nothing to do with quoting sources (whether 'reliable' or 'unreliable') .... respectfully please explain. At the present time, these actions are very disquieting and disturbing. Best regards and thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is you that is doing the explaining: as has been pointed out multiple times, Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on the opinions of contributors. Find an article (or a TZM webpage, since it is their views you are writing about) which explains TZM's politics, cite it, and base your contributions on that. And please stop making allegations of 'vandalism' - the revision was clearly nothing of the sort. Regarding minor edits, fixes etc, it is best to do those separately to major changes that are likely to be problematic. It is easier to revert only the contentious material then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop fly-tipping inappropriate sources and links into this article. It appears that you are arbitrarily sprinkling around various sources throughout the article which hold little direct relevance to the content that they purportedly support. For example, you readily agree that James S Albus made no reference of the TZM, yet he is adduced twice to support material relating to TZM. A source is not simply an abstract academic text; it must directly and objectively support the material in the article, without personal interpretation or idiosyncratic delusions.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1. I believe we should not ignore the fact that the views of Albus on the problems with the current socio-economic system do indeed directly and objectively support the views of TZM on the same issues. In my view it may be better to expose the reader to an important, well-written and well-supported book such as (for example) that by Albus and let the reader decide for themselves whether there is a connection between the Albus book and TZM (even if it is only a partial connection, as they disagree on the solution, but they seem to agree on most important aspects of the problem(s)). And then, once the reader determines whether there is (or is not) a connection, they can read further and find-out for themselves the nature of the connection (if any). 2. This is also part of the reason why the 2 external links were included in the 'See Also' section. The Technocracy.org website does not mention TZM, but their views - on both the problem and the solution - are very similar (although not exactly identical) to those of TZM. And the freeworldcharter.org (FWC) website, which says it is independent of TZM, also holds very similar (almost identical) views to those of TZM, and it even mentions TZM (please see the free world charter Q & A). However, I admit to having made a mistake here. From reading WP:SEEALSO I now realize that external links do not belong in the 'See Also' section - the section is reserved for internal links to related Wikipedia articles; thus I apologize for my oversight for including external links there. But I do believe these two (external) links are relevant to the topic (TZM) and probably belong elsewhere on the TZM page. Please note that WP:SEEALSO states: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant...." 3. I am curious - why were the following references removed (I'm referring to the sources that were included in my prior edit, not today's edit)? (a) the two interviews with Peter Joseph on RT (Sept. 14, 2011 and Dec. 2, 2011), and (b) the interview with Peter Joseph on TheMarker. The removal of these references is surprising in view of the fact that there is already an existing reference to (another) RT interview with Peter Joseph on this (TZM) wiki page. Having access to the two additional RT interviews (and the TheMarker interview) could allow a reader of this TZM wiki page to gain further knowledge on the views/ ideas/ proposed-solutions of TZM, esp. considering some readers' comments alluding to the fact they still don't understand what TZM is all about even after reading the TZM wiki page. If the already-existing RT reference is relevant and acceptable, why aren't the two proposed RT references (and the TheMarker reference) also relevant and acceptable? Thanks and regards. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In answer to (1), what you believe is irrelevant. Unless you can provide a reliable source that makes the link between Albus and TZM, his book doesn't merit referring to. As for links, see WP:ELNO: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid... Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming". And the article need not contain repetitive links to multiple sources that aren't actually being cited for statements. If people want to find out more about what TZM's position is, we have already provided a link to their website. Given the failure of anyone to actually provide a useful published source for what TZM thinks, it is hardly surprising that our article is inadequate in that respect - but that is down to the fact that such sources appear not to exist, and until they do, we cannot report on it. This is an article about TZM, based on published sources. It is not TZM's article about themselves. That is the way Wikipedia works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Regretfully I probably disagree on almost every point. (a) I agree we should not link to a petition. (Although the FWC is a charter, thus I'm not sure the authors of WP:ELNO would classify it as a classic petition.) But please note that WP:ELNO also states that "one should generally avoid: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I think I established above that the two external links are relevant resources and thus there would have been a high probability that the two external links would be included in the article if it became a featured article. (b) I'm not sure what is meant by 'repetitive links'. The references/ resources already provided on this TZM wiki page and the three additional articles I proposed (two interviews with PJ on RT, and one print article published in TheMarker {Israel} offering a relatively detailed analysis/ study of the key ideas/ positions/ proposals of TZM, based in part on an interview with PJ) are not 'repetitive'. Yes, I agree that all interviews/ articles on TZM (including those already listed on the TZM wiki page e.g. the RT, NYT and HuffPo articles) have some areas of overlap/ repetition, but that is only natural because in each public/ TV/ newspaper/ media appearance/ interview, PJ (or any representative of TZM) is asked to repeat the key ideas/ key positions of TZM. But all the aforementioned articles and interviews on TZM are also distinct and each offers some thing(s) the others don't, and together, collectively, they contain more information/ insights/ knowledge/ analysis of TZM than any subset of the same articles and interviews (the sum is larger than any part). Arbitrarily limiting the access of the readers to a subset of the larger possible set of articles and interviews deprives the reader of readily-available further insights/ perspectives/ knowledge of the ideas and positions of TZM.... Anyway, thanks for providing feedback and for your time and effort. I'm looking forward to reading all answers and comments on these inquiries. Warm regards and take care, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Please review your amendment for examples of 'repetitive links'. You have cited in one place seven references and in another, eleven, some with the most tenuous of connections. It is irrelevant that they "collectively... contain more information", their inclusion is dependent upon them directly and objectively supporting the material in the article. This has already been explained to you previously.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement/Archive_2&oldid=1137246961"