Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:43, 13 June 2016

Template:ZG sanctions

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.

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. Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Sustainability Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sustainability task force. 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.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: delete, 8 November 2008, see discussion. keep, 6 March 2011 (UTC), see discussion.

If you are a member or affiliate of the Zeitgeist movement, or were called here by one, please read this introduction on how to change the article.

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 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Wessex citation

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

Lede

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

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

Zeitgeist movement and democracy

In reference to this edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perry Gruber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. Green, Emily (23 Dec 2015). "North Portland neighbors test a new economic model | Street Roots". news.streetroots.org. Street Roots. Retrieved 2016-04-22.
2. Glider-Shelley, Lydia (May 22, 2012). "Larry K. Mason, Author of Invisible Hand: How do we End Unemployment?". nopomstuff.info. Retrieved 2016-04-23.

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

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

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

Chapters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead section

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

Nullifying the work of others is contentious

(copied from my talk page)

I hope you do not resume editing tendentiously on this article. You removed accurate information that was cited. Not a good idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: You replaced good text with babytalk: "Samuel Gilonis describes the movements opinions as wanting to replace all private property with for what Joseph refers to as ..." That is not good editing. A movement does not have "opinions", and the statement cites goals. You are not following WP:BRD -- Bold, revert, discuss. Go back to the talk page and explain why you want to nullify the work of other editors with this half-baked language. Grammar's Li'l Helper 07:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Earl King Jr was following BRD. The IP made a bold edit, Earl King Jr reverted it, and the onus to discuss the matter was on whoever restored the material. It's not BRRD or BDR. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Study further. Earl King reverted a number of edits in a sweep that included the most recent from a signed editor -- without discussion. The history page tells all. Grammar's Li'l Helper 07:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No, changed a few words back to conform to the citation that was given in sourcing the information and they were a very few words, not a 'sweep'. Someone tried to change the general information from the citation, an I.P. I think, not that there is anything wrong with that, but its better to keep the actual intent of the citation and not someones rephrasing, hence inaccurate, not even paraphrased right information. Please return the former edit as it was it was accurate. Also the bit you added sfarney about how many people belong to this very iffy movement is not actually sourced in the citation, its of unknown origin. Where does the number come from, Zeitgeist? We can not have some Peter Joseph interview claiming how many people belong when no public records are available for this social movement which may not even be a social movement but very possibly just a promotion for Mr. Josephs series of movies. After all he did announce the Zeitgeist movement at the end of a movie so this whole movement thing is very very iffy and needs good sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to accept as a definitive statement on the number of members sources solely to a student newspaper. Presumably the writer had obtained the number from somewhere but there is nothing in what is written to suggest that it was from anyone who might actually have access to the information.Martinlc (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the writer of the article is hostile to Zeitgeist Movement and would not be accepting their numbers without checking -- but it would be very boring if it included all the background work confirming each fact. If this it RS for any facts without a whole monolog on where it got the info, it is RS for this fact too. So either you throw it out completely, or you use it. You don't cherry-pick. Also, that standard for would have to be applied to all the hostile sources, too. Where did they get their information? Grammar's Li'l Helper 16:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No. That logic fails. Editors have to exercise judgement about content in a source . There is no real source anywhere of the number of members. Is a member of a blog or forum a member?Unknown. Earl King Jr. (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

To aid you in your quandary, blogs do not have "members". By definition, blogs are written and published on the determination, origination, and activity of individuals.. Movements do have members, however. We are discussing whether this is a source on the number of members. Your argument that "there is no real source" is simply begging the question. You know what that means, right? Grammar's Li'l Helper 23:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that you are tendentious and like to make points by being insulting. I know that Zeitgeist information and movies and movement was thought to be a right wing anti Semitic organization that promoted classic stereotypes about Jews. That clear enough? As you know the movement or so called movement and its debatable whether a movement exists, was banned on a common German social networking site. It appears that was taken out of the article but no doubt should be returned into the article. Your talk page seems to indicate you have a dog in this contest Slade. Anyway, the source for that information of members is not known. Membership is secret. It is not public information. There is no way to say a number and expect that is true. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

All those violations of WP:CIVIL do not make a hill of beans. It is a reliable source used in the article for some statements critical of the subject, but not good enough for statements supportive of the subject. That is a significant problem of WP:NPOV. Grammar's Li'l Helper 12:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The right wing neo Nazi aspects of Zeitgeist

Probably not a bad idea to put back some aspect of this information ]. Its one of our few reliable sources. From the link, Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement. Many were genuinely baffled in 2009 when a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism. Others seem a bit embarrassed by the first Zeitgeist; they’ll often say it’s “irrelevant”—one of TZM’s favorite epithets—because it came out before the movement got started. But no one is disavowing it, and so a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia. “I’m willing to accept that the filmmaker is a person who has a great energy and tremendous ignorance who inadvertently replicated the Nazi view of money manipulation,” says Berlet. “In which case he needs to repudiate it.” That seems unlikely. In a video interview available online, Joseph rails against his critics, “the self-appointed guardians of the status quo.” The first Zeitgeist, he insists, “is based on pre-existing information. There isn’t one thing in that film that doesn’t come from a source.” True enough. The problem is what the sources are.

So opinions about using some aspect of Zeitgeist movement having been banned from studiVZ ? Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And another of your comments fades off into gibberish. Would you like to clarify? Grammar's Li'l Helper 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarify? Asking for comments on Zeitgeist being banned on a social networking site in Germany, whether that merits being in the article. Are you pro or con Slade Farney? You are that Slade Farney right? Your old signature would imply a certain bias on this issue? Anyome ever tell you that your signature is annoying? Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, your comment is non-sequitur. I am "pro" making an encyclopedia. People can call each other names until the crows sport flowers, but not all name-calling is encyclopedic. You may recall that Benito Mussolini called for making the trains run on time, but that does not turn every train schedule advocate into a fascist. Editors must use common sense. Grammar's Li'l Helper 20:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Being a Holocaust denier and subscribing to the theories of Jewish conspiracy of banking etc. does not preclude one from editing. As a public person with a theory of denial about history that is considered fringe, a little caution is probably needed. The subject on the talk page is whether to include the basics of the 1st Zeitgeist movie which conjured up the Protocols of thr Elders of Zion and the outlook of Nazi Germany and its theories aboit Jewish culture being a large aspect of the 1st movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Mid-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• Start-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Low-importance Environment articles
• Sustainability task force 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