Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Earl King Jr. (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 16 July 2012 (→Recent edits: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Resource-based economy

This concept is a big deal in the Zeitgeist scheme of things. Recently that article link (resource-based economy) was removed from the header area of the article. Zeitgeist constantly writes and talks about this term on their official webpages ] so its important to keep that information in the general header of the article as it is tied up completely in their overall plan. What that plan is, is nebulous but that phrase resource-based economy is an integral part of it and they constantly use that term. Earl King Jr. (talk)

Yes, some members of the movement still use the term out of habit and momentum and convenience. But, as I said before on this talk page, the movement as a whole is moving away from using this nebulous, meaningless, vague, misleading and unclear term, especially after the separation from The Venus Project, which claims ownership rights to the term. Peter Joseph and other key spokespersons of the movement have not used the term in many months, including in the most recent (and all-important to the movement) Z-Day in February. The term RBE does not help the readers of the article -- in fact it is confusing to our readers. And our separate article on the term RBE is skeletal, confusing, and misleading, and is the subject of a very long and separate dispute. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some members of the movement still use the term out of habit and momentum and convenience. But, as I said before on this talk page, the movement as a whole is moving away from using this nebulous, meaningless, vague, misleading and unclear term, especially after the separation from The Venus Project, which claims ownership rights to the term. end quote User:Ijon. Please understand that it is not your call beyond neutral presentation, and your opinion matters not, because it is only an opinion and does not conform with the Zeitgeist official presentation because Zeitgeist movement uses the term http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/category/tags/resource-based-economy, and it is part of their information currently http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 Also Fresco does not own the term. That term has been around for decades before Fresco's use of it. It is a mainstream concept with alternative application. Taking that out in the lead (you deleted the link to Resource-based economy that information link, from the article, is against neutral presentation. Your opinion just can not be used to source the article.

Also when you say And our separate article on the term RBE is skeletal, confusing, and misleading, and is the subject of a very long and separate dispute. User:Ijon end quote, that is not so. That dispute started by you is pretty much over and the article is a good article that presents the basics with links to more information, so again your opinion non withstanding, is against the consensus of that article. Also the redundant intro was removed now and can stay off the article. The thing you added just repeats what is there with more words. The editor that removed the long pointless repetitive intro. in a citation is also going with consensus, so please leave that off also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User Bbb23 on the DRN: "I don't necessarily have a problem with Ijon's suggestions for the lead ..."

Everything in my last few comments still stands. Including the fact I oppose the continued use of the skeletal, misleading, meaningless 'alternative definition' in the article on RBE to deliberately mislead our readers into a dead-end that does not provide any meaningful information on TZM to our readers.

TZM's official Q&A website has not been significantly updated since the breakup with Venus. The use of the term 'RBE' in TZM's official Q&A is outdated. The main spokespersons for the movement have not used the term 'RBE' in many months in official appearances, including in the most recent Z-day, which is one of the most important yearly events for the movement (in TZM's view).

Your repeated removal of the wordy TV interview reference is not only against consensus (as this wordy reference has existed for many weeks on this article and passed the scrutiny of many editors, except yourself), but, and more importantly, is against WP policies on translations.

Repeated removal of the TZM response to the StudiViz antisemitism allegation is against consensus, and is yet one more piece of evidence of a coat-racking and POV-pushing operation.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"TZM's official Q&A website has not been significantly updated since the breakup with Venus. The use of the term 'RBE' in TZM's official Q&A is outdated." - So you say. But you are not WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And if it were true, the movement's own website should be a RS for their opinions. To maintain it properly is their responsibility, not ours.

