Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

"Views" Section

It appears a very biased and baseless report on TZM being something obscure as "conspirituality" is in the "Views" section. I'm sorry but this article has no basis being anywhere on this page, especially not in the "Views" section which is there to inform the reader what TZM is about in general.

Whoever write that article literally did zero research on TZM and simply made up their conclusion. How are we to defend this inclusion? Can the editors in support of this inclusion come up any materials produced by TZM that state anything of this nature that proves the proposition held by the the "journal of contemporary religion"?. I understand we are to respect "notable" figures and reports, meaning they have to be competent, right? Can this clearly biased article be considered as such?

If any article has 3rd party support and corroborating statements about what TZM activity has been supporting for 6 years, it would be:

The Huffington post, after attending a true Zeitgeist Movement Event: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html

Or The New York Times, which also attending a true Event: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0

Of course, there are dozen more articles, videos and 3rd party media to express what TZM, again, has been actively working on for 6 years. The "conspirituality" article is truly misleading and absent any true relevance to TZM's mission, as noted in hundreds of hours of podcasts, lectures and the orientation book. Everymanwins (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases articles on published sources, not on the biased opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please explain how your sources are better then those listed above and how your opinion is not biased? Also, please do not revert again before we reach consensus. 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everymanwins (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia policy. We are not going to remove valid sourced content because biased TZM members don't like it, and have figured out how to spell 'biased'. As for 'consensus', it cannot overrule Wikipedia policy - and we don't count the same person twice just because they create multiple accounts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you run this place? I thought this was Wikipedia where good work and intelligent communication about thoughtful sourcing and honesty is what creates proper changes? Am I wrong? Are you saying you have the right to distort TZM actual work just because you can and are a bully? Is that right?Everymanwins (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Last I check, consensus is between everyone, not you and you. SO answer my question: "explain how your sources are better then those listed above and how your opinion is not biased?"Everymanwins (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't exclude properly-sourced material because it doesn't agree with other material - we include a range of opinions in articles. And cut out the crap about 'bias' - if you get involved with politics (which is what TZM is doing, despite its attempts to redefine the English language to say otherwise), you can expect criticism. Either suck up and accept it, or take up knitting or flower-arranging instead, and make the world a better place that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

So, you admit you purposefully distort the page because you choose to be biased and do not like TZM? When I go to a Wikipedia page, I want to see snapshot of what it is. A≠re you telling me you honestly believe the crap being posted here? Everymanwins (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you are clearly incapable of holding a rational discussion, I have nothing further to say to you. This article will include legitimately-sourced critical content on TZM, regardless of how much TZM supporters whine on about how they don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you run this place? I thought this was Wikipedia where good work and intelligent communication about thoughtful sourcing and honesty is what creates proper changes? Am I wrong? Are you saying you have the right to distort TZM actual work just because you can and are a bully? Is that right? end quote Everymanwins. You are wrong about your assumption about bullying, honesty, distortion, or running the place. Actually the article is pretty good. It gets the main points across well and there is the link to the Zeitgeist site itself for people to click on. If we start using things like the Faq's of Zeitgeist to report what it is supposed to be in an over reliant way then it is self sourced to primary information from the subject itself. The problem for Zeitgeist supporters is that there is no real scholarship for Zeitgeist and not many articles from second and third party sources that are reliable sources. Having a bunch of people show up here from the movement itself is not such a good idea because then the article becomes blog like and a lot of ideas from the movement are actually conjectural ideas that change. The article as is now is a really good link for the Zeitgeist supporters or detractors. Zeitgeist denies the racialist aspect of blaming Jewish bankers. They are on record of that. Zeitgeist detractors claim Zeitgeist is following classic anti Jewish tropes. This makes the article balanced so that people looking up Zeitgeist movement can decide for themselves about what to believe. Either way the article is a good synopsis of the movement with a few links for further understanding. Its best not to accuse people, as Peter Joseph has specifically done on Youtube spoken essay's that there are gate keepers that try to control this article. Its just not the case. It would be noticeable if that were true. It seems like Peter Joseph has riled up members of the group to come here and try to defeat the so called gatekeepers that he speaks about on Youtube. I wish Joseph himself would just come here and edit himself. We would welcome him, or any one else that has a solid understanding of neutral writing. No one is trying to make the movement look bad. Its up to the encyclopedia to present all aspects of it in a simple neutral way without becoming a format for the thing itself and its followers or detractors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But there is nothing neutral about it. You have in the "Views" section, a deeply polarized and absolutely distant association where some source ( Journal of CR), who clearly read literally nothing about TZM's work based on its 6 yr existence, claims ridiculous associations in a libelous manner. Nothing in that article has anything to do with TZM's "Views" based on the 6 yrs of work put out by TZM. TZM is the only source that can state its "views". How you feel if I made a Wiki on you and decided you were a jew hating communist who eats roaches for lunch? Can I simply do that because I think it is "balanced", simply 'cause it is on the internet? Everymanwins (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you people are seriously about neutrality, you will allow this to be added to the "Views" section: According to the "Huffington Post" "... the world's resources would be considered as the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples, and would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development. It is toward this idea that The Zeitgeist Movement works to educate and inform people."[10]

Nope, we aren't the slightest bit interested in your entirely baseless and self-evidently biased assertions regarding who has or hasn't read anything about TZM. And I'd strongly advise you not to use the word 'libelous' on this page again - Wikipedia has a strict policy about blocking anyone who makes anything that might be interpreted as a legal threat. As for the Huff post blog, we already cite it, and I see no particular need to cite it again - particularly for assertions about TZM working towards the Venus Projects goals, which is what the material you cite is actually saying. As later sources make clear, and as you well know, TZM and the Venus Project have split, which makes this statement outdated. And by the way, we don't attribute the opinions in blog posts to the publication that hosts them, either, so we won't say "According to the Huffington Post..." about anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Where was he making legal threats? The page you link to says, "A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat." Wikipedia does not make assumptions about someone's intention to sue WP, nor block people based on such assumptions. --Melarish (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Everymanwins is accusing a source here of being libelous and saying that . You have in the "Views" section, a deeply polarized and absolutely distant association where some source ( Journal of CR), who clearly read literally nothing about TZM's work based on its 6 yr existence, claims ridiculous associations in a libelous manner. end quote, but why are you defending an edit warrior just recently warned on their talk page who is trying to incite fights on the talk page? The article is currently over run with Zeitgeist people, a big flurry of them trying to push their self sourced material.

Just before that on the talk page he said TZM is the only source that can state its "views". How you feel if I made a Wiki on you and decided you were a jew hating communist who eats roaches for lunch? Can I simply do that because I think it is "balanced", simply 'cause it is on the internet? end quote. So I think it is safe to say that a whole bunch of people are making an organized effort with new accounts and i.p. address's to come here and cause as much chaos as possible, and not edit neutrally either. Also your recent editing history at The Zeitgeist Movement ‎shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war Melarish so I advise you to take a look at what is going on here about these sock and meat puppets whith out jumping to their defense. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with accusing a source of being libelous? That is his opinion and he should not be threatened with bans for it.

