Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:59, 6 April 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2008. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Zeitgeist Movement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Zeitgeist Movement at the Reference desk.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The criticism section is not neutral

The way this criticism section is structured, having a bunch of sources listed at the beginning, is both unusual for Misplaced Pages and I'd argue in violation of WP:NPOV. It should list each source and what their criticism is in order of WP:Weight. I've also tagged Tablet Magazine with a weight tag. Please demonstrate why it deserves inclusion as it is not well known. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been rehashed many times here. Mostly pro Zeitgeist people come and want to change it. Tablet Magazine is notable and the author Goldberg is well known writer journalist. Suggestion to you to read some of the talk page above for previous discussion on your proposal that you are making now. It has been discussed plenty and the outcome was the state you found it in, which seems good. Please do not put tags like you did on the article page without discussion first. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I continue to question the notability of Tablet but because Goldberg carries weight I'm okay with it. Please discuss why you think the structure of the section is neutral. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree the citations look weird at the beginning listing all those things, links at the beginning of the criticism section. All that could be taken off, its like a strange laundry list. I think it just wound up like that from some not so good formatting of past editing. The Tablet is credible like many news magazines these days Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the two major focal highlights in the Criticism Section are abjectly biased and present a notable ignorance of TZM's actual, day to day work after 5 years. While the baggage and controversy of the first film might be pointful in passing, to construct the entire section around "M. Goldberg" clear contempt and arguably tabloid like sensationalized and provably flawed accusations; along with the "Journal of Contemporary Religion's" extremely un-contextualized criticism (which was also mostly derived from its objection to Joseph's first film) creates a deeply misguided perspective of The Zeitgeist Movement. Isn't Misplaced Pages about showing the general public the basic info? Isn't it something of a requirement to have articles related that show a general, informed understanding of the Movement's activities? So, I support the dispute. Whoever is keeping these criticisms in place on this page clearly operates in opposition to TZM, not objectively. This isn't about support of TZM's work. It is about basic objective data regarding what it actually does and why. JamesB17 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to point out a contradiction within the article's propositions. It states in the History section: >>The Zeitgeist Movement's origin was a reaction to Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008).<< If that is so, then why all the ongoing hype about Zeitgeist: The Movie as the central theme in the Criticisms section? It would be different if The Zeitgeist Movement began due to Zeitgeist: The Movie. But that is not the truth. Therefore, the very basis of having such criticisms are flawed as well. JamesB17 (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This article, like all Misplaced Pages articles, is based on published reliable sources. The fact that such sources appear not to take much interest in TZM's 'day to day work' is perhaps unfortunate for TZM, but not anything we can rectify. As for the significance of Zeitgeist: The Movie, it is the source we cite that makes the connection, not us. Meanwhile, if there is more third-party material available from reliable sources which might enable us to expand a little on TZM as it now stands, that would be useful. Otherwise, the article will have to stay much as it is, as the content has been discussed many times, and the consensus is clear enough that the critical material is appropriate. We certainly aren't going to hand over editorial control to supporters of TZM, as much as they'd like us to do so. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for the promotion of minor political movements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, this article should not reflect the bias of a pro or con perspective of TZM... and I have to state publicly that if there are any two editors which appear to have repeatedly dismissed any attempt at a fair article; an article which has the subject of a social group that has many published, reliable sources in its wake from all sides, yourself and "Earl King Jr." appear to, having read this Talk page, done nothing but work to highlight the worst and most dubious of all sources. That said, let's examine the logic of your argument and hence the nature of "published reliable sources" and the vast degree of perspectives in those source. This is to show that what has been highlighted in the Criticism's Section is likely in violation of wikipedia neutrality standards. The problem I see here is that you seem to think that anything that doesn't show a negative angle- is "supporting" TZM. I'm sorry, but that isnt acceptable in a world seeking objective information on wikipedia.