"Repeated removal of the TZM response to the StudiViz antisemitism allegation" - if there were any response of substance, I'd agree. But simply contradicting an allegation is not noteworthy, especially since the allegation has been worded in a NPOV manner. A mor substantial response on the antisemitism issue has already been included in the same paragraph. Given that, it goes without saying that TZM would disagree with StudiVZ. Finally, how is an Australian response to a German networking site relevant? Str1977 21:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

TZM's official Q&A website has not been significantly updated since the breakup with Venus. The use of the term 'RBE' in TZM's official Q&A is outdated. The main spokespersons for the movement have not used the term 'RBE' in many months in official appearances, including in the most recent Z-day, which is one of the most important yearly events for the movement (in TZM's view). End quote IjonTichyIjonTichy. At this point your edits are exhibiting a failure to get it that is pretty stark with the consensus here. Your opinion is not a reliable source and there is no doubt that The Zeitgeist Movement uses the concept of a resource based economy in their most basic presentation of who and what they are http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 You yourself Ijon have used the Faq's previously to try and prove some points that you considered 'true'. So selectively using it and then saying it is outdated does not make for a good argument. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The main spokespersons for the movement have not used the term 'RBE' in many months in official appearances, including in the most recent Z-day, TED-x events, lectures, seminars, etc., all posted on the movement's official website. Our reliable sources support the fact TZM officials not using the term anymore: please see, for example, our most-recently-published reliable secondary sources, e.g. TheMarker article and TheMarker TV interview, both conducted in January 2012; and the two primary sources - the TED-x lectures in Feb. and March. of 2012 (both available at Peter Joseph).

And please see the DRN on the discussion of the lead, regarding why it is important the word 'equal' (sharing of resources among all of humanity) should appear in the lead. IjonTichyIjonTichy IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that you lost those arguments. At some point it becomes an issue if you keep returning things against consensus and argument Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CON, consensus is important. It is powerful. It should be respected. But WP policies are more important. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV trump WP:CON. And I've not lost the argument TZM is not using the term RBE anymore, because my argument is supported by our reliable secondary sources (TheMarker, TheMarker TV, RT TV interviews in Dec. 2011 and Feb. 2012, etc). And by primary sources such as TED-x lectures and the many lectures during TZM's Z-day. Nor have I lost the argument regarding the importance of incorporating the key aspects of TZM in the lead, because this argument is supported by the WP policy on the lead.

Nor have I lost the argument that you continue to waste our time with your complaints and attacking. Instead, I challenge you again, as I've done several times in the past with all editors: re-direct your energies towards providing verifiable citations from a subset of (or all of) our set of reliable secondary sources to help substantially build and greatly develop the main body of the article, and not only the 'criticism' section which has been essentially your almost only focus. This way, the main body of our article will improve, and you, as well as other editors, would have no reason (or reduced reason) to continue to waste everybody's time with you endless complaints.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As you've perhaps noticed, I haven't been paying as much attention to the changes to this article in the last week or so. However, in looking at what's changed in the interim, it appears to me that the article has become increasingly slanted in favor of the movement, serving as a platform for what the movement supposedly advocates. The lead and the first part of the Philosophy and history section sound almost the same, like an advertisement for everything that is good and wonderful. And you two are still sniping at each other, more's the pity.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

How can the article be more slanted in favor of TZM, when both you and Tom harrison have added more criticism of the movement? It is becoming increasingly like a platform for the critics of the movement, not the other way around. (This is not meant as an attack on you or Tom.) And why are my verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources considered 'remarkably problematic'? These reliable sources support the fact TZM is moving away from the term 'RBE'. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I specified what parts of the article are pro-movement. Your edits removed sourced information w/o explanation, in particular, you removed the studiVZ ban sentence (now twice), leaving in only the response, you increased the logo size again, and your edit summary reflected none of this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did not remove the studiVZ ban sentence, not once and not twice. It's at the end of the middle paragraph in the 'Criticism' section. And the logo size of 280 was agreed to by consensus of many editors before EKJ reduced it to 180. If he can reduce it to 180, why can I not increase it to 220? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the studiVZ sentence. I saw your removal but didn't realize you had placed it in a different spot. That said, some of your rearrangement of the material doesn't work well and is confusing. As for the logo, please help me out and show me where there was a consensus that it should be 280.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I was trying to improve clarity and readability, by lumping the criticism from Reason magazine, the scholarly journal on religion, Tablet magazine, and studiVZ into a single paragraph, because these do not criticize the economic model proposed by the movement, but rather are all based on the (alleged) connection between the first movie and the movement. (I did not modify the wording of these criticisms before lumping them together.) Then, I collected all the responses of TZM to the criticisms (i.e., to the allegations that are independent of TZM's proposed economic model) into a single paragraph.