Also nothing wrong with making new accounts. Everyone starts somewhere. Maybe they never had a reason to edit WP before. And as you noticed they are new accounts, you as a long-timer should be especially courteous and explain WP policy if needed, as much of it is *not* intuitive to a newcomer. Wikipedia:GOODFAITH

And yes, I made three edits and got a shiny warning on my Talk page. My first edit got reverted *without a single word*. No explanation, no suggestion on how to make a better edit. If it had already been discussed on the Talk page, I'm sorry but I don't have time to read through 7 months of archives. All that warning tells me is that you guys have no intention of helping newcomers and that continued suggestions for changes get reverted (if made on article) or ignored (if made on Talk page). --Sock And Meat Puppet Melarish (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are arrived at by consensus, after extensive discussion - and that includes the rule about not making legal threats. This rule is not open to negotiation here. And yes, the attempts by TZM members to remove all criticism of their organisation from this article and turn it into a promotional puff-piece are going to get reverted - because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and expected to provide a range of views, including critical ones, on subject matter. Again, this is Wikipedia policy, arrived at by consensus, after extensive discussion - and again this is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

>Wikipedia rules are arrived at by consensus, after extensive discussion

Exactly. And not by the opinions of some editors that view themselves as somehow priviliged to do whatever they want.

>And yes, the attempts by TZM members to remove all criticism of their organisation

Are you for real ? Haven't seen a single edit attempting to do so. But I see continuous edits of placing criticism into inappropriate sections. And total bias for just presenting cricism of the movement with neither their response to such criticism nor their neutral views.

>and turn it into a promotional puff-piece are going to get reverted

Yes, please do. But you have an extraordinary skill at deceiving yourself if that's what you're seeing here.

>including critical ones, on subject matter

Exactly. That's why there is a criticism-section.

>arrived at by consensus, after extensive discussion

Actually read this Talk page. We're having extensive discussion and we haven't arrived at your conclusions by consensus.

Wikipedia ought to be informative and neutral.

--2A01:4A0:10:AD10:F1F5:214D:8D40:6368 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The extensive evidence of TZM supporters repeatedly removing critical material from the article is plainly visible in the article history. Likewise, the attempts by TZM supporters on this page to argue for removal on entirely spurious grounds are all visible, either on this page or in the archives. Still, if you want to argue the contrary, and argue that it isn't TZM supporters but others that are violating Wikipedia policy, feel free to raise the matter at any appropriate noticeboard - but be aware, per WP:BOOMERANG, that the actions of TZM supporters will of course also come under scrutiny. And as far as I'm concerned, the more uninvolved eyes there are on this article the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"and that includes the rule about not making legal threats" - where was I arguing against the rule? Did you even read what I wrote? I was merely saying that he was *not* making legal threats, as defined in WP's own guidelines.

Also agree with 2A01:4A0:10:AD10:F1F5:214D:8D40:6368 that no one was trying to remove all criticism, only 1/4 of it which is irrelevant. Did you see anyone trying to remove criticism about utopianism, work incentives or feasibility? I sure didn't. --Sock And Meat Puppet Melarish (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is up to Wikipedia how we interpret our own rules - and I've seen people blocked before for referring to libel, even without an overt threat. In any case, I was warning Everymanwins of the existence of the rule, rather than stating that it had been broken. And no, you don't get to decide what is 'irrelevant'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ouch, that's pretty harsh, considering most people probably don't realise it refers to an actual crime. But I'm not gonna debate WP policies here. Is there a better term to use that doesn't carry legal connotations? Slanderous? Defamatory? Wouldn't want to discourage people from expressing their views in fear of being blocked from editing. That would be censorship. --Sock And Meat Puppet Melarish (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

'Censorship' would include removing criticism from the article because TZM don't like it. As for expressing views, Everymanwins is quite capable of saying that he believes that what the source says is wrong - though what contributors believe isn't actually relevant anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Malarish it seems pretty obvious that you have a conflict of interest here as an editor [1] and that a group of you Zeitgeist supporters are here in an organized way to try to intimidate the usual editing process. This probably has something to do with the Peter Joseph Youtube presentation of him ranting about the article on Wikipedia being controlled by 'gate keepers', his term. I suggest that you and your minions back off. If you try and make the article into a serious parody of the Zeitgeist official material it actually defeats your purpose of presenting good information. The reason is that people can see through then and see its not written or sourced correctly or full of bombastic phrases from self sourced things. You are in a C.O.I. so in particular you as a member and activist of Zeitgeist should not bring your disregard for procedure here. You end up shooting the article in the foot if you do. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha, so you're saying someone connected to an article's topic should "back off" and not even dare to suggest changes to the article. You have just proven that you are engaging in censorship. --Melarish (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am saying you are a worker for the Zeitgeist organization, a public speaker that speaks at their events so you have a conflict of interest and your edits show that you are biased to promote Zeitgeist here. I am also saying that you probably were inspired by the Zeitgeist leader Joseph because he says this article is censored by gatekeepers. Your manner of engaging is not only not friendly your writing is poor in trying to prove your points. Accusing editors of censorship is exactly what Peter Joseph does in his Youtube show. You are acting here as his representative by doing the same. I do not know if they pay their workers or you lecture at their conventions for free? Which is it? Either way unless you are a neutral editor and you are not, then you are in a major conflict of interest as pointed out before in the link I gave of your activist speaking [2]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm only as friendly as you are :) If you had tried to discuss things reasonably with me, I might have responded with the same. But that's obviously futile. Yes, I have a COI (I want to see the transition promoted by ZG and no, I don't get paid to promote it) but clearly, you have your own anti-TZM agenda as well (not gonna speculate why). I welcome neutral and civil editors like Harizotoh and Atama and respect their responses, even if unfavourable. You however, should not be moderating these pages before you've (re-)read Wikipedia:BITE --Melarish (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia tzm

After reading the incomplete and over simplified not to mention incorrect definition of tzm it occurred it is highly unfair to share this editor's biased opinion. Makes the site look incompetent... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.67.126 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on editors. Oh and I have no idea which editor you are talking about. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia-Page on a Social Movement

A)
I bet The Zeitgeist Movement isn't the only social movement out there - so if it isn't there are probably also wikipedia-pages about them. What is the largest similar social movement ? Most likely that's Green Peace. Let's go on its Wikipedia-page. They surely also have a section that clarifies that movement's goals and objectives.
Now this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Summary_of_priorities_and_campaigns
What is the actual text of it ? Quote of the upper half:

On its official website, Greenpeace defines its mission as the following:
Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace by:
Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change.

Defending our oceans by challenging wasteful and destructive fishing, and creating a global network of marine reserves.

Who would have thought that ? They actually use a self-source to describe the movement's goals. That is very different from what Wikipedia supports in usual circumstances. And it's common sense.
Let's equate "official website" with thezeitgeistmovement.com and locate their mission statement at....: http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/mission-statement

B)
Now let's visit the Wikipedia-page that enlists social movements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_movements
Let's pick another movement - the Free software movement that is even closer to the Zeitgeist Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
And who would have thought that ? They actually have a section called "Philosophy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement#Philosophy
Now let's quote the upper half of it:

The philosophy of the movement is that the use of computers should not lead to people being prevented from cooperating with each other. In practice, this means rejecting "proprietary software", which imposes such restrictions, and promoting free software,[3] with the ultimate goal of liberating everyone "in cyberspace"[4] – that is, every computer user. Stallman notes that this action will promote rather than hinder the progression of technology, since "it means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art".[5]

Let's take a close look at the references.