To do this, lets examine the published source themselves, in concert, to average out what is mostly highlighted. Here is a list of articles, reports and interviews which can be found in any detailed internet search:

1) New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=3&

2) Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html

3) Globes: http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000547764

4) The Marker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbN86J-ihHE&list=UUEwoFdqY09VwZFESGZ8Qp4A&index=145

5) Russia Today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RDihFrV_Os

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POkxC0oJWNo&feature=youtube_gdata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap9aMv8OUEI&list=UUEwoFdqY09VwZFESGZ8Qp4A&index=16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmMrx-yhaIA&list=UUEwoFdqY09VwZFESGZ8Qp4A&index=140

6) Hollywood Today: http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/2012/09/29/peter-joseph-and-the-far-seeing-emergent-zeitgeist-so-what-is-this-earth-of-

ours/

7) The Young Turks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCQGbO7K3EQ&list=UUEwoFdqY09VwZFESGZ8Qp4A&index=17

8) Tablet Magazine http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/57732/brave-new-world

9) Journal of Contemporary Religion http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537903.2011.539846

10) Yonge Street http://www.yongestreetmedia.ca/features/torontozeitgeist060513.aspx

11) London Real http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq8CkQE1lzE

12) Yahoo News http://voices.yahoo.com/peter-joseph-creator-zeitgeist-movement-8869497.html

13) Harold de Paris: http://www.heralddeparis.com/the-zeitgeist-movement-practical-advices-to-build-a-better-future/27800

14) Venture Reporter: http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/new_world_re_order/8838/

Those above are just some of the articles that can be found, ranging from large publications like the New York Times to local papers. Now, having read/seen all of these in the process of writing this addition to the Talk Page, I would note that there are many criticisms present in each article, most of which are doubled in theme in various articles. However, the current highlighted articles are VERY distant in context. In fact, it could be argued that they are utterly out of place to the extent of incompetence, since they are nearly random, when compared to every other article out there.

How do we justify neutrality when the vast majority of notable publications offer criticisms which have zero confluence with the ones highlighted? And while the films are mentioned, never is anything mentioned in the context and extremity of the opinions of the Journal of Contemporary Religion & Tablet. In order for a criticism to merit highlight, it needs to be repeated and averaged within the context of all other reports. What is currently here is "fish out of water" extremes.

Also, as per your comment, the consensus is not clear enough or we wouldn't be here. This neutrality claim is legit and needs fresh ideas. Just because you or "Earl" declare "its done" doesn't make it so, friend. JamesB17 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So what material are you proposing we should add, based on what sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple. Remove the "tabloid journalism" criticism or any criticism that has no confluence. Otherwise, is it just gossip. And why is there a "criticisms section" as opposed to a "praise" section? I say that jokingly as it is obvious that the originator(s) of the "criticisms section" have chosen to deliberately paint the picture of TZM as negative as best they can. To gain neutrality, I would first change it to "Media Perception" and then list both sides, as per the links above.

However, for the subsection of negative issues, as per the existing layout, the following would be appropriate to balance it.

"Direct criticism of The Movement's officially published materials have ranged from claims of utopian- ism, to transition problems to a loss of work incentives.