The logo size was 280 points for the last two years without any editor seeing a need to modify it. An editor reduced it to 180 a few days ago, and I felt 220 was more appropriate. But I will leave it up to you to arbitrate the final logo size and I'll be happy with your final decision on the size. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I went back and looked at reorganizing it, but the problem is it conflates the three criticisms (the journal, Goldberg, and studioVZ) and TZM's responses. Yet, that's not really how it went down. As far as I know, TZM didn't respond to the journal piece, so that has to be separate. And the responses to the Goldberg and studioVZ material were also different. So, I can't see changing it. As for the logo, I think it's big enough, particularly when you take into account that it has the name of the movement in the logo and then just above the (same) name of the article. It doesn't need any more prominence. I realize it's a judgment call, but I think you're wise not to make a big deal out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with all your judgement calls. But if and when more criticism is added, and/or other editors change the wording in the criticism section substantially, and/or my research reveals new TZM responses (say, to the criticism from the scholarly paper, which, as you said, currently does not have a proper TZM response), I reserve the right to edit the criticism section if necessary to improve the balance, tone, accuracy etc. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's one hell of a sentence, Ijon. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"And I've not lost the argument TZM is not using the term RBE anymore, because my argument is supported by our reliable secondary sources (TheMarker, TheMarker TV, RT TV interviews in Dec. 2011 and Feb. 2012, etc)" - As already pointed out, in TheMarker article, they use the term RBE. I don't know what exact other sources you re referring to (please provide links) but the credibility of that claim is under serious doubt as it is. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In the TheMarker article, the single reference to RBE is within a paragraph focused entirely and exclusively on a discussion of Jacque Fresco and Venus, not TZM. And the rest of the very lengthy TheMarker article does not mention RBE.

The RT TV interview from Dec. 2011, the TheMarker TV interview from January 2012, the RT TV interview dated Feb. 2012, and the TED-x talks in Feb. and March 2012, are all available from the Peter Joseph article. The dates are important, as these are post-Venus-split dates. Pre-split and near-split sources do mention RBE. In contrast, to the best of my knowledge and memory, the Dec. 2011 source and the 2012 sources do not use RBE to describe the theoretical econ model. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That these sources fail to mention RBE (except that one do) does not mean that TZM have stopped using the term. You need a reliable source that explicitly says that they have stopped using it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Um ... I'm not sure I agree with you on that. You are raising the bar pretty high, and it seems you are not likely to obtain this sort of evidence. Based on watching many tens of hours of TZM videos, reading all their blog entries and newsletters, and especially based on reading all our secondary sources, it seems TZM does not operate by decree, or orders from above, or any sort of hierarchy. These sources tell us TZM sees itself a leaderless movement, and is extremely unlikely to issue any direct orders to its members, including orders to stop using the term RBE. Based on our secondary (and primary) sources, it seems TZM goes to great lengths to make sure it is not perceived as an organization that issues orders or decrees to its members, and thus it seems it would be extremely unlikely we'll ever see a source that explicitly says that TZM stopped using RBE. As they say, in certain circumstances, silence speaks much louder than words. In this case, the lack of usage of the term RBE, despite having numerous opportunities to do so, including a very lengthy print article (TheMarker) and several TV interviews and TED-x talks, speaks pretty loudly. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with OpenFuture. I particularly like the pithy way he put it. Your inferences from the absence are WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS or both. You've actually made these sorts of arguments before, as I recall, in connection with antisemitism. They won't fly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, I'm curious - why the opposition to double columns in 'See also'? It seems many good articles or even featured articles have double columns in 'See also.' This is just a question seeking knowledge, not serious objection. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which articles you mean because you don't link to any, but it's just like the references section, if a list gets too long, double columns make sense, but with a short list, as here, they don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that this silence does not exist outside your imagination. The term RBE is used in TheMarker, and in the Q&A from the site. Without any reliable source to say that they have stopped using the term RBE, the claim that they have is nothing but your conjecture. It's WP:OR. You *have* lost this argument. Again. Drop it, it's a dead horse. TZM *is* using the term "Resource-based economy". --OpenFuture (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not. As I wrote above, TheMarker only used the term once in a short paragraph that focused exclusively on Fresco and Venus. The rest of this very lengthy article did not mention RBE. And the Q&A has not been updated since the split with Venus. And out of the many 2012 talks and lectures (including Z-day), RT TV appearances, TheMarker TV appearance and TED-x lectures, etc. exactly zero use the term. TZM is definitely moving away from using the term. And as I explained, you have set the bar unrealistically high and you will never see a reference that says that TZM 'ordered' its members to stop using the term.