[3] "Use Free Software". gnu.org.

[4] "Stallman interviewed by Sean Daly". Groklaw. 2006-06-23.

[5] "The GNU Manifesto". gnu.org.

And who would have thought that (and forgive me my discontent)? They actually use "self-sourcing".
Now let's equate gnu.org (if you don't know about that page research its role) with thezeitgeistmovement.com, "Stallman interviewed" with "Peter Joseph interviewed" and the "GNU Manifesto" with the book "The Zeitgeist Movement Defined: Realizing a New Train of Thought"

Now with this in mind, can we now finally build up an appropriate, informative "Philosophy" section ?

--Fixuture.member (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your proposal using WP:SECONDARY sources? QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Though none of the above was a secondary source and I see no reason why primaries wouldn't be best.

I see that the concern probably is that the Wikipedia page would reflect the editor's opinion by cherry-picking passages of longer texts. However the mission statement and the like are very short and precise and it worked well for other pages (such as the above). Also the page is not edited by solely TZM people or anti-TZM people (despite it currently looking much like it) but both plus uninvolved ones. The movement's main ideas should be sufficiently presented. We can write this together and build up a version that is both neutral and informative.

If you have a good argument for secondary sources please write. But then I'm not sure what would count and as such and what not.

--Fixuture.member (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(Fixuture.member, can you please read Wikipedia:Indentation, and sort out the layout of your first post in this thread. Using leading spaces in the way you have done messes up the page layout due to the piss-poor markup system Wikipedia uses - if you use colons instead of leading spaces it should display properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC) )

Like this ? I'm still new to Wikipedia's syntax. Have you read it though ? --Fixuture.member (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's fine now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing other pages is problematic, since they are usually not that well written either. The Greenpeace section should probably be trimmed or reduced. Just copypasting something from their site is rather lazy.

In regards to WP:SELFSOURCE:

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Until recently the entire article is mostly self sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Well I'm not asking for this Wikipedia-page to be based primarily on such sources. I'm only talking about the Views/Philosophy section.

It's not lazy - it accurately and in the best way possible presents the movement's own views/ideas/mission.

--Fixuture.member (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a highly dubious comparison anyway. We are talking about articles (and organisations) on a whole different scale. The Greenpeace article cites 176 different sources, and includes extensive analysis of the organisation by multiple high-quality sources. The 'mission statement' is a small part of a much larger article. It should also be noted that there is a separate Criticism of Greenpeace article - though personally I would suggest that such material would be better incorporated into the main article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So the movement's perceived scale is why it doesn't "deserve" to have much information on its Wikipedia-page ? The "Views / Philosophy" section also could become only a small section of this Wikipedia page if you'd allow it to grow with more information (and also please be reminded that the movement while gaining relatively little media attention is the biggest movement on the internet, has chapters in most countries and over 22 million views of their main movie etc). I don't think there needs to be a separate section for criticism either and I do see the point you raise here (incomparability due to size of article and movement). However, we are solely talking about the "Views / Philosophy" section.--Fixuture.member (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of the claims that TZM makes regarding the size of its organisation. I am also well aware that such claims have not been verified by credible third-party sources. As for letting the article grow, there is nothing stopping it growing other than the lack of suitable source material - which is to say material that actually offers in-depth analysis, rather than merely echoing the movements own arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Does TZM have a brief 'mission statement' or summary of its position? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, here: http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/mission-statement --Fixuture.member (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, far too long, I think. Greenpeace manages to tell us what it is about in 59 words. TZM takes 404. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That might be because TZM addresses the whole socioeconomic structure and not simplistic isolated undesired incidents and trends as Green Peace. It really isn't TZM's fault that they needed a few more words to summarize it as it's a much more complex train of thought. However that's still no barrier because

a) the most important core part of it could be described b) the whole thing could be described - a little more text doesn't matter. See for example the German version of this Wikipedia-page, they did quite well: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Zeitgeist_Bewegung c) the german version has it split up into their activities and their goals (not sure about that) d) the relevant parts of it could be quoted / embedded as quotes into the description --Fixuture.member (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the German Wikipedia article, it is worth noting that issues regarding neutrality etc have also been raised there - with contributors suggesting that it is over-promotional. Furthermore, each Wikipedia is independent, with its own policies and standards, and what is acceptable on one may not always be so on another. While personally I generally hold the German Wikipedia in high regard, what goes on there is of little direct relevance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And incidentally, I would suggest that TZM instructs its supporters to act like adults, rather than juvenile illiterate vandals like the jerk responsible for this edit. [3] The article is currently under 'pending changes' limitations, and the next step is likely to be full protection, which will make editing a very slow process indeed, and more or less guarantee that the article stays much as it has been, regardless of what TZM think of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And here are many users that view the article as over-critical. You seem to be ignoring that. You are also ignoring the points made in my comment.

I was just taking the German Wikipedia's article as an example to expand on my point.

I'm not accountable for other people's edits and it's not a good manner to decide on the fate of this page by judging TZM-supporters' action here.

So please, let's now work together and build up this page. Please address my actual points. --Fixuture.member (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So far, the people seeing this as 'over critical' seem mostly to be TZM supporters. And I've already explained that per Wikipedia policy, the critical material has to stay, in order to justify an article at all. Anyway, I've made my point - the TZM mission statement is far too long to justify quoting in full in an article with so little third-party content. Material from TZM should only form a small part of the article - we are supposed to base articles on third-party sources, rather than merely repeating what the subject says.

Incidentally, as I've already pointed out, the German Wikipedia cites an article from Die Tageszeitung, which (going by Google translate) isn't exactly complementary regarding TMZ. [4] Would you be happy for us to cite this? And if not, what objections (based on Wikipedia policy) would you have? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is describing the words of one individual who claims to be a member of the movement. Not a comment on the movement itself. --Melarish (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is about TZM ("an obscure association from the U.S."). Not about "one individual who claims to be a member of the movement". Once again, you don't get to second-guess what sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Inline POV tag. The conservative newspaper known as The Telegraph stated, "will view Christianity as a fraud"