However, the most negative of criticism towards The Zeitgeist Movement actually regards the personal expression of Peter Joseph in his first documentary film called “Zeitgeist: The Movie”. Tablet Magazine, the Journal of Contemporary Religion and other outlets have targeted so-called “conspiracy” themes in their objections to The Zeitgeist Movement itself. However, none of The Zeitgeist Movement’s official materials online, since its inception, have made any recommendation of such “conspiracy” themes and Peter Joseph, the founder and core spokesman, has commented numerous times on the false conflation of his personal work and The Movement, which he deems as either deliberately malicious by biased reporters or simply poor research. JamesB17 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on published reliable sources. Your personal responses regarding criticisms of TZM are of no relevance whatsoever to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything listed above is based on published reliable sources. What "personal responses"? Every sentence and edit you have made on this page has been "personal" and you know it. Please clarify you objections.JamesB17 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:SELFSOURCE, it is okay to use self-published sources as information about the Movement itself. Since the Movement's official website states that the Movement is not about conspiracy theories or anti-religion (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq11), I will mention that in the article, because the current criticisms are simply irrelevant. --Melarish (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This section features two poor quality, biased, "fish out of water" reports, un-paralleled in gesture/conclusion than anything out there online, that fall in the policy violence of :"Questionable Sources". How about we include the other fringe report that The Z Movement is "New World Order" or "Illuminate". Alex Jones has written and spoken extensively about this. I see he is not included. Goldberg and the Journal of C.R. are exactly the same. JamesB17 (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Three points: (1) Criticism isn't expected to be 'neutral' - that is why it is called 'criticism'. (2) This article is written in English - please write your comments here in English, rather than gibberish. (3) Please continue a discussion in the thread you started it in, rather than jumping back to one which is two months old. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I just rolled back three edits, but my finger slipped and I hit the return key rather than finishing my edit summary, which should have erad 'You can't just say stuff, you need sources'. . Sorry about that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: (I have been away from Misplaced Pages for awhile to pursue activism so I have not been involved with TZM since late 2012) Having taken the time to read through this thread and similar ones regarding content being added I can say I am sorely disappointed by both sides in this. However, I do have to say that I will be reporting a certain individual who has had a history of goating people via edit wars. That being said, there is no rule condemning the use of responses to criticism that is published or put forth by said organization. Examples on Misplaced Pages Include: The Michael Moore, Austrian Economics, and even organizational material is being used to describe certain types of activities regarding annual events, Amnesty International is one that comes immediately to mind. That being said, what I find equally very interesting when asked a simple question regarding source use, AndyTheGrumpy can't take the time to answer what is the copyrighted material and can we use the material without the copyrighted information, instead he simply decides to start reporting people as if to shut down the conversation, sorry, just an observation. I thought this whole debate was settled back in January 2012-June if I believe. Why is this debate even happening again?Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:54, 6 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages
18:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not link to copyright violations. Per Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages
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 Misplaced Pages
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 Misplaced Pages
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 Misplaced Pages
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's rules? If it does, what's your evidence.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ZDay 2014 notablity

Hello, Some editors are not allowing the ZDAY 2014 data. Note: Abby Martin, a listed reported on Misplaced Pages/ notable as well for being on RT ( also listed as notable) mentions this: http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/mcdonalds-drug-penalties-economy-710/ at the 21 min mark. Flowersforparis (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not everything a Misplaced Pages-notable person or organisation does is significant. If this event is as meaningful as TZM claims, why is RT the only source covering it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

why? who cares. If it was on CNN would you feel the same? It's notable based upon wikipedia's rules. Go masturbate somewhere else. Flowersforparis (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably your comments could be removed Flowersforparis but I assume your editing days are over here, at least under that name. I guess you were busted as a sock puppet earlier so maybe you will incarnate back here soon. You are mistaken about your assumption of the article being controlled or of anyone caring to do that. R.T. reports on any old nonsense that is somehow anti American or questions society of the West. Zeitgeist really is a fringe group cult and that is why the usual media does not bring it up much, its just not taken seriously except by the zealots that believe in it. As you may know it has been called the worlds first large based internet cult. Mostly that is about the only serious internet commentary on it that is easy to find. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is probably worth looking at trimming some of the earlier ZDay stuff too - much of it is sourced directly to TZM, thus failing to demonstrate any real significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need to cover it year by year - way too much detail. I think a small amount of additional info about zday in general could be useful. Ravensfire (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know how all this works, but my impression is that AndyTheGrump and Earl King Jr. are a pair of bullies and the only thing Jr. is right about is that Flowersforparis is a sock puppet. I was considering donating money to Misplaced Pages because I trusted in its lack of bias, but I've changed my mind now.83.34.103.253 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)SalsaBelly

I agree, perhaps a sentence or two mentioning it, perhaps giving an overhead of the subjects talked about?Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

See Also Section

The See Also section needs some additions. What do you think of these for a start?:

• Commons-based peer production
• Gift economy
• Common ownership
• Open-source economics
• Scientism

(add more here)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixuture.member (talk • contribs) 12:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, based on my reverts, not much. It's your burden per WP:BRD to justify their addition. Take them one by one.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I also believe Technocracy within the list. Objections?Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie criticisms

Could either Ravensfire or AndyTheGrump explain why information from the movement's own website is not allowed? As I said before, Misplaced Pages:SELFSOURCE clearly states that own websites are okay for information about itself. If there is a problem with any other part of my edit, why remove the whole edit and not just the bits that are not good? Currently, this looks like a violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV because only one side is allowed while there is a reliable source for counter-arguments.