My main problem is not with the term per se. My main problem is the fact the term has been used in the past as a substitute for explaining TZM's proposed economic model. Key terms such as 'equitable and sustainable sharing of resources' have been removed, and instead the empty term, and the equally empty, skeletal alternative-definition in the RBE article have been substituted-in. This is less of a problem now in the current version of the article, but in the past the term RBE was used in a possible attempt to maybe mislead our readers into the black-hole dead-end that is the RBE article.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are you just repeating what you already said over and over and over, instead of listening to what we tell you? There is no "unrealistically high" bar and I have never demanded to see any "order to the members". You are inventing claims and putting them in my mouth again, stop doing that please.

So, for the last time: You claim that TZM are moving away from the term "resource-based energy", but you base that solely on your own original research. Well, for the millionth time: you are not a reliable source. What exactly is it that you find difficult to understand in this? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My main problem is not with the term per se. My main problem is the fact the term was used in the past as a substitute for explaining TZM's proposed economic model. Key terms such as 'equitable and sustainable sharing of resources', etc., have been removed, and instead the empty term, and the equally empty, skeletal alternative-definition in the RBE article have been substituted-in. This is somewhat less of a problem now in the current version of the article, but in the past the term RBE may have been used in what seemed like a possible attempt to maybe mislead our readers into the black-hole dead-end that is the RBE article, instead of providing substantive info on TZM's proposed econ model.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One way to solve the dispute is to topic ban Ijon from the articles connected for being a disruptive editor. He goes back and forth in every conceivable way of attacking, then praising editors, all the while refusing to abide consensus. I don't think Ijon is actually involved in the so called movement now because his opinions are so very far away from their line, if I can use that term party line; for instance Zeitgeist does use a resource based economics concept which he denies is part of their scheme http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 its in their most basic information and conjecturing otherwise is a total disconnect http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/category/tags/resource-based-economy it is integral.

So, another format for a topic ban for being a disruptive editor?. No amount of time intensive pleading seems to make any difference about his personal attacks intermittent with equally inappropriate praising for fake or conjured consensus that is 'makes up' o.r. syn. and put downs. How many times do we have to hear the same put downs and have the same o.r. reintroduced? Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Earl, this is not the place to propose a topic ban. If you want to do so, then take it to WP:ANI or WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: Astonishingly, after I asked you to stop repeating what you just said, and listen, all you did was to repeat, letter for letter, what you just said!? Seriously? That sounds like me that you just don't respect your fellow editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the DRN in a few days so I'm only going to refer to your comments posted on this talk page. The reason I repeated myself here is because I responded to your repeated observation that the term RBE is mentioned in the TheMarker article. I repeated myself because your repeated observation, while correct, did not mention the fact that I placed your (correct) observation in a special context re the TheMarker article. (That context is detailed in my previous comment(s) and thus I'm not repeating it here.) Because your second comment did not seem to acknowledge the proper context, I naturally assumed you were acting in good faith and maybe you missed my explanation of the context. That's why I repeated my explanation of the context.