Added inline POV tag.[5] -- This is a clear violation of neutrality. According to WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Given that no other sources have stated anything like, "will view Christianity as a fraud", this material does not carry the appropriate weight to be included in the lead. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest we shouldn't be citing the Telegraph article anyway - it isn't about TZM, it is about 'Forest boy', and doesn't discuss the movement in any real depth at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I am of the same mind. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Its a reputable paper and a good source and those are hard to come by for this article. Forest boy was all about the Zeitgeist movement. The people that wrote the article obviously did their homework. The whole first movie is partly about Christianity being a made up fraud. It makes no sense to remove this cited information because it is mainstream, well written and gets right down to the heart of the Zeitgeist movement. It compliments the information around it also. If people object to the honest language in it, that seems to be the problem. Just a question, since there are so many Zeitgeist supporters here, is Forest boy here by any chance? If so can he comment also? (: Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone said "yes" how would you know it was true? -- Atama頭 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose just take them at their word. We have one person that is a Zeitgeist lecturer person here, Malarish. I have no problem with that, they are honest about it. It does not matter who edits as long as the number one concept of neutral presentation is maintained. If Peter Joseph were to come here and say, Hello I am Peter Joseph and want to try my hand at this, sure why not? I personally hope that some of the hangers on of the Zeitgeist movement drop the idea that the article is in anyway gate-kept or controlled. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" Book Release

Hello, I know self-published books are bad, so I just put "texts" in the preexisting sentence that says "Over the years, The Zeitgeist Movement's ideals and views about the world have spread through local chapters, theater, online, and via DVD releases of films" Why the new book, which is "#7 in Books > Education & Reference > Schools & Teaching > Education Theory > Philosophy & Social Aspects" on amazon and mentioned in a few Russia Today Reports, should not be linked, is just odd. Book mentions:"Breaking the Set" <-- link to copyright violation redacted --> and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F0AtKeExOA Flowersforparis (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have redacted links to apparent copyright violations - see comments below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not cite press releases, or material uploaded to YouTube by TZM supporters. If the book is of any significance it will be reviewed by third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay... but since they use "text" why not source it as it was a huge project by TZM for 3 years, promoted as THE text of what they advocate. If you are not willing to simply let the word "text" be included, with the simple source link, then you might as well remove the whole DVD, films... whatever. As everything is produced by peter j. or TZM lecture team. How do you defend that logic again? Flowersforparis (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

also the text WAS mentioned by notable 3rd party sources like ABBY MARTIN who is on wikipedia! Dude... you guys are crazy biased. Flowersforparis (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not cite press releases. Just how difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a Press release. It is a book/text. Where is the "source" for the " TZM DVDs", moron? Flowersforparis (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The above comment will be reported at WP:ANI - where I shall call for you to be indefinitely banned from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you think "PR" in "PR Newswire" stands for? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Pure rubbish", of course! Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You're all off-base. Abby Martin had an interview with Peter Joseph and the book was discussed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F0AtKeExOA. No "press release" involved here. Now, if you like press releases, there is http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press_releases, and there is even one about the book http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press_releases/announcing-the-the-zeitgeist-movement-defined-realizing-a-new-train-of-thought. Neither qualifies as an independent source, obviously, but they are certainly more reliable than any un-analytical second-hand account would ever be. Wikipedia rules do not ban primary sources of controversial subject matter, their points just need to be "neutralized" with an abundance of second-hand or third-party sources. This is obviously more of an art than a science.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 18:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not link to copyright violations. Per Wikipedia:Video links, such material can only be used if it has clearly been uploaded by the copyright holder. We cannot cite links to copyright violations under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If a legitimate link can be made to the Abby Martin interview (i.e. one to material directly provided by RT itself), we can of course consider using it - though for the sake of convenience, it would be preferable to give an approximate time for the relevant sections, if this is a half-hour interview. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/internet-archives-economic-system-825/ (4:45 to 13:45) (9 mins). It explicitly mentions at 13:39 that the full interview (28 mins) is at their YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/breakingtheset. The video is located on their playlist http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLI46g-I12_9pbIc7FuM0hfUaczb-jSok7. More videos of the Zeitgeist Movement by RT outside of YouTube can be found at http://rt.com/search/shows/term/zeitgeist/.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 18:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

So basically, we have Martin asking what the 'new book' is about, and then Joseph waffling on about it for a minute or so. Is that all? If Martin hasn't even taken the time to read the book (or at least gives no indication that she has), she can hardly be cited as a source asserting its significance. Where are the reviews to indicate that anyone it taking it seriously? Political organisations publish material all the time - what matters to Wikipedia is how the material is received. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"for a minute or so" hmmm.... interesting math.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 05:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So how long exactly was Joseph specifically talking about the book content, rather than his general political philosophy? Not that it really matters - Joseph could talk about it for a month solid, and it still wouldn't indicate significance. That needs third-party evidence - from credible sources who have read it, and have taken the time to explain why it is significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"That needs third-party evidence - from credible sources who have read it, and have taken the time to explain why it is significant." We all know that. Perhaps that one day that the Zeitgeist Movement decides to use some media sensationalism then it can get more attention outside its own choir. Until then, this article remains in an extremely dismal state.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 15:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just curious. Why do you think it is dismal? Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Compare this article to the article on Jacque Fresco. See the difference?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 17:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that is too non specific an answer to get an idea of why you think it is dismal. Could you actually say what you are thinking without assuming I can figure it out somehow by writing osmosis? Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is too narrow in scope. It is lacking in depth and dialogue between sides. I am quite aware of the insufficiency of the current reliable sources to address this problem. This is probably a side effect of the Zeitgeist Movement's relatively short history.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 03:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The book was also mentioned by TZM spokesman Ben McLeish here after ZDay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQikuA2k4jg on Abby's Martin's Show. So, there are two mentions of the book, 3rd Party, on a show with a host is also "notable on wikipedia " ABBY MARTIN " and on a station which is notable on Wikipedia RT. Are we satisfied yet? Flowersforparis (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not everything a notable person or organisation does is significant - and you have provided no evidence that the book has received any meaningful analysis or critique by third-party sources (or even that it has been read by such sources). Please do not edit against talk-page consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean according to you Andy? Have the DVD's seen " meaningful analysis " Listen - No one cares what you think in your bias against TZM. K? These are sources following wikipedia's rules for 3rd party sourcing. Abby Martin and RT and notable for both the BOOK and ZDAY. And btw - fuck you. Flowersforparis (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrumpy, a simple yes or no question. Does the source violate Wikipedia's rules? If it does, what's your evidence.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, please have the decency to respond to these queries.Cjmccormack (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here. I am under no obligation to respond to anything. Even less so when being told to 'fuck you' by TZM supporters. If the book is significant enough to merit discussion in this article, provide the evidence from reviews by third parties. Wikipedia isn't here to provide free publicity for TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"I am under no obligation to respond to anything." Actually you are, you're implying that including the book as a description of TZM from a TZM related source or using it as an official response to criticism is a violation of Wiki policies regarding primary source material or self published sources. Now you have to answer the question of where it says in Wiki's policies that it violates those or any of the other rules or just concede WITHIN the context described as per its usage or concede that you have no basis for it. So either provide the policy that prohibits the use of the book within the context described per its usage or concede the point. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a simple fact that no Wikipedia contributor is ever obliged to do anything on Wikipedia. If you want questions answered, I suggest you start by learning some manners, rather than handing out orders. And try reading what I wrote, rather than making up imaginary things I'm supposed to have said just so you can argue with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"It is a simple fact that no Wikipedia contributor is ever obliged to do anything on Wikipedia." You're a contributor of this page and making a claim regarding the validity of using the source as per Wiki policies. As a result, you're obligated to provide evidence in a forum like this. That being said, I am attempting to move the entire thing forward, you have been consistent in your attempt to refuse the use of the source without providing any evidence regarding wiki policies. I am not however "handing out orders" so much as a suggestion for moving the the entire thread forward instead of having it stagnate for about three months where no headway is being made. "And try reading what I wrote, rather than making up imaginary things I'm supposed to have said just so you can argue with them." Funny, because I never mentioned anything about you saying anything. I'm simply pointing out your refusal to allow it to be used in specific context that is non-controversial to anyone looking at the proposal is implying that by using the source, it's violating one of two or both of Wiki's policies regarding self-published source and/or primary sources. I asked where in Wiki's policies is this a violation? The more prudent manner here is instead of berating me for something I never did is to instead clarify what you're implying or if you're implying anything. And if that (you not implying anything) is the case, then it would be beneficial for everyone to clarify your reasons for not including the source under the context given. Because so far all I can obtain from your reasons is a vague implication of it violating Wiki policies. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Leader