What if I just added the info from the official website, leaving the conclusions up to the reader? Would that be okay? I cannot make any further edits before being blocked so I hope someone responds here on the talk page. --Melarish (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of your personal opinion from the section added would leave us with nothing but a blank denial from TZM that they are conspiracy theorists etc. The source you link (a TZM FAQ ) entirely fails to address the criticisms in any meaningful way. Would adding "The Zeitgeist movement states that it does not "Support forbidden 'Conspiracy Theories'" and that it is not "Anti-Religious" actually add much to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would give the reader the information that actually the movement is not defined by the films and is therefore not about conspiracy theories or anti-religion. Otherwise they would only go by what the critics said and take that as truth. I know those are only citations and people should know better than to immediately accept someone's opinion but that's what people do in the absence of any other information. That's what I'm worried about - the article currently seems to say that TZM is a conspiracy/anti-religion movement because there is nothing indicating otherwise.

What would you consider "addressing the criticisms in a meaningful way"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melarish (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I have to point out that your personal opinion regarding 'truth' is of no relevance to Misplaced Pages? As for meaningfully addressing criticisms, something more substantive than 'not true' would be a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

How is this my personal opinion if it is clearly stated on the movement's own website?

Why cannot a movement define its own philosophy, or say what it is not? That would be like me saying my opinion of your beliefs is more true than your actual beliefs. How is that journalist's opinion in any way substantive? Is she an expert on social movements? Is she an expert in "exposing" cults? --Melarish (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

TZM can say what they like. Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to assert that it is true. As for 'journalists opinions', if we were to remove material attributed to journalists from the article (including criticism), there would be insufficient third-party sourcing to establish notability by Misplaced Pages guidelines - and the article would have to be deleted. Meanwhile, negative as well as positive reporting regarding TZM will remain - the criticism is attributed, and we aren't saying that it is necessarily true either, merely that such criticisms have been made. This is how Misplaced Pages works, and we aren't going to change things just because TZM don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So even if TZM's own page is considered opinion rather than truth by WP guidelines (I'd still like you to point out why WP:SELFSOURCE does not apply here? From what I can read, it is exactly saying that by WP guidelines that information would be considered true.) , can we at least have the movement's own opinion on the matter? --Melarish (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion - Misplaced Pages doesn't make assertions regarding the 'truth' of political philosophies, regardless how they are sourced. As for "the movement's own opinion", what text would you propose? 19:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Andy's comments about this. Lots of entities object to the views from independent sources that they consider negative. We normally don't include things like that on Misplaced Pages. We don't do the "they said but we they the are wrong!" Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be true that this objection is largely due to negative responses but nevertheless, it has been stated and the movement continues to abide by this. If that's not good enough, is this a reliable source to show that the movement is dealing with something much different than conspiracies? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0 --Melarish (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Selfsource is meant for mundane or trivial things. Zeitgeist itself does not pass as a reliable source, and most reliable sources have a lot of criticism of the movement and its films.