In his TED-x talks in 2012 (avail. on the Peter Joseph article), PJ uses the term 'Earth Based Economy' instead of RBE. This may (or may not) present a new set of problems because WP already has an article on Earth Based Economy. But as I said, I'm OK with RBE or EBE or any other acronym, as long as it is only used to complement more substantive descriptions of TZM's philosophy/ history/ ideas, not as a substitute for these explanations. And in the last version of the article I read (about 2 days ago), the term RBE did not immediately seem to have been used as a substitute, but rather as a complement or neutral descriptor, so for now, I don't see a problem with the term RBE (or EBE, etc) in our article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

It seems like the article now has a neutral point of view and tone and is maintaining that. Is it time to take the tags of the top? I think so. In general the article seems good now. Its informative and gives a good idea of the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K. Removing tags from the article now on the top because of improvements (neutral presentation) in the article. Tone now is just information presentation without promotion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

criticism section

consensus is important, but WP policies (V, RS, NPOV, translations, ...) trump consensus.

"members of the movement were given an opportunity to respond to the criticism" does not provide sufficient balance to the criticism. A more detailed and specific response to the specific allegations is necessary to provide balance and, in EKJ's own words, "critical thinking".

I have posted a note on Str1977's talk page, and I've also sent him an e-mail (per his request on his talk page), regarding his repeated violation of WP policies on translations. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Again,IjonTichyIjonTichy made a non neutral reversal edit to the article page. Adding information that has repeatedly been taken off by a variety of editors, and incorporating more syn, and o.r. and changing the tone toward redundant advocacy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything in your comment is incorrect. I repaired a repeated violation of WP policies on translations, and improved the balance and neutrality of the four specific allegations ((a) through (d)), and returned a sentence that was provided initially in response to the 'clarification needed' tags posted by Zazaban a few weeks ago. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I read Ijon's message and reviewed the discussion on his talk page. However, I don't see how any policy dictates that we must include a translation of foreign-language parts in a mulit-lingual source. The ref in question appears in a series of publications criticizing TZM for several reasons and only references that "TheMarkerTV" has published such criticism. How is the, pretty much trite introduction, relevant to the article? Str1977 16:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do our readers benefit from denying them access to the translation of the brief intro? When an average person watches a TV interview in which the first few words are in a foreign language that he/she does not understand, even if the remainder was in a language they did understand, for the remainder of the interview they may be puzzled and may wonder if they missed something important in the intro. Translation of intro is provided for proper context and completeness. Without it, the all-important context is missing and the interview is incomplete. That is exactly why the proper journalistic standard is to introduce the guest and the subject of the interview.

And the interview is not only about the criticism. It is also an essential component of the TZM response to criticism of anti-semitism, cultism and 9/11 conspiracies, as well as some of the key concepts of TZM. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Our readers benefit greatly from not having their time wasted. The intro is utterly irrelevant, especially to readers of this article which already has introduced them to the topic. And especially since I have read the translation, I can only be puzzled by your claims that without it "the all-important context is missing and the interview is incomplete".

No, the interviews is not "only about the criticism" - in fact, it only mentions the criticism briefly but does no criticism of its own. Hence our article's claim "TheMarkerTV criticzed the Zeitgeist movement" is not born out by that video. And I don't see how your last paragraphy is relevant to the item under discussion, namely the quote spamming in the ref. Str1977 17:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

TheMarker TV: intro to interview discusses films, so used this source in relation to discussion of films;

More importantly: the interviewer asks TZM to comment (or clarify TZM's position) on allegations that they are blaming people. Keep in mind that the first movie's criticism of international bankers is the entire basis of the antisemitism accusation by Tablet magazine. In the TheMarker TV interview, TZM responds to this criticism (that it blames people). Thus, while you are technically correct that TheMarker TV does not directly criticize or accuse TZM, it is also correct to say that they "discuss various aspects of criticism of the movement" because they ask TZM to respond to criticism (i.e., allegations that were made by other sources).