Is Zeitgeist really a leaderless movement because they say it is? It appears to not be a leaderless movement at all and appears to be tightly controlled and led by Peter Joseph. Is there any information out there that points that out beside [6]. Its an incorporated LLC by Peter Joseph and makes money that way, so we probably can make that clear in the article. The 'movement' could defacto be a following. The activist arm of the 'venus project' ended up looking strange after the venus project (which is the work of just two people) disassociated itself from it. I think we need to show who actually controls the purse strings of this so I am re-adding that information with a primary and secondary source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:OR. Unless and until secondary reliable sources comment on any of this, it doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on what? Those are secondary sources of who runs the business. Its an ordinary company. Its part of the history of what this is. Its a primary claim that Joesph is making that there are no real directors or leaders. That probably is not so. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

'Gentle Machine Productions LLC' is not TZM. And I don't give a toss what you think is 'probably not so'. It is bad enough having to put up with TZM supporters trying to fill the article with WP:OR and speculative nonsense, without experienced Wikipedia contributors doing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff [7] Gentle machine productions is as close to the Zeitgeist as you can get if looking for something real as to who 'owns' or controls or created it. There is no technical Zeitgeist Movement, its not incorporated but Gentle machines production is how Peter Joseph makes money, or one way. I think we should include the information. Zeitgeist movement is really the personal project of Peter Joseph and the only societal connection as far as a money trail goes through his production company. Why not have the article reflect who is in control of the whole thing? Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum. If you want to speculate, do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This page is a discussion of what to put in the article. Your opinion that my add was trivial does not hold water. I will re-add it again until some other people weigh in. You are not discussing the issue. the issue is listing his production company because that is responsible for the movement and his merchandising efforts. Just because you do not have a Zeitgeist T.Shirt does not mean that its trivial. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So far, the only reasons you have offered for including this off-topic trivia seem to be based on your entirely unsourced speculations - and since Wikipedia isn't your personal blog it doesn't belong in the article. If you want other people to 'weigh in' start an RfC - but meanwhile, per WP:BRD, and because you have offered no legitimate grounds for inclusion whatsoever, I am going to remove it - and should you restore it, I shall consider reporting your edit-warring at the appropriate noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic at all. I put it here also Peter Joseph. Also do not make your case about personal blogs and original research neither of which play a part. It is sourced information I think of value to the history section. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Zeitgeist Movement. 'Gentle Machine Productions LLC' is not the Zeitgeist Movement. Material about subjects other than the Zeitgeist Movement does not belong in this article, unless secondary sources make a connection between said subject and the Zeitgeist Movement. That is all that needs to be said on this subject, and I'm not interested in seeing any more of your speculative nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You have some issue with this not being a real thing?? [8] Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This edit imparts no information about the Zeitgeist Movement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This source has a lot to do with the Zeitgeist movement information wise [9] ? Existing and developing projects of Gentle Machine Productions include The Zeitgeist Film Trilogy, the Culture in Decline Bi-monthly Web Series, along Peter Joseph's new feature film project: InterReflections. Peter also produces literary works, musical scores and other personal art which is also available. Also, in conjunction with The Zeitgeist Movement, a global non-profit sustainability advocacy group inspired by the Zeitgeist Film Series So, there are primary and secondary sources connected to posting that information in the history area. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I suggest you propose wording which informs the readers how GMP is related to the article's subject. The wording being reverted doesn't do that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right. How about this while adding the sources at least partially from that former edit also

New Edit.

Existing and developing projects of Peter Josephs Gentle Machine Productions include The Zeitgeist Film Trilogy, the Culture in Decline Bi-monthly Web Series, along Peter Joseph's new feature film project: InterReflections. Gentle Machines Productions works in conjunction with The Zeitgeist Movement, a group inspired by the Zeitgeist Film Series, Peter underwrites the main, annual live concert event called the "Zeitgeist Media Festival" through Gentle Machines LLC. [10] so this one along with these [11] and [12]

I see no reason to get so aggressive over this. Its a simple matter to make a suggestion as another editor has done instead of doing a riot act. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's still not there. The first sentence should explicitly make the connection. As it stands, TZM is not mentioned. The text should read something like "TZM uses Joseph's GMP to make..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, not sure how you can say it is not mentioned though since it is in the last edit. I think you have it backwards also. Peter Joseph uses the production company to make the Zeitgeist movement, not the other way around.

New edit,

The Zeitgeist Movement uses Peter Joseph's limited liability corporation Gentle Machines Productions to develop projects including The Zeitgeist Film Trilogy, the Culture in Decline Bi-monthly Web Series, and Peter Joseph's new feature film project: InterReflections. Gentle Machines Productions works in conjunction with The Zeitgeist Movement, a group inspired by the Zeitgeist Film Series. Peter underwrites the main, annual live concert event called the "Zeitgeist Media Festival" through Gentle Machines LLC. [13] so this one along with these [14] and [15] Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope - you are misrepresenting the sources - nowhere does it say that TZM uses GMP to develop anything. It states that it is owned by Joseph, and is the point of sale for his work. I am going to remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess its a copy vio if we say exactly what they say. Why not try to edit cooperatively on this article instead of being an undo artist? You do have editing ability of some type right? Why not use it its obvious that the information should be in the article and its obvious that your not editing cooperatively. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is anything but obvious why this needs to be in the article at all. No secondary source seems to think it of any significance whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that is the problem with the whole article isn't it? The group itself has generated copious information on itself and hardly anyone else gives a hoot in the media. The several sources are worked to death in the article. Still it is a part of the history and information and underpinning of this thing that Peter Joseph's personal project and his production company are the source of all this so called 'movement' so its just part of the mechanics of what this thing is and could be included for that reason. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not the slightest bit interested in your speculation regarding the 'mechanics' of TZM. Either provide a proper policy-based justification for the inclusion of material than no external source considers relevant, or accept that it doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not speculation. Its black and white. It is the basis of the Zeitgeist movies, the production company that made them along with Peter Joseph. Most companies have owners and people involved and some are llc's like this one. Its just factual information about the subject [16]. I guess bating otherwise is just that. Baiting otherwise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So no policy-based reason for inclusion of this primary-source trivia? Just as I thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless the extremely dubious implication that Peter Joseph does TZM for personal promotion, this "business entity" has no basis in inclusion in this article. Earl is reaching for a biased perspective, as usual. JamesB17 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess Zeitgeist makes for odd bedfellows like you and Andy now. No one said its for personal promotion and business 'entity' is not a pejorative. It is just Josephs production company that produced the Zeitgeist movies. Is that hard to understand that it is his business source and personal connection to the world, as the citation says, his contact point and production development access point and media connector? Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Joseph's production company is for things like his video for Black Sabbath or his Musical work as well. Does that mean Black sabbath and the Musical work is TZM? No, you can't just put his professional work in with TZM. All it does is create POV bias that Peter does what he does in TZM as a business. This is simply untrue. JamesB17 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

POV conflict - "Peter Joseph's direction..."?