Also view: WP:CSECTION. Criticism sections are to be avoided. Instead the analysis of third party viewpoints should be integrated into other sections. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree in general with what WP:CSECTION says, I think it may be problematic concerning this article - there really doesn't seem to be enough in-depth third-party analysis of TZM to get beyond 'he said, she said' criticism and response sections. Take for example, the suggestions of 'utopianism'. We have a source stating that they consider the movement utopian, and no doubt we can find an "oh no we aren't" response, but little real expansion on the topic. With deeper analysis, we would probably find it easier to follow WP:CSECTION, but we have to work with what we have - and without citing the material in the 'criticism' section, even with its limitations, we simply couldn't justify the article at all. If TZM is notable by Misplaced Pages criteria, it must be due to a large extent to the fact that people have chosen to respond to it, even if the responses lack the depth we would prefer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinions aside though, mine is that the Zeitgeist movement is linked with its founders movie, the first one which is an assortment of N.w.O. Lizard gene conspiracy stuff, inside job of Mossad being involved, blowing up buidlings, secret financial groups, Bush family involved, etc. So, it seems like they themselves can say there is no connection to the 'Movement' but actually is there really a movement or is it mostly internet brainwashing? I know this is not a blog but it goes to show 'opinions' mine or others, even Peter Josephs are not to be trusted. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"....is an assortment of N.w.O. Lizard gene conspiracy stuff" There's no reference to "Lizard genes" in the Zeitgeist series, OK? Thank you and goodbye.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
02:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So a person is not allowed to change their views and start something new, without it being forever affected by the person's former work? If they declare lack of connection between the two, they're automatically lying?

"is there really a movement or is it mostly internet brainwashing?" - what do you mean? Are you asking whether the Movement does anything in the real world? The answer is yes but probably not notable enough for WP standards :P --Melarish (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe a little bit of level headedness is needed here as people are not providing compelling argument for both sides. Just state why they're relevant, or do I need to remind everyone of something called Misplaced Pages:Relevance? Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

TZM article is not proportional to the size of the movement.

The article for TZM on Misplaced Pages is way to short and scarce of information in relation to the size of the movement. The facebook page has over 150,000 fans, there is an entire 300 page book about the movement, there are worldwide Zdays, Zeitgeist Media Festivals, public figures who address the movement,etc. The movement is something global and yet the Misplaced Pages page is minuscule. Whether one subscribes to the train of thought put forward by the movement or not, its dimension must be recognized and accordingly the page must contain more information about the movement. The entire point of Misplaced Pages is to provide information about a subject to those who seek it, not to place it in obscurity because there are certain individuals that do not share the ideas put forward by the subject in particular. So please let the editors do their job by placing more concise information about TZM, and a neutral standpoint in the Criticism section, which I do not understand why it has to be called 'Criticism' section, as the reactions provoked by the movement have been both positive and negative. --PeachDinosaurShoe (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, not Facebook pages. Also, we don't do fair and balanced here, we report what the sources say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The amount of followers on the official Facebook or Twitter sites is a perfectly valid measure of the social impact of TZM. Whether you judge it or not as valid does not change the fact that TZM and its social follow up is of a large magnitude and that the page on Misplaced Pages and the information displayed on it should be concordant with that magnitude. --PeachDinosaurShoe (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I read it. What is your point exactly? Are you arguing against the fact that the Misplaced Pages page about the movement is limited and that there should be more information relating to TZM? Please explain yourself.--PeachDinosaurShoe (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist has not been hashed over much by serious commentators. In other words there are not a lot of reliable sources for citations that have much to say about it or put it in some other light. Right now the article is pretty good. It is informative. It is succinct. It leads to the Zeitgeist website. It portrays the start and continuation of the concept by Peter Joseph. You can not ask for more than that really. We can not just copy the Faq's page from Zeitgeist as information about itself. If the Moscow Times writes some big article on it or Peter Joseph is interviewed by Barbara Walters or even a good college newspaper then we can probably use that in the article. Base line is that it is arguable how 'real' the movement is. 'Grassroots social movement' is really a stretch even, since it is the personal project one could almost say 'marketing project' of Peter Joseph who sells DVD's of it. It can be said that the article is good, its informative. It does what it is supposed to do, tell about the Zeitgeist Movement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, find them. The number of twitter followers someone has is irrelevant. The official TZM twitter account has about 10 times more than I do, and I am no big deal...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Who needs reliable sources and for what? I am just saying that editors should be allowed to make the Misplaced Pages page more informative (yes, with their sources and all), which is not happening because some users are committed to keeping the page small, uninformed and biased. There should be an amount of information proportional to the magnitude of the movement, you or anyone should not need any source to understand that simple logic. --PeachDinosaurShoe (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is the way Misplaced Pages rules have been set up - if it hasn't been covered by a scientific journal or mainstream media, it is not considered worthwhile. This means that majority opinion and funding decisions (about what gets in mainstream media) is essentially deciding WP content and opposition views have a hard time getting heard (remember, history is written by the victors). You'll either have to find sources that WP allows or find some way to contest the guidelines.