Otherwise, I'm OK with your edits and have not reverted your summary of the intro (except I slightly modified your summary to briefly mention the fact that the Hebrew intro also mentions the movies).

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy Is going from article to connected article with the same handiwork Peter Joseph, the latest. Its a pity because presenting all these subjects in a blatant non-neutral viewpoint and making articles read like official transcripts of Zeitgeist material destroys neutral perspective. The latest one on Peter Joseph, he is doing nearly the same edits as here except more blatantly because no one is watching that article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ijon,

"The original edit by Str1977 was in violation because it removed the key sentence. This is a moot point because then Str1977 studied the WP policies and modified his edits accordingly."

I don't understand this. My edits on this issue before and after "studying" the discussion on your talk page were basically the same, especially regarding the need for translations. I merely later inserted a very short summary as a possible compromise and I am glad you accepted that. But that doesn't mean that we could not do without that summary. Str1977 10:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Original edit was in violation because it removed the key sentence "Interview conducted in English, following a brief introduction in Hebrew." After you reviewed the policies you re-instated this key sentence. Without this key sentence, any reader / editor could, upon watching the first 3 seconds of the interview, remove the source altogether, because, acting in good faith, they would assume the interview was not in English.

BTW, your explanation on why summarizing the intro serves the needs of our readers is very good, fair and reasonable. I should have thought of it myself. I agree with it fully. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Contemporary Religion article

I made some changes to the 2nd criticism item, based on the JCR article:

1. It is not the Journal that issued that criticism but an article penned by two authors.
2. Linking the movement to the movement is both banal (they are obviously connected, at least in some way) and not a criticism. The second sentence then criticized the movie (and at least in the quote in a not very sophisticated manner). The result: an article criticizes a movement for being connected to a film that claims X and Y. Sorry, that's not good enough!
3. Since I can't access the full article, I cannot improve the passage here much, but even the headline "Conspirituality" shows that there is more than what I previously criticized.
4. In such short a passage, it is not neccessary to add the same ref twice.

Str1977 17:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I must insist that it is the authors of an article that are doing the criticizing, not (necessarily) the Journal the article is published in. Str1977 10:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Insistence is not constructive. This is not a process where editors insist. Obviously, when someone says that a journal says so-and-so, it is the authors that say it - the journal doesn't speak unless the publishers of the journal are saying something, which, obviously, isn't the case here. The authors of the article are in the cite. If the authors were noteworthy - say they had articles on Misplaced Pages, e.g., Goldberg - then we could name the authors in the body because it adds value. Otherwise, it's not useful. That said, I left in what appears to be a compromise, which is the article says (your edit). I can't even follow the rest of what you say about the journal article. I don't know why you keep changing the studiVZ sentences, but your change, other than having the value of being one sentence instead of two, puts the cart before the horse and is subtly non-neutral. I put it back the way it was.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Journals can have an editorial opinion but they do no necessarily endorse opinions expressed in articles. I understand that these authors are not notable (but is Goldberg?) but there are ways to avoid the problem by stating that it was the article that criticized.
2. Re. StudiVZ: IMHO the StudiVZ ban is part of the whole antisemitism discussion - the groups were banned because of that allegation. Hence it should be included in the same paragraph. That TZM's Australian website denounced that move is not surprising and doesn't deserve a full sentence and certainly not reprinting the ref. Str1977 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is too long and looks like a block of words. Also why attach two information things together when they are different in focus and direction? It is a different aspect of critical view and makes a better short paragraph by itself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding accessing the full article, I obtained a copy by using WP email to send an email to user Slp1, indicating my own personal email address (because, according to Slp1, it is not possible to use attachments in WP email). I read the article twice, and it does not seem to me it criticizes TZM. It seems it only 'analyzes' or 'discusses' etc., but I did not detect a tone (or angle or direction) of criticism. But I don't object to leaving the citation as it is and where it is currently, i.e., in the 'Criticism' section, because the scholarly article also mentions the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the first movie. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The assertion by the article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion that the first Z Movie claims that 9/11 was an inside job should be removed, because it is redundant. Our readers already know that the movie has been criticized for conspiracy theories (they know this from the immediately preceding paragraph). The sentence should read only that "An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion described the movement as an example of a "conspirituality", a synthesis of New Age spirituality and conspiracy theory, asserting that Zeitgeist: The Movie claims that "organized religion is about social control." IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sustainable development clarification

The term "sustainable development" only needs clarification if the article Sustainable development is unclear or if something else, more specific is meant. And in that case, we should IMO keep only the clarification, and not the link to Sustainable development. As the article and the clarification as far as I can tell currently agrees, the clarification is not needed. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

(revert to consensus on susan brown etc; some members of both groups etc;) End quote IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

No consensus for that. Please do not assert consensus unless you find one on the talk page here. What has Susan Brown to do with Zeitgeist? Nothing. Also the other link to the Technocracy Movement article is not connected. There is no connection to that group.

Also 'some members' belonging does not make for critical thinking on this subject. Some members also belong to multi groups. Point is the main organizers of Zeitgeist and Venus Project have made a permanent split, and having anecdotal words saying 'some' etc. is not critical thinking and can be mistaken for a so called weasel word wording. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

All of Brown's ideas are almost identical to those of TZM; for example, her essay 'Does Work Really Work?'. This (almost)-equivalence/ high similarity is supported by several primary and secondary sources; for example, the Globes article. All of the ideas of The Technocracy Movement (TTM) are almost identical to those of TZM (because all the ideas of TTM are almost identical to those of the Venus project, by the way). And the dual membership of many TZM members is well-supported. It provides balance and critical thinking and NPOV to our statement that "the groups split and currently are not associated with each other". The word 'some' is used extensively in Misplaced Pages, most of the time without being mistaken for a weasel word.

We have already been through the whole discussion of the issue of 'See Also' previously on this talk page several weeks ago. You may want to review the previous discussion. More importantly, you may want to review WP:See also. I'm not sure what your logic is, as it is not clear from your comment whether you are saying, or perhaps implying, or hinting, or whatever, that only links that mention TZM should be included in 'See also'. (I don't know if that's what you are saying, I'm guessing here because your comment is imprecise and thus leaves me no choice but to try to interpret your comment in an effort to understand what it is precisely you are saying.) If indeed it was true that only links that mention TZM should be included, then all the other links (Ecotopia, Technological utopianism, Criticism of capitalism) should also be removed because they do not mention TZM. Or they should be removed because they are not 'directly' 'related' to TZM, or because they are not 'directly' 'connected' to TZM. Again, it is critical to fully read and comprehend not only the language, but also the intention and the spirit, behind WP:See also.

We should also include links to Kropotkin and Bakunin in 'See Also' because their ideas are almost identical to those of The Technocracy Movement (and thus TVP, and thus TZM). And Karl Marx and Carl Sagan --- both of whom are mentioned in the New York Times article on TZM.

(This is not a personal attack. I'm sure some of my own past comments have been imprecise, and I often have to read the same WP policy more than once to fully understand its spirit, not only the letter of the policy.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We should then include links to Cockaigne, The Matrix, and Gnosticism, because these ideas are almost identical to those of Zeitigeist. Tom Harrison 22:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom, your comment is sarcastic, insulting, offensive and highly disrespectful. It does not belong here.

Furthermore, in reverting my edits, you rudely, conveniently and completely ignored my reasoning for the inclusion of the (well-supported) dual-membership and for the fact that the second mention of the 9/11 conspiracy theories is redundant and unnecessary, because the conspiracy theories are already discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Tom Harrison is not being rude, sarcastic, insulting, offensive and highly disrespectful. Attacking editors, making personal attacks is not the way to improve the article. The points made by that editor are valid. Turning the article into a link farm takes away from the article, which is now greatly improved and nearly balanced neutrally, a far cry from where it was a few weeks ago.

The Venus Project is linked already currently. Zeitgeist has a direct history with them, that is why its in the article links currently. Karl Marx and Carl Sagan are not connected in any way. Browns ideas are not directly related and a stretch to say related at all. She is not connected as a member or speaker or anything to either group. and We should also include links to Kropotkin and Bakunin in 'See Also' because their ideas are almost identical to those of The Technocracy Movement (and thus TVP, and thus TZM). end quote

Thank you for your comment. The bulk of my response to your comment would be exactly identical to my previous comment (time stamped 16:36, 11 July 2012) and thus I will not repeat it here (out of respect for OpenFuture's previous request that I not repeat myself). The only things I have to add are that (a) based on WP:See also the subject of the link (Brown, etc.) do not have to be directly connected (e.g. as a member or speaker of TZM). Karl Marx and Carl Sagan are mentioned in the NYT; (b) Your labeling of my response to Tom harrison as an attack on Tom is erroneous. I do not consider my response as an attack on Tom. I do not object to Tom's three suggestions for See Also. (Except perhaps a mild objection to Cockaigne because a link to Utopia is already provided in the body of the article.) The Matrix is mentioned in TheMarker, and I'm OK with including Gnosticism. (c) The sarcastic, insulting, offensive and disrespectful part of Tom's comment is the part where Tom writes "because these ideas are almost identical to those of Zeitigeist," because here he is mocking, belittling, disparaging and degrading my immediately preceding comment in which I show ideas that are almost identical to those of Zeitgeist, i.e., my explanations on the roots of TVP (going from TZM back to TVP, from TVP back to TTM, from TTM back to Kropotin and Bakunin, and back to Marx, and, of course, the people who influenced Marx, etc., all the way back to antiquity - these influences are listed in the respective WP articles on these persons. And you are right that there is no shortage of people in that context, and I'm proposing we should include some of them in 'See also'). And in his edit (as separate from his comment), he rudely, conveniently and completely ignored my reasoning for the inclusion of the (well-supported) dual-membership and for the fact that the second mention of the 9/11 conspiracy is redundant because the conspiracy is already discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring Ijon. You have reinserted the information 4 or 5 times now in a short period without consensus. The 911 mention is in a totally different context and different article. The article links you want to include are about Communism a different subject. Technocracy groups and now Venus Project groups are not connected except historically, mostly because Fresco once upon a time was a member of the Technocracy group. It is mentioned already that Venus Project is formerly connected for context and the article link is in this article. Technocracy groups state explicitly in all of their information that they are not connected to any groups in Europe of elsewhere. If there is a cross over of members between the groups?? that can or could be said for just about any groups in the world and has no bearing. The organizations formally split. As a member advocate of Zeitgeist you have to be careful to stay balanced with neutrality, for the article. Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist '

TZM	This user advocates The Zeitgeist Movement.

' so utmost caution is suggested regarding neutrality. IjonTichyIjonTichy I am not saying that should or could prevent you from being neutral, but trying to insert material against consensus, outside of the neutrality of the article or introducing side personalities and then being so harsh against other editors will just bring more scrutiny to the article and its difficult enough to make a case for your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate. The article has seen vast improvement to the point where it really says a lot now. That is because of the more recent neutral editing by uninvolved but interested parties. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Earl, it seems you are again accusing me of not acting in good faith based on material on my user page. ("As a member advocate of Zeitgeist" "Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist," followed by copy-paste of a box from my user page, "your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate.") Please recall that I have previously brought an ANI complaint against you based, in part, on accusing me of violating AGF. (In that ANI complaint I mistakenly accused you of personal attacks, but a much more experienced editor than me suggested that it was more correct to say that you