Can someone point me to a document produced by TZM or reputable 3rd party reports that Peter Joseph "directs" TZM? This is stated in the opening paragraph as though is it fact. As a person who follows TZM, I see radio shows done by Ben McLeish and Matt Berkowitz. I see an orientation book written a number of people (The Zeitgeist Movement Defined). I see a website that includes tons of work by many thinkers and speakers... Apart from anti-tzm/anti-peter joseph blogs, there is nothing to show this as reality. Where is evidence, as per WIkipedia standards, that "Peter Joseph" directs things? JamesB17 (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no source cited for this - and accordingly it doesn't belong in the article, regardless of the opinions of contributors here concerning the relationship between Joseph and TZM. I have removed it, and if I see it restored, without a source, and without clear attribution to the said source as an opinion, I will raise the matter elsewhere. This article has been a battleground for too long, and when I see experienced contributors behaving in such a manner, I can assure them that I will see to it that they are stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Further to this, I'd recommend anyone restoring this to first ask themselves whether WP:BLP policy permits such unsourced assertions - though the answer quite clearly is no, it doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you do anything in the editing department instead of the revert button Andy and could drop your aggressive combative attitude and edit the article? Its pretty simple but being that you are a member of the movement JamesB17 and possibly pay a lot of attention to their 'information' you may have something backward. You may be uncritical and accept what they tell you as factual because of Zeitgeist romance issues. Here is the reality. Peter Joseph founded and controls the Zeitgeist movement, oh and Andy what planet are you on that that is not obvious from sourced information? So now you know and I know we are not supposed to lecture members for laziness but you are if you can not make a citation or read the sources. Its Joesephs company that created and controls the whole thing from the very top to the very bottom. Not sure why that is a negative for some of the members. Maybe the fantasy of egalitarianism is too strong in the conjectured 'movement' that it blocks the senses. Joeseph even made up the concept of the Zeitgeist Movement. Hello? Why the disconnect? Maybe it truly is a cult like some of our sources say, Peter Joseph is the person that wrote that it is a leaderless movement. That is his idea. Understand now? There is a problem with 'movement' members trying to cater the article to conform with the Zeitgeist Faq's information, but it just does not work that way and someone like Andy removing sourced information does not make any sense either because maybe has his past glory of keeping the article a certain way has gone too far now and maybe he could stop being an aggressive nay Sayer about something so damn simple as this. Odd bedfellows indeed. The article was finally almost shaped up. Now its being chopped up by an editor that keeps haranguing about policy when that is not an issue at all, and other combinations of edit warriors, sock puppets, well meaning brainwashed movement members, and who know who else. It kind of funny but its getting annoying also. I think you could step back from this one Andy. You are wrong I think. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion regarding the 'reality' of TZM is of no relevance whatsoever to article content. If you insert it into the article again, I will report the matter, and ask that you be topic-banned. Wikipedia NPOV policy is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not my personal opinion. I think you are way overboard and not correct. Your track record tells me that your technique of communication leaves a lot to be desired and this shows that [17]. You are not editing the article you are positioned over it and harassing. Stop. Your premise is not correct. You think that Peter Joseph is not the founder of the Zeitgeist movement? You think he is not the leader? Maybe you think it was not him that made the movie also? Hectoring people and editing disruptively is what you are doing and you are not really contributing to the article except by slashing and burning. There are times for that also I agree, but you have to be realistic about it also Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in your blather. You added material to the lede of the article based on your own opinion, rather than on cited sources. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy - do it again and I will report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Lets all be nice. Listen, the fact is Peter Joseph does little to nothing in TZM anymore. He given lectures. That's all and is rarely in any meetings. It certainly isnt top down. It is more like a free-for-all. Also, the "leaderless" movement came from Fresco not Joseph. Earl King: I don't think you know what you are talking about but your POV is just that - POV. JamesB17 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As the source in the article demonstrates, the interview of Fresco, Fresco split from Zeitgeist because of the leadership differences with Joseph whom he said did not discuss things with him. As far as blather Andy maybe you might look at your posts above for more insight. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this a blog? Are you saying we should include whatever we wish to include at whim? If that is the case then I would like to add Alex Jones to the criticism section when he calls TZM satanic.. cool? JamesB17 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(BTW - Andy and Earl : I think it is cute that you two pretend to be at odds here...lol!) JamesB17 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Claims of Satanism

So, since we have seriously bizarre fringe claims of "anti-semitism" and "cult' stuff, I think it is time we go further given the level of quality control. How about a section on TZM as "satanic"? Alex Jones is a good place to start, finishing with reporters like Mark Dice and Chris White. cool? JamesB17 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. And if you want to be taken seriously, don't waste people's time with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

C'mon bro - have some humor.... you know very well this wiki article is crap... as biased as they come. JamesB17 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is good. almost great. Its not biased. People like Alex Jones are tangled up with Joseph yes, both seriously fringe, but, no one takes either of them seriously at least not very media wise. Since you were blocked previously on editing this subject for edit warring I suppose you will be blocked again for the same thing at some point. In the mean time don't edit the article like you are doing a report for comedy central. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If this article is good, then it deserves one of these

. Too bad it doesn't yet.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Political Movement or Social Movement ?

Let's find consensus on how to classify the movement.

Political movement

In the social sciences, a political movement is a social group which operate together to obtain a political goal, on a local, regional, national, or international scope. Political movements develop, coordinate, promulgate, revise, amend, interpret, and produce materials that are intended to address the goals of the base of the movement. A social movement in the area of politics can be organized around a single issue or set of issues, or around a set of shared concerns of a social group.

Social movement

Social movements are a type of group action. They are large, sometimes 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.

[...]Modern movements often utilize technology and the internet to mobilize people globally.