BTW, the thing with likes and followers is that both can be artificially increased. So such numbers cannot be relied on. --Melarish (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section includes critique of "Zeitgeist: The Movie" which is unrelated to the movement

The first movie is, despite popular belief of many critics and apparently editors of this wiki-page, NOT related to The Zeitgeist Movement. The Movement was founded in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum and members of the movement often criticise the first movie etc.

Critique of that movie should move to its wikipedia-page: Zeitgeist: The Movie Such as this section that keeps getting added:

In Tablet magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being "steeped in far-right, isolationist,

and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories," and called the Zeitgeist movement "the world's first Internet-based cult,

with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity."

--Fixuture.member (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's right. It is criticism. It is sourced. It is attributed. And it explicitly refers to the movement as well as the movie. It will remain in the article. And for the benefit of the clueless trolls who keep removing it, without the criticism section, there would be insufficient material from third-party sources to meet Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, and the article would thus have to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section includes critique of Zeitgeist: The Movie which is unrelated to the movement. The first movie is, despite popular belief of many critics and apparently editors of this wiki-page, NOT related to The Zeitgeist Movement. The Movement was founded in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum and members of the movement often criticise the first movie etc. end quote.

I guess that is your opinion, but probably someone elses opinion would differ. Is it just an odd coincidence that Peter Joseph called the first movie Zeitgeist and the movement Zeitgeist or the the subject matter about plots and schemes by secretive groups is used? Do you have any outside source from reputable sources that dismiss the connection? There is too much of a logical disconnect. Its like saying the Simpsons t.v. show did not have anything to do with the Simpsons movie or the old Zorro T.v. show had nothing to do with Zorro the Movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is that regardless of whatever TZM may say, the sources we cite make connections between the movies and the movement - and it isn't up to Misplaced Pages to decide who is right or wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy Section

In the philosophy section it says:

The movement advocates the elimination of money and property

Private property is meant here (it's also the former term used at this place). However the movement only advocates for a certain extend of elimination of private property for the purpose of pooling products. For example if a person has some personal artwork, a coin-collection or anything alike it stays his private property (in contrast to for example a mine or a field). Things are cleared up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rBRnjV-xI Please somehow incorporate that distinction. --Fixuture.member (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And why should we take a YouTube video uploaded by an anonymous person as a reliable source for anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be a source for it. That's why it's on the talk-page. It just clears up the misconceptions upon which this part is built upon. I'll try to find some source on that.

Fixuture, it might be a good idea for you to study about Misplaced Pages. Right now it seems you have no real idea of the mechanics of how it works. Though Peter Joesph makes it clear in his interviews that 'gate keepers' control this article, his term he uses on the official Zeitgeist Youtube station, that is not the case. There is no conspiracy here to present Zeitgeist in a certain way. We would welcome anyone here to edit the article but there is criteria that has to be used. The article can not be an advert for its subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., you clearly don't understand what Fixuture.member means by, "Please somehow incorporate that distinction." Distinction here does not refer to the YouTube source. It refers to the distinction made by the source. Fixuture.member even explains this, saying "Please somehow incorporate that distinction." He even says later, "I'll try to find some source on that." Your condescension (i.e. statements such as "Fixuture, it might be a good idea for you to study about Misplaced Pages. Right now it seems you have no real idea of the mechanics of how it works.") is not based on proper consideration.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
01:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"Though Peter Joesph makes it clear in his interviews that 'gate keepers' control this article, his term he uses on the official Zeitgeist Youtube station, that is not the case. There is no conspiracy here to present Zeitgeist in a certain way." Fixuture.member's post above didn't bring up the issue of conspiracy, so you have no real justification for "schooling" him by bringing it up. There's no reason to dig up his grave this time.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixuture.member, I would recommend a filtered Google Scholar search for reliable sources about the Zeitgeist Movement. Here's one. It's better practice on Misplaced Pages to look for a reliable source for the Zeitgeist Movement before deciding what information to incorporate. That way, instead of skipping every reliable source that doesn't cover the specific sub-issue you are looking for, you are instead picking up all the good stuff as you find it. It's much, much faster that way.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
02:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article you link, Kmarinas86? As I recall, having looked at it some time ago, it says nothing significant about TZM, and appears to be a non-peer-reviewed personal commentary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking back, I obtained that article via Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange back in September 2012. If I've still got a copy, I haven't saved it anywhere obvious - it may have been on my Netbook, which has since been reformatted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Which "article" are you talking about? My link returns a bunch of search results.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
04:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that by "here's one" you meant the article at the top of the list: AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe a simple question should suffice, are there any reliable sources which clarify their positions that acceptable per Misplaced Pages Policy? Does everyone have to bite people's heads off here, I'm just saying. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources and restructuring:

