Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:32, 14 June 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.

Should we do re-directs of the movies to here

The other articles about the movies? In other words redirect those articles to this article. There does not seem to be much of a reason for keeping those separate movie articles. Some of the Zeitgeist members that edit here are still kicking about the first movie not being connected but that is a non issue as overwhelming sources, plus common sense says they are. It is bad form to bend to their will just because they form a presence here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Merging is good. Tom Harrison 10:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I started the process and this guy accused me of 'being' a Zionist Agenda. That made me scratch my head I think he should be kicked out of editing Misplaced Pages for that. That aside merge the movie articles into the Zeitgeist Movement article, yes. No doubt these articles of movies were created by the zealous supporters and have no real value except to promote. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw that too...if it repeats, a report to AN/I should produce a lengthy block. As far as the redirects, I'm not in any camp in that, but thought that the "movement" only happened after the movie...and to be honest, it seems like a scam to me or a hoax.--MONGO 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify something. I have nothing against the Jewish people or religion, nor any other belief system. What I am against is the constant erosion of these articles by Earl King Jr. and co. who seem intent on undermining the perceived "anti-Semitic" message of these films by souring the articles. He and others appear to lurk around these articles, waiting for other editors who they perceive as "sock puppets of Peter Joseph", "Zeitgeist members", "zealous supporters", etc. to be turning the other way, before editing to their tastes. Moreover, they appear to be the type of disruptive editors who attempt to game the system by careful, sometimes tag-team-like manoeuvers that leave their opponents looking like the unruly element. Sure, take it to the highest authority if you want to see me banned. As for the matter of article blanking, there is no consensus for that. Please desist. And I didn't accuse Earl of 'being' a Zionist agenda, I gave him a nickname, like Phil "The Power" Taylor. He's earned it. nagualdesign 16:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How did I earn it? Nothing you just said makes sense. You have no credibility and are now repeating that I earned the moniker Zionist agenda your nickname for me in your edit summaries. That does not even make sense. How do I have a 'Zionist agenda' You think I want a new Israeli empire in the Middle East? That is the common usage of that term. Also I did not blank the article so your edit summary is false. I did a redirect to the Movement article because the movie articles are mostly pointless fluff promotion pieces. Saying I blanked the article is lying unless you do not understand what a redirect is. Right now the small consensus is probably to redirect the two movie articles anyway into the main Zeitgeist movement article and I am going to do that. Maybe hold off on redirecting the 'Zeitgeist the movie' article for a while but that probably also could be redirected into this article page. Since you are editing as an anti ethnic group or anti country conspiracy person that believes in a secret agenda, I suggest you go easy on your reverts because that perspective is not neutral. Yes, you deserve a block and especially now since you are repeating the same thing without any apology for your language or inference and your rationale does not make sense, but you repeat it again. Maybe it is part of the Zeitgeist stuff to believe in conspiracy things but it is absurd to translate that to here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that the movie articles were redirected with no discussion on the relevant talk pages whatsoever, I have reverted. Any redirects will have to be justified vie WP:RS - i.e. evidence that sources discuss the movies in relation to TZM, rather than as independent material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What was the timeline...which came first? The movement or the movie? Also...what movement? A few wackos on the loose who watched a movie and want to protest at vermin ridden inner city tent encampments does not a "movement" make.--MONGO 03:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we please not turn this talk page into a forum for anti-TZM rants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not democratic Andy. Getting overloaded with the same people that made the movie entries to discuss anything is pointless. The movies can fit nicely into the Zeitgeist Movement article. There is no real reason to highlight them beyond telling people the basics instead of a blow by blow account mostly sourced from Zeitgeist material. I think you could leave the redirects alone Andy. Yes, you can edit with the Zeitgeist sock-puppets and meat-puupets here if that is your prerogative though. Mostly these are internet released movies. There is virtually no serious commentary about them except mostly scathing critiques. Maybe some think the moon shot was faked also but can not verbalize because of chips implanted. The Movement article is pretty good now. Look at it from a year ago. Again Andy so far I have never seen you edit anything, just remove the hard work of others. Cited information. Reliable sources. Citing policy in the nastiest way possible ain't pretty either, or not being able to back off when wrong. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Consolidation is definitely in order. It might be better to merge the movie articles into one page to start with. Then, material about the movement can be included there as a section, and this article redirected there. Tom Harrison 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, into one article I think. This article says there was the first movie, then a second movie, the end of which it was announced that the movement was to get started. It's all very exciting I suppose but it's mostly self referential and not really sure that it's more than an internet meme...its getting too much out of us by getting multiple articles.--MONGO 11:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist people are just going to keep reverting along with Andy now for what ever reason. Andy, you also did a false edit summary by saying the redirect was not discussed. Why are we promoting a bunch of internet You-tube movies? Do hits on You-tube actually mean anything? Its just free advertising with the movie articles. Andy apparently will chew his leg off rather than admit any error so the usual comments of outrage and fake policy diatribes can be ignored from him. The same cast and crew sometimes with different names will just keep repeating that the 'Zeitgeist the movie' is not connected with the movement. As far as the time line obviously the movement in a bottle, just add water, was a spinoff later of Zeitgeist the movie. So it is just a part of the history of this thing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it is self-evident that Earl King Jr. is incapable of complying with policy concerning this article and the related ones on the movies, I shall be starting a thread on WP:ANI, asking for him to be topic banned. What with repeated personal attacks on this page and in edit summaries, the repeated use of this talk page as a forum to promote half-baked conspiracy theories, and a complete disregard for NPOV and RS policy in editing, I think it is clear enough that he is far too emotionally involved to maintain the necessary standards regarding this controversial article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You are way over reactive. I am a neutral editor here that is using cited sources and improving the article. I do not understand this reaction. We are just trying to discuss things in an even handed manner. I see your block history. I assume you are trying to provoke a reaction and that is not going to happen. It's true that I rewrote the article mostly but I do not possess it. Lets make it about editing and not editors unless there is a real issue. Its your prerogative to hover over this article and revert revert revert but that is not really constructive. Better you engage in the debate in this thread. This topic is controversial so caution and super neutral approach must be used. There is a lack of good citation references and that is a problem in general. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A 'neutral editor' wouldn't be posting half-baked conspiracy theories on this talk page - and repeatedly violating WP:BLP policy in the process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as a non-involved administrator, Earl King Jr., achieve consensus to merge the pages before you try to merge these articles. Repeatedly trying to merge well established articles without consensus is "less than awesome," and will lead to issues if you continue doing so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright. So far the consensus is to merge though that is marginal, here on this talk page. Its difficult because of the many people that land here from the Zeitgeist. For that reason, if you look at the article history say from a year ago you will notice that the article was pretty awful and constantly under attack for adding cut and paste material from the group. The movie articles are part of the walled garden of related things and it was all maintained intensely by movement members. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Completely against merging. Each page (movie) should be taken on a case by case basis, just like any other article on Misplaced Pages. Earl King Jr.'s long term anti-Zeitgeist agenda has grown tiring; largely a single topic editor, I suggest he find a new hobby. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The way to get started is to first merge the movies into one article. That should be relatively uncontroversial, if there's no consensus for more, then no more needs to be done. But there's no reason to have a different page for each movie. Tom Harrison 10:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe...the movies must surely be more notable than this cock and bull "movement" hoax. I'll look into the notability of all these things before I comment further...if indeed there are more than a few wackos that are part of the "movement" them maybe this article has a purpose....right now all I see is that a head wacko that won't tell the world his surname says it's a movement, then some other wackos want to yack about it at tent encampments and you have some mass murderer that watched the movie and another wacko that lives in a tree somewhere....it's beyond weird...--MONGO 11:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion above is good The way to get started is to first merge the movies into one article. That should be relatively uncontroversial, if there's no consensus for more, then no more needs to be done. But there's no reason to have a different page for each movie. How is the title of an article changed? Maybe use the first movie as the one to merge the others into. So do a redirect to Zeitgeist the movie of the other ones? Give it a rest 'some different stuff' You are way off base. The main body of the article is very good now. There is nothing anti Zeitgeist about it. Maybe because you are one of the pro sympathizers here that end up with meats and socks backing is the reason you are upset. As I said before I think Zeitgeist is funny and a cultural marker and it is hard to resist trying to make the article neutral. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Its sad to see the obsession by those who wish to remove the massive cultural impact Zeitgeist and the sequels have had. Since it is more "underground" this route is a viable scam by those who wish to remove the influence from the internet. The fact is, each movie is a separate idea and they all have no direct relationship to the work being done by TZM. By work, I mean TZM does not promote the movies and the events hold focus only on the RBE stuff. TZM is not a "fanclub" of the films and hence any merger is highly misrepresenting of TZM's actual work and ideology. JamesB17 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Many films are relevant to the movement's goals which advocate an Open Source social system without the market's concept of fair or equal exchange. Hell I could go to youtube select some TZM lectures without a including a film from the zeitgeist film series, burn it to a DVD, and it would give an accurate display the goals of TZM.

The goal by Anti-TZMers here is to merge "Zeitgeist the Movie" with TZM page, since the first film does not describe TZM's soultion and is more a personal film by Peter Joseph. It's an off-topic stratgegy.Spirit of the times (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Changing the movie article

O.k, the most popular idea seems to be to put the movie articles into the original movie. Zeitgeist the Movie. As far as it being contentious it does not seem to be except maybe by some of the Zeitgeist hangers on. As far as sandbox its probably a waste of time for people to discuss that being done and not doing it themselves. So someone, probably not me because I have done my fair share on these things, take some basic stuff from the movies and redirect then to the first movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sticking all of the movies into the first film is one of the worst ideas I've heard. Not only does the first film have plenty of references to be a stand alone article, but they are different films, which is why different articles were created for each one of them in the first place. The only way it would possibly make sense would be to create a new article called The Zeitgeist Film Series, which is what it actually is - and then put information from the 3 film articles into that new article. -- But then you end up with either 3 different Criticism/Reception sections (one for each film), or just 1 bigger one that is largely focused on the first film with some other stuff shoved in there regarding the later two films. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The films are just YouTube films right?--MONGO 11:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, they had screenings around the world and are available for purchase on Amazon like any other film. One significant difference is that all of the films are available for free/legal download. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest S.D.S remove the Amazon sales site above. That is blatant advertising promotion and probably will even Google up and people can use it for reference to buy the movie, so it is really awful promotion. Screenings around the world? By Zeitgeist supporters, some of the same people that created the content of the articles here also. Its doubtful that a theater actually showed these movies to a real audience beyond fringe festivals and weekend events. What is the longest actual theater showtime release period? They are notable because they sell them on Amazon? funny idea. Anybody can sell any thing on Amazon. Joseph makes X amount on each C.D. sold so why would we make a giant advert leading to his 'film series' website and his pay pal button? Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Its sad to see the obsession by those who wish to remove the massive cultural impact Zeitgeist and the sequels have had. Since it is more "underground" this route is a viable scam by those who wish to remove the influence from the internet. The fact is, each movie is a separate idea and they all have no direct relationship to the work being done by TZM. By work, I mean TZM does not promote the movies and the events hold focus only on the RBE stuff. TZM is not a "fanclub" of the films and hence any merger is highly misrepresenting of TZM's actual work and ideologyJamesB17 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Creating a sandbox for the proposed changes

I agree with user:nagualdesign that this process be transparent. I highly suggest that anyone who is pushing for these changes create a sandbox for the proposed changes/new article so that a consensus can be arrived at in terms of what is to be included. There would be a lot of work to do here regarding content choice and the process should not be rushed. -- If someone doesn't know how to create a sandbox just look at the top of this page to the right of your username. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to do that fine. If no one does it in the next 24 to 48 hours and finishes it in a day or two, then lets redirect the movies into the first movie. Also making a dedicated Misplaced Pages article that is named after a Peter Joseph blog is a bad idea The Zeitgeist Film Series is his website, why would we name a Misplaced Pages article after the 'Official Website' for Peter Josephs Youtube movies? Oh and his sites are pay pal sales sites for DVD's and it is all self sourced material. Also I see 'some Different stuff' is posting links to his edit warring thing. Could you stop? , you were blocked for tendentious edit warring and interrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point on this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: "If someone wants to do that fine. If no one does it in the next 24 to 48 hours and finishes it in a day or two, then lets redirect the movies into the first movie." No, don't do that. Please read this. nagualdesign 20:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as an uninvolved adminstrator, I would highly suggest that anyone considering merging articles in this group do so by establishing consensus on each individual move (which I do not currently see, and which would likely involve a discussion on each talk page.) Given the prominence of this series of articles, I do not believe it is appropriate to merge them without a consensus being established, and I see no consensus for their merge, here or anywhere else. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps...but I have yet to see anyone demonstrate notablity for anything other than the first movie. I guess there was a sequal movie as bizarre as this one where the editor/writer/producer/director then proclaimed that the "movement" was now beginning. It reminds me of the scene in Forrest Gump where Gump has been running forever and he has this pack of dimwits also running behind him and then Gump stops and they all say, gee what are we suppose to do now Gump?--MONGO 04:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't think they are notable, you could always AfD them. But currently there's not a consensus in favor of merging the articles; merging them needs to wait until there is a consensus in favor of merging them (and all potentially effected pages need to be notified - there are templates to do so, although I can't remember what they are offhand (I wound up with a concussion last night that scrambled my brain a bit, heh.) If additional outside attention is desired, you can always run an RfC or other proess about it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah its a colossal waste of time dealing with the pro Zeitgeist people and yes they are internet movies that are sort of an Angry Birds flash of pop culture. I doubt one theater had a real run of people going to see these movies. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Yeah its a colossal waste of time dealing with the pro Zeitgeist people" That's some good time management skills you got there then. Please continue making the best use of your time.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
00:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem on the article is the power struggle between pro and con Zeitgeist people. If you look at the article history say from a year ago or two years ago you will see that. There are several editors here though that just want a neutral presentation of the group. Also people troll each other on the page especially recently. Its better if that stops now and just editing and discussion take place. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe it would be fair to make a clear distinction between the first movie and the actual cause of the movement. TZM has stated many times that the first movie, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, does not represent the real objectives and train of thought of the organization. Focusing on conspiracy theories is counter productive to a sane discussion of wether the proposal of the movement is feasable or not.

The objective of TZM is the same as The Venus Project Activist Movement which spawned after the TZM and TVP spilt. An Open Source society, without politics or supposedly equal exchange, the free market. Nowhere in the first zeitgeist film is that goal mentioned or laid out, it simply dismantles religion, says 9/11 is an inside job, and talks about bankers using the social structure to swindle more wealth into their hands. Only at the end does it say the one line "humans re-discovering their relationship to nature" ONE LINE. Aeon-characteristic (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you think that it is us that is formulating the story line in the article about Zeitgeist things? That is not so though. We are merely reporting on what is reported about it by what are thought to be reliable sources, so we have no 'dog in the hunt' for the larger and smaller meanings of the whole thing. That is an important point. It serves your cause much much more to have a neutral presentation article that has no baggage of your interpretation. Unless you are someone that is published in credible sources on this subject your opinion has zero value if I can say that without sounding insulting. We are just worker bee's here making some information for the public, volunteers that for whatever reason have nothing better to do. That information can not reflect the F.A.Q.'s material from Zeitgeist, pro Zeitgeist sentiment by members such as yourself etc. It has to be given at an encyclopedic level or quality. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Political Movement?

How is TZM a political movement? They do not advocate change via the common political means and publicly condemn the electoral system. By their own self-description, they are a "social" movement and appear to fit that criteria more than anything. Bizarrely, the opening paragraph of the article even confirms this. Is reads: "The Zeitgeist Movement argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations but instead the scientific method should be employed to develop a society based on collaboration and a balance of technology and nature."

Therefore, they can't be political if this line is stated, in the traditional sense. The opening paragraph is self-contradictory. Why not change it so "Social" JamesB17 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are based on published reliable sources. That TZM for some bizarre reason attempts to suggest that a movement with the stated objective of fundamentally transforming the global economic system (amongst other things) isn't involved in politics is of no relevance to this article - after this 'transition' takes place (and pigs fly) Misplaced Pages will no doubt redefine the English language to suit the new techno-overlords, but until then, our article will use words as we expect readers to understand them, and not to suit the TZM agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy! AGF!!!!--MONGO 19:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy. I'm glad to finally see that you truly do dislike TZM and hence you are have no interest in being neutral. Great characteristics for an editor. Read: "The Zeitgeist Movement argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations but instead the scientific method should be employed to develop a society based on collaboration and a balance of technology and nature."

Rub those too-close-together eyes and read it again. Maybe 2-3 times if you need to. See the problem? JamesB17 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. This is an encyclopaedia - it is written for the comprehension of readers, not for the benefit of political movements. TZM can argue all they like that they aren't involved in politics, but both common sense and reliable sources say otherwise - and we aren't going to mislead our readers just to satisfy TZM's weird compulsion to redefine the English language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. so they are a "political movement" that does not condone the use of politics to solve problems. Got it!!! LOL JamesB17 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, plenty of people have been killed in the name of religions that condemn violence, most capitalist countries structure themselves to prevent the poor from getting richer, and most communist countries continue to maintain a division of wealth and status. What large groups of people say and what they do rarely overlap. And if a group says they don't advocate setting themselves on fire, but every single member has been hospitalized for dousing themselves in kerosine and lighting up, what are they going to be notable for? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And? JamesB17 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, I blocked JamesB17 for a week for the personal attack on Andy above, after I'd warned him last month that further insults on talk pages and edit summaries would result in a block. This is following on a previous 3-day block for edit-warring. -- Atama頭 21:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have collapsed the above due to the continual repetition of the same unconvincing argument over and over, preaching, some potential issues ahead with WP:CIVIL, and generally not following WP:NOTFORUM. I will have caught some comments meant to stick to the guidelines in the crossfire, and I apologize for that, this just seemed like the best course of action to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"They, they, they" and citing

A recent edit I made trying to bring neutrality to the article got reversed pretty quickly and I think it's totally unnecessary. If we look at the greenpeace page for instance it starts with the words 'Greenpeace is a' not 'Greenpeace describes itself as a' https://en.wikipedia.org/Greenpeace, a similar case for pirate party international, go check it out https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Pirate_Party. Secondly the first sentence states that it was created by Peter Joseph, the films were, the movement was not, I will however accept you keeping this in if you can cite it. I'm neutral on TZM, but I'm fed up of seeing this, quite frankly, sad behaviour on here. Be fair, IT IS a grass roots, sustainably advocacy movement.

This article on TZM is well referenced for the most part and have no qualms with it, but it should be neutral and state what IT IS and should also not contain that it was formed by someone it was not (prove it if you can, otherwise don't put it in). As for the edit I did which includes 'which focuses on science and technology rather than monetary and political interests' this is simply taken from the same wikipedia page on TZM but on a different language wikipedia so I believe it should be included to provide background to casual (none sad people with nothing better to do that constantly watch wikipedia pages being updated.)

I think this edit war can stop if it's brought in line in terms of formatting with other pages on wikipedia that talk about groups, but if you want edit wars, feel free to continue your sad little lives editing wikipedia pages to show a group of people in a negative light. You can't get time back and you're not getting any younger :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikalify (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it is abundantly clear from the sources cited in the 'history' section that Peter Joseph, producer on the 'Zeitgeist' movies, and frequent spokesperson for the Zeitgeist Movement, was responsible for the creation of the Movement, your edit has been reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As for the matter of "describes itself as" versus "is", I would have agreed with Zikalify that it's an unnecessary expression of doubt, but a cursory search gave 2 good examples; The UK Independence Party ... describes itself in its constitution as a "democratic, libertarian party", and The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom. Given that UKIP have an uncertain reputation, with sources describing them in a variety of ways depending on their own political POV, the editors seem to have settled on an undeniable truth. On the other hand, Labour have a consistent reputation in that almost everyone, themselves included, would describe them as centre-left, so the editors have simply found a reliable source to verify it. Different subjects require different approaches. nagualdesign 23:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Views Subheading Needs A Little Sumthin' Sumthin'

It appears odd that the article in its current form takes only three sentences to describe the entire social movement. Adding what could be looked at as an inflammatory quote from Peter Joseph which adds nothing to the views of the movement takes up more article space than the three sentences mentioned earlier. As I am new to this sort of thing, how would more content be added? There is now a book "The Zeitgesit Movement", which looks really more like of a collection of essays, that could be an excellent source for more flesh on the bones, so to speak. Without more, the article fails to define the movement as well as it does the controversy which apparently surrounds it. A good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.27.25 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The book you mention is not notable because its published by the group itself, Peter Joseph and really is just a format for them to say what they please. Part of the issues with the article are that very little has been written about them because there is not a lot of mainstream interest in them. In other words we have already located the very few sources that are reliable about people writing on the subject and they are in the article now. Maybe in the future someone will write more articles about them or something else will happen with them that will give them more coverage that is not sourced to their own writing. So, we can not use their self published stuff because of those reasons. It is too primary in nature, they are writing about themselves and that is not really perspective on the group but just them saying what ever. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The book may be unnotable as a source for citing from, but should still have a mention of publication. Only in this context will it receive proper critical review and examination by a large majority of people. Unless of course this site believes in a closed and censored world? Dlordmagic (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Add TZM Challenge to the page

Dear Editors,

I just went through TZM Challenge and feel that its a section that must be added here. Here are some links that talk about that challenge: ,

Please share your views.

Thanks, Codenamefirefly (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Misplaced Pages isn't a platform for the promotion of TZMs publicity stunts. Unless and until this 'challenge' gets meaningful coverage in credible third-party published sources, it does not merit inclusion in our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy is correct. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Some recent tagged aspects in the reception section of the article make it clear that the beginning of that section is not so good . That area is the only area remaining from the original article from a year or more ago and it has never looked right. It is the laundry list of newspaper or internet news about Zeitgeist being this or that etc. It might be better just to remove that beginning part or edit the papers out or take actual quotes or summations from those sources rather than just listing them. Most of those citations are used multiple times in the article anyway so its doubtful that it would really lose anything if the beginning few sentences with that list of papers was removed or reedited a lot. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It may well need attention, but removing it entirely wouldn't be appropriate - we need to include third-party commentary on TZM (positive and negative) in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

/* Reception */ Its pointless to have a list of sources when nothing is actually attributed. All of those sources are used elsewhere in the article anyway. That part of the article has never been right. At least now it makes some logical sense without throwing a bunch of stuff up against a wall. It was all tagged for either fixing or removal and removal is probably a better course since it was not put together well from the beginning. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not true Earl and any editor can check the article history. There were only 2 tags in the section that needed to be fixed. Here's proof if anyone is interested (please read the edit summary). -- I've put the material back in place as it summarizes some key aspects of the organization, both positive and negative. I would appreciate help in figuring out which of the 3 sources were used for the tagged material. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No doubt you would appreciate that but maybe you could have figured that out before adding the list of news groups that somehow have mentioned Zeitgeist things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What??? You did a wholesale removal of material when all that was needed was some research. Please help us fix the tags. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral edits

An editor expressed concern that a recent edit might not be neutral. This seems odd because in the previous edit he used the same article to make a quote so had no problem with the article. He refers to Jew-baiting, that term as not being neutral, but the other editor did not coin the term Jew-baiting in regard to the first movie, the source that SomeDifferentStuff uses, uses the term. So to balance the article just a statement of the many bodies involved in the 'movement' is not really that descriptive while leaving out the critical perspective of the reliable source. The recent edit also gets at some other issues that are good to bring out now in the article for perspective. Again cited material. This is a reliable, well written source for perspective One of only several in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems ok by me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Right now one person thinks its ok. Another is on the fence. I think its o.k. I will re-edit the information also. Because the information is plain spoken, I think it has alarmed some of the Zeitgeist advocates that inhabit the page and their supporters. It is sourced and the citation is good. No real reason to leave out the critics of the movement on Misplaced Pages. It makes for a more well rounded article to report from all sides, but the new edit should take care of the reason that was complained about probably without altering the information a lot. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Given your relentless efforts to include every bit of questionably-sourced negative material you can find (including a John Birch Society website article ) in TZM related articles, I have to suggest that your claim to 'neutrality' should be taken with a pinch of salt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Very off topic. Please stick with the facts. The John Birch Society is a legit group just like any other group and their paper has been around a long time. Just because the Christians publish a paper called The Christian Science Monitor does not mean that its a bad paper, if you know what I mean? A source is either legit or not but lets not inject our personal bias about the sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The John Birch Society is a fringe far-right organisation, who's views on TZM are about as relevant as TZMs would be in an article about the Society - and your attempt to promote their views is a perfect example of why your claim to be 'neutral' is a total crock. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Its no wonder that your block record is so long and colorful. I wonder who will block you for what next. Ever consider your style to be ridiculously offensive? Your view of what they are does not count, right of left or left of right. You understand? The Ku Klux Klan is a legit group also. What better way to have a citation in the article than a group that probably embraced Zeitgeist initially as one of the own? So tone down the rhetoric. You could have fixed the article but you seldom edit just revert. A couple of words changes things. Misplaced Pages editing for angry sport? Stop. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear and unequivocal demonstration that you don't have the faintest understanding of Misplaced Pages policy regarding WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, or the purpose of an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I am not against the right or left. Zeitgeist appeals to both in the original form of the movie its super right wing, then becomes a liberal globalists wet dream. The article citations about this reflect that. But, I guess you like to agitate your putdowns masked as policy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A movie a is not a movement, it's very simple what we advocate: we're against trading or the free market and favour of an open source society. Although the "reception" can call us names like "a cult" this is what the movement is about and promotes and should be displayed as such. Of course you want further misleading bullshit on this article since you want to confuse people as to what we're about.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Reception section - Michelle Goldberg neutrality problem ("Jew-baiting", etc)

Earl King Jr. recently added this material to the Reception section: -- She went on to say: "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. (my bolding)

This addition violates neutrality in 2 ways. First, that amount of material clearly violates WP:Weight by the size of the addition. Tablet magazine is a fairly obscure source and doesn't deserve more weight than everything else in the section; using it as a source in the article is not a problem, but the way that it is being used is. The other neutrality violation is that before he made this addition, that section already mentioned antisemitism, and from the same source, by stating, "and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", which is still in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup - it seems undue to me to be repeating the same allegation from the same source twice. Laying it on with a shovel isn't 'neutrality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

On the fence for me....on one hand it is a modest importance source and bloggish, on the other, none of the sources are that great really. But it does fit since much of the 9/11 conspiracy theory bullshit is based in "Jew-baiting" nonsense and that is what this "movement" espouses...at least historically.--MONGO 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the article expressly states that most TZM members were "probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement", it is difficult to see how it could be cited for an assertion that they 'espoused' Jew-baiting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever....hugs and kisses.--MONGO 16:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed the section header that for some reason someone put on. The discussion should not veer off if same discussion with too many separate talk page headings, unneeded.

Earl, don't mess with another editor's material on the talk page, which can get you blocked. -- Read the edit summary here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So, no problem it is now only referencing antisemitic once instead of twice . Too much valuable information there to toss, plus consensus is divided. No doubt many Zeitgeist supporters have come to the page and said exactly what M. Goldberg is saying they say even though that is neither here nor there for a talk page it is a good source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No Earl, it's still in violation of WP:Weight. -- We need to give this a few days or longer to gather consensus. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Its confusing for you to put the same discussion in two places next to each other S.D.S. the topic is already discussed above. I removed the part that was complained about. If we white wash sources for the article we are not going to be left with much that accurately portrays the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is addressing the specifics of the material that you added. Please explain how your addition doesn't violate WP:Weight. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. You have started a new thread on the same topic above, which has confused the talk page S.D.S. I will be responding above not here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's fine if you respond here or above. So far you haven't shown in either section how the material you added doesn't violate WP:Weight. If you are unable to do that we can remove your addition and close this thread. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to use the thread above. Giving editors either\or issues is not really cooperative editing its disruptive, tendentious, its that kind of stuff that got you blocked previously on the article. Your Jew baiting title of the thread was not appropriate either, or your emphasis on which editor was involved. The information is sourced and as far as weight it is accurate to many things written about the so called movement. Its good to source the many many things written about the movie and its purported, overwhelmingly purported right wing anti-Jewish rant with historic connections to anti Jewish groups and people and phrasing. The John Birch society probably embraced Zeitgeist before Peter Joseph did an about face and decided to join the liberal one worlders. Michelle the author of the citation does a really articulate job of saying all that which many sources touch on. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the only thread I've started regarding this material. You should not have added "Jew-baiting" to the article if you didn't want it to be discussed. The fact that you still think it's appropriate is beyond me. As another editor noted above you really don't understand some core aspects of Misplaced Pages. I've clearly explained at the beginning of this section why the material in general violates WP:Weight, and continues to. Your ranting about the first film shows how little understanding you actually have of the material you're editing, which is really problematic. And given that the majority of your edit history is related to Zeitgeist in some way this is also problematic. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the only thread I've started regarding this material. Yes, but as pointed out there was already a thread on this issue which you have not participated in much so it adds to talk page confusion. You should not have added "Jew-baiting" to the article if you didn't want it to be discussed. I did because its cited information for the reasons above and have discussed it from the beginning above in the other thread. Stop editing tendentiously on the talk page with false points. I added it because a noted journalist made it integral to her article. It has nothing to do with me as you are trying to say. The fact that you still think it's appropriate is beyond me. 'Appropriate' is a very vague term in this discussion regarding this. We have to keep the article real and not a politically correct plaything for Zeitgeist supporters. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Huff Post blog source for the article

This source seems bad for the article . It is not really a news story from the Huffington Post, it is one of their contributors writing a fluff piece of what could be a topical filler for their paper, perhaps written for so many dollars per word for their in house writers. It is in the blog and forum category. After the article it says 59 people are discussing this article with 84 comments so that is really a blog/forum thing. It looks more like a Zeitgeist Forum post than anything. The article is better off without that citation. Opinions? Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Blogs from reliable sources are fine. Given the limited availability of material discussing this topic we should use what we can. And it isn't only being used in the reception section. It is also sourcing part of the lede as well as material in the "Views" section that gives the organization's view on money and the private ownership of property. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Since there is such a limited amount of good citations maybe the article should reflect that by removing some of the not so good ones, like the blog, instead of making due with poor material. It is being used for instance, like this in the article and that is hard to figure out what it is even being used for . Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is fine Earl. One thing it is currently being used to support is, "The movement advocates the elimination of money and private ownership of property in exchange for their version of a resource-based economy." -- This is useful information for someone unfamiliar with the organization. You need to read I just don't like it. -- Let it go. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful. Please refrain from underlining and using capital letters and lecturing about what others should/could do. That gets old. Other people have to weigh in. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Though the Huff Post material is a blog, it is at least from a fairly mainstream source, and we aren't using it for anything particularly controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line is blogs suck for referencing since there is limited to zero peer review.--MONGO 14:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. And if you really find the source that upsetting you can take it to RSN and get their thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When there's limited material discussing a topic, we should not use what we can find, but shorten the article. Otherwise we end up with excessive coverage of fringe topics, which seems to be a common problem. Tom Harrison 10:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. And if you really find the source that upsetting you can take it to RSN and get their thoughts. No reason to do that at this point. upsetting? No, just a poor source and if good sources are not around then the article needs to reflect that by trimming. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Realistically I'm trying to remove any neutrality regarding TZM and I desire strong negative publicity of them, but since there are no mainstream sources for TZM at all, the TZM article, the Moving Forward Article, the Peter Joseph article, should all be removed since I don't like TZM.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have a case you do not do your case a service by commenting cynically or ironically or whatever the above is. If you are curious about how Misplaced Pages works read some of the guidelines. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aeon-characteristic, your sarcasm is noted. Unfortunately, neutrality is not a priority here, which is extremely problematic. At the moment it is majority rule (Clearly against Misplaced Pages policy) and is mainly headed by Earl King Jr., followed by MONGO. -- Just remember, nothing false remains stagnant forever. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be better that you do not confuse new editors s.d.s. into thinking the article is controlled by 'certain' people here. It is not. Lets not make the Zeitgeist article into a continuation of conspiracy things. I seriously doubt whether Mongo works at the New World Order, has any lizard blood in his veins or is a member of the Bilderberg group or a member of the tri-lateral commission. So, lets keep the negative rhetoric about other editors to a zero tolerance level. And for gods sake please stop editing your comments on the talk page with capitals, underlines and big black letters. False emphasis on opinion points leads to a kind of 'crying wolf' about issues. I also noticed you are soliciting other editors that are tandem in nature to you to come to the page. Probably not the best idea. As to the issue Peter Joseph is not exactly a critical voice on Peter Joseph. I added that information above originally, his saying about neurotic society etc. After learning more about issues connected to Misplaced Pages not being a format or having to present 'both' sides on issues I removed it and another editor removed it. Also that citation is being used to death now in the article because of the lack of citations that are decent. I hate to bring this up but right now s.d.s. has started edit-warring this article so better put it in the open since he has a history of being blocked once before for edit warring, tendentious editing on Zeitgeist things , so please proceed with caution S.d.s. given your edit history of having some kind of horse in this race. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Earl, flooding the talk page does not equate to a coherent argument. -- You need to read WP:Consensus. -- And given that over 90% of your edit history is related to Zeitgeist in some way your intention on Misplaced Pages is very clear. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Right now you are against a very limited consensus of editors with the revert in question. I added that information originally, but think better because it is too promo, too adverty for himself, etc. My intentions are clear to you? Doubtful. Why bring up that kind of rhetorical argument of mind reading another editor? The point of my comment above is that Misplaced Pages is not a format for defending and counterpoints, especially when the person in question Peter Joseph is making some blue sky statement about Zeitgeist which is used now as answering his critics. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no legitimate reason whatsoever, given a source which clearly considers PJ's views on TZM of such significance to interview him, why we shouldn't include a brief on-topic quotation from PJ. I am sure our readers are entirely capable of deciding for themselves what is or isn't a 'blue sky statement', and don't need to be told how to think by us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The source is fine, and including the quote provides a more NPOV. nagualdesign 18:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No to the blog. It's no different then WodPress or other blog sites as HuffPo does not actually endorse it. A WaPost blog written on the WaPost site by a WaPost editor is different than HuffPo's method of random contributors. --DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gagFoqkepRs&feature=youtube_gdata
2. http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/uploads/upload/file/24/tzmchallenge.pdf

• 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