+1 for social movement, because:

The movement doesn't work towards obtaining a political goal. See "which operate together to obtain a political goal" above.
A good fit for TZM is: "A social movement in the area of politics can be organized around a single issue or set of issues, or around a set of shared concerns of a social group."
Another perfect fit for TZM: "they carry out [...] social change". See also "Zeitgeist" which stands for the spirit of the time which is ought to be changed. It doesn't have to do much with politics really.
http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/opinion-world-s-th-annual-z-day-call-for-a/article_325f2b9e-ad4e-11e3-aa3c-001a4bcf6878.html refers to them as "social movement"
The movement refers to itself as social movement (ie http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/press_releases/announcing-the-the-zeitgeist-movement-defined-realizing-a-new-train-of-thought).
It previously correctly said social movement. And a movement that wants to abolish politics is not a political movement. Actually it's a movement that advocates a new perspective / worldview - this perspective might express itself in politics to a small extend but it certainly is not a political movement.
AndyTheGrump explained reverting my edit from political movement to social movement with "we are under no obligation to repeat TZM's bizarre assertion that they aren't involved in politics" however being a social movement doesn't imply not being involved in politics (see above).

--Fixuture.member (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"being a social movement doesn't imply not being involved in politics". Clearly not - particularly if the movement in question is advocating a complete reconfiguration of the global social, political and economic system. That TZM seems to prefer to describe themselves as a 'social' rather than 'political' movement is possibly interesting from a social/political science perspective, but it certainly isn't something that determines how Wikipedia must describe the movement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, written for a broad readership, is expected to use terminology in its generally accepted sense, and it should generally describe the movement in terms used by third-party sources, rather than TZM's own. This article is about TZM, it is not TZM's article - thus TZM doesn't have a veto on language used to describe it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The source cited says it's a political movement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The answer is how do independent secondary sources describe TZM. From the ones I've seen, it's a political movement. Ravensfire (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be a prefabricated construct that uses neuro linguistic programming and meme control through to attract an audience, much like selling toothpaste. Peter Joseph was in the advertising business previously, so would be familiar with Edward Burnays, sorry not sure how to spell that name, type material. It could be a media creation and not a real social movement or political movement but a 'brand' created by a tech and media savvy person. Not sure if there is information rgarding that, but I am serious and will look around for more citations in that direction. That may sound like original research and at this point it would be but maybe some treatise in that direction is around. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No it actually sounds like massive bs. Did you seriously just say that ?! What you're describing is exactly the type of thing the movement opposes (watch century of the self) and by having worked in advertising Peter probably noticed how screwed our system actually is. That post reads like being posted by some excited 16 year old who just found his original enemy. Not sure if that was a troll-post though. If it's not I really can't believe people still can't see the obvious (and ridiculous) bias you hold while rendering this page into nothing but an uninformative piece of criticism.

Coming back to the actual question asked in this section I don't know if it's possible to ask some expert (on social movements) for the correct categorization ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixuture.member (talk • contribs) 01:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not the Wikipedia way to ask experts for advice. Instead, as always, we go by published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixuture, its a really bad idea to call people trolls on talk pages. As a member and advocate for the Zeitgeist movement you have to be particularly careful also when you edit the article to be neutral as does James. You are in a conflict of interest as a supporter of the thing itself unless you edit neutrally. The article is also much better when their viewpoint is not used but a neutral viewpoint is used. That makes the article more credible also for people actually interested in your 'movement' because it is not hard to sense bias or an overly romantic tone, toward itself, if the article becomes slanted. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like your posts being described as trolling, I suggest that you stop using this talk page as a forum for half-baked conspiracy theories - given your recent behaviour, your claims to be editing 'neutrally' are on distinctly shaky ground. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually the "prefabricated" post sounds like a forum and the response sounds even worse. I'd suspect the article would be better off if editors with strong personal views simply not edit the article. --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, I'd like to apologize for that reply. I was kinda frustrated and simply stunned by the absurdity this was turning into. And by what I've seen by now on this page it wouldn't have surprised me that much if people actually believed what he was saying and merged these conspiracy types of accusations into the wiki-page. But it seems like if analysis of an expert on social movements is no option here we have to wait for some other credible article's categorization ? --Fixuture.member (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

But I got to add that it seems like Wikipedia isn't really focused on providing the truth as the actual objective. We really have to wait until an article uses the correct definition here ? I wouldn't assume such journalists have some type of credibility for correctly categorizing the movement - rather experts in the field have. So again: is it possible to ask such people for a correct categorization ? The movement is inherently focused on sociology. They don't really have "political goals" either. Maybe take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Social_movements. Gonna ask in the chat later if noone knows if and how such expert-consultation can be used. --Fixuture.member (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

As weird as it may sound to someone not familiar with Wikipedia's processes, you're absolutely correct that Wikipedia isn't focused on "truth". The intro to our verifiability policy (one of the core policies of the site) says as much (Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it), as does one of Wikipedia's five pillars; We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". If one of these experts has had their opinions published then we can possibly use them as a reliable secondary source which is what is preferable for verification. -- Atama頭 17:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

But I do agree with

"Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".

That's why I asked for expert-consultation which is probably the thing that comes closest to "verification" in this case as the definitions of social & political movements aren't sharp enough (afaik there is no precise or static enough definition to scientifically verify the correct category).

If publicizing the truth isn't Wikipedia's goal it seems like it lost itself in bureaucracy and its true purposes out of sight. But yes: the goal of displaying the truth of course also includes specific precaution measures for subjective opinion not to be held as "truth". It seems like journalist' opinion is being held as truth here, specifically in this case (is there maybe a way to display dispute over his classification of "political movement" on the page?).

"We avoid advocacy [...]" should also include the avoidance of any un-neutral opinion (mainly opposition, towards which this article is clearly biased)

[...]in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"

Exactly this should be done in this article. There is a section even called "Views" that ought to represent the views of....(yes): the views of the movement. Yet people in here keep on blocking information in that regard.

"If one of these experts has had their opinions published then we can possibly use them as a reliable"

Okay. But there's no pre-built mechanism for such ? This might be a bit off topic, but if such doesn't exist wouldn't it be great to integrate experts of all kinds of fields into the Wikipedia-network by verifying their identities, setting up previously mentioned mechanism for easily consulting an expert of a specific field - or even groups of experts so that they can declare consensus or disagreement on issues ? That way Wikipedia could also grow closer to where the research actually takes place and could establish good ways not just to foster such but also to increase its quality and to connect researchers of specific fields of expertise.

--Fixuture.member (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly explained to you how Wikipedia works. It isn't open to negotiation here. We go by published sources. We do not consult 'experts'. We do not allow article subjects to assert that their version of reality is 'the truth'. That isn't going to change. Get used to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fixuture.member: To reply to a few of your points...

"That's why I asked for expert-consultation which is probably the thing that comes closest to "verification" in this case as the definitions of social & political movements aren't sharp enough (afaik there is no precise or static enough definition to scientifically verify the correct category)."

If we can't verify something, we can't have it in Wikipedia, that's just how Wikipedia works.

"If publicizing the truth isn't Wikipedia's goal it seems like it lost itself in bureaucracy and its true purposes out of sight."

That's how Wikipedia has been since inception. The problem is that "truth" is a subjective quality, and it interferes with the project's goal to be as objective as possible.

"This might be a bit off topic, but if such doesn't exist wouldn't it be great to integrate experts of all kinds of fields into the Wikipedia-network by verifying their identities, setting up previously mentioned mechanism for easily consulting an expert of a specific field - or even groups of experts so that they can declare consensus or disagreement on issues ?"

That will never happen. I don't know if you've ever heard of Citizendium, it's a site founded by Larry Sanger (one of the co-founders of Wikipedia) that works pretty much exactly the way you described. Rather than being a site that anyone can edit, it's a site that only qualified experts can edit, which was done with the goal of being more trustworthy than Wikipedia. In any case, it was necessary for Sanger to do that because such an idea would never work on Wikipedia, the whole idea of having "experts" here is antithetical to the concept of collaboration and consensus (which posits that all editors are inherently equal, only your ideas and actions matter). -- Atama頭 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

For the last part: yes, I have indeed heard about Citizendium (forgot its name by now though) but it really isn't what I've described here. What I described is a better integration of experts on specific fields, not restricting Wikipedia to their edits or even privileging them. It's mainly for connecting researchers of different fields together, entirely separate from the Wikipedia as it's known by now, thereby extending Wikipedia's purposes. By what I've described scientists could also identify new viewpoint-conflicts or lack of knowledge upon which they could base new research. This research (that would take place independently from Wikipedia) then could become the source of new additions/verifications/categorizations to the encyclopedia of human knowledge.

And the problem I've noticed here is that journalist' opinion already has acquired a certain privilege over "encyclopedia'd" information. And if that isn't the case, could we have a note like [disputed] with a hover-text similar to "or social movement" next to the right panel's "Political movement" (like those [citation needed]-notes) ?

Just take these as some offtopic ideas (though completely different from Citizendium) on Wikipedia while we probably have to wait for some actual expert on social movements - or at least another journalist (who doesn't write off Wikipedia) - to use the correct categorization. --Fixuture.member (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic material

This article is about The Zeitgeist Movement. It is not about Zeitgeist, The Movie, and accordingly should not be describing the contents of the movie except in as much as reliable sources do when making a direct connection. Material such as is included in this edit [18] is clearly off-topic, and accordingly should be removed as contrary to policy. We have had ongoing problems with TZM supporters engaging in synthesis to include material not directly supported by sources, and I see no reason why experienced contributors who clearly should know better should get away with doing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I know you are going to do as you like, thats the way Wikipedia works but edit warring over something so simple as the connection between the first movie and the movement does not make sense at all. We have sourced material that draws the connection, it is a direct connection [19] and there are other sources, many that confirm that the movie Zeitgeist the movie is the beginning of the Zeitgeist movement. Sorry to say your opinion means just about nothing Andy in regard to this issue, though its good you wish to discuss it on the talk page. Off topic? Hardly. It is the topic, in spades. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. That is synthesis, plain and simple. If you want the article to discuss connections between TZM and the movie, fine - find sources that do, and cite them for what they say about the connection. Adding random negative reviews of the movie just because you feel like it (or because it fits in with your own loopy current conspiracy theory [20]) is a violation of WP:NPOV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm probaly mistaken but my last edit seemed to address the concerns. My take is the movement (as if there is one) only happened after the movie thingee...so I thought clarifying how fruitcake the movie was to underline the fruitcakiness of the "movement" was within the scope of this article, but I'm probably mistaken.--MONGO 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken - it isn't up to us to 'clarify' anything. We report what reliable sources say regarding TZM, and let our readers decide for themselves just how fruitcake they are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a reliable source...its the online version of the biggest newspaper in Arizona, The Arizona Republic. I still do not see how one can happen without the other...there only was a "movement" after the "movie"...maybe the head fruitcake dude had his movement of one or a bowel movement or whatever, but I can't see how they are not the same thing.--MONGO 01:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you really need to stop thinking you are right on this even though you think you are right, you are wrong. As has been said it is a major paper and the section in the article is for reactions to the movie and context of what the movie is and its effects on the so called 'movement' by a notable film critic [21] Is it just a strange coincidence that the Zeitgeist movement, Peter Joseph, says that there is 'no connection to the movement' and that is parroted by the many Zeitgeist sock puppets and meat puppets and hangers on and other assorted convicted Zeitgeist enthusiasts which believe that gospel? So, not only are you against consensus on this you seem to be failing to get it that it is sourced as said to a big paper. I have no dog in this contest. Even though the article basically is mine now because I rewrote it several times over from the god awful mess it was previously. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in more of your BS - you clearly have an intense personal dislike for TZM, and are going out of your way to fill the article with negative material of questionable relevance to the article topic. And read WP:OWN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said I owned anything, just that I have rewritten the article because it sucked so bad before. Now anyone can come here and get a neutral presentation that is pretty accurate and reflects an even handed approach. Before it was an advert with Zeitgeist people maintaining it like it was their holy entree to the world. As far as BS maybe you need a reality check. Your block record indicates that you are heavy handed at times to put it nicely. As to filling the article with negative material? The lead and body are not negative at all, it gives a fair view of what the thing is, generously fair if anything. But, why ignore the critiques of it and the written commentary about it done by good sources? No reason to do that. Think about changing your name. I think that can be done here. Maybe 'Andy the editor' is a little better. Feel free to use my suggestion about name change. Not sure if you do any actual editing besides watch dogging articles and reverting things. Either way is fine but perspective wise I repeat that you were not paying attention to the sources that are legit or consensus. Why would I hate this group? If anything I think they are comical. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So your response to my suggestion that you seem to want to fill the article with off-topic material cited to sources that aren't discussing TZM is to go even further off-topic with comments about my block record and my user name? Pathetic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. It is not off topic. The Zeitgeist movement is based originally on the first movie. Multiple sources show that. Only the Zeitgeist 'movement' itself disagrees with that. Perhaps because its inconvenient to them to have that history baggage. But, sorry that is the fact of it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like this reference could be useful: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2011/10/14/occupy-tucson-starts-saturday-9-am-armory-park (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&action=historysubmit&diff=606052720&oldid=606049107&diffonly=1) I don't have a lot of time to give the project just now, so I'll leave it to others to restore or not and check in again when I can. I have several really clever rejoinders, but in the interest of avoiding ad hominems I'm stifling them. They're really good too, so I hope everyone appreciates my sacrifice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

as a source it actually tells us very little - that some people involved with Occupy Tucson had reservations about TZM, and that they made rather vague connections between Jared Loughner and unspecified Zeitgeist material. I can't see any obvious reason why Wikipedia should be attaching any particular weight to such opinions, any more than we would to random TZM supporters in other sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason this article even exists? I admit to ignorance of the history as to if this was a stand alone article or was spun off as a daughter article. I'm thinking that the entire Movement thing itself is a hoax...what movement?--MONGO 11:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah kind of like what I said earlier in another area. Peter Joseph was an advertising expert that worked on Wall Street also manipulating money things. That is not an automatic pejorative but the idea of creating a social movement might be a theme. He obviously has made money on this thing. Maybe we could think about taking the movie entries and incorporating them into this article. In other words getting rid of the individual movie articles. One might think of 'movements' as somehow being real, written about, cited etc. This one has very few sources and most of those are critical of it. Without the critical sources about it its doubtful, despite You-tube hits, about notability, because of lack of coverage. the word cult comes up over and over in reference to it. I guess cult means culture so maybe its just reflective of the times. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Some merging and consolidation is in order anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)