• Reason magazine

I removed this as I don't think it's a RS.

• Tablet magazine

I'm thinking this isn't. I'm not sure though, and I'm not that familiar with them. Is it some blog, or some ideological magazine? I'm leaning towards removing it.

• Zeitgeist sources

Too much reliance on WP:SELFSOURCE. I think as it stands, the self source policy is a bit vaguely worded. I will cite guidelines #5 however. Far too much of the article was reliant on those sources. Self sources should be used for mundane, trivial things, (eg. when Zeitgeist was formed). If you rely too much on them for writing the article, it gives them undue weight to their views, and how they would like to present themselves. We should rely upon the reliable secondary sources to dictate which are the most important aspects of the movement, and to rely upon their assessment of their views.

• Criticism section

Which brings me here. WP discourages "Criticism" sections. I recommend removing the Tablet review entirely, then rephrasing the first paragraph which relies upon the NYT, Huffington Post, and Palm Beach Post, and moving it to the views section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Even now, I checked, and 7 out of the 14 references in this article are Zeitgeist sources. That's far too much. These sources need to be replaced, or removed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Tablet' piece, I suggest you look through the archives - this has been repeatedly discussed. As for the 'criticism' section, I have already responded above - I see no reason to repeat myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And as for 'replacing' sources, could you please explain what you are proposing to replace them with? As has been repeatedly pointed out, there is very little third-party material written on TZM - if there were, I'm sure we could write a better article, but we can't conjure sources out of thin air. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the 'Tablet' source, it seems that it possibly isn't alone in suggesting that TZM indulges in antisemitism. An article on taz.de, the website for Die Tageszeitung, a left-leaning German paper, seems to be suggesting much the same thing. The article is in German though, and it probably needs careful translation by a neutral person before we cite it - it is obviously a sensitive subject, and we have to get it right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I can recall per memory, I believe that all of those were sources that either a) describe what TZM is and b) responding to criticism via official organizational material and figureheads. I fail to see how any of such sources, which was agreed upon by everyone now disputing this (with the exception of the newcomers). Did something in Misplaced Pages's policies that forbid such use of self-published material? Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC) When discussing what the "views" of the organization are, the current section contains both secondary and primary sources, both of which are appropriate. For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library. -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out creates a non-neutral presentation because we are intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor accurate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_btXktBTEi8
2. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/57732/brave-new-world
3. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537903.2011.539846
4. http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRI8QSpD3_s
6. "The Zeitgeist Movement: Envisioning A Sustainable Future". Huffington Post. Mar 16, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
7. New world re-order: The Zeitgeist Movement spreads to Ventura County, Shane Cohn, VC Reporter (California), May 12, 2011
8. (5) What are some of the central characteristics of the solution proposed (RBEM)?. "In a RBEM, the focus moves from static ownership to strategic access, with a system designed for society to obtain access as needed. For example, rather than owning various forms of recreational sporting equipment, Access Centers are set up, typically in regions where such actions occur, where a person simply "checks out" the equipment- uses it and returns it. This "library" type arrangement can be applied to virtually any type of human need." Retrieved: 5 April 2014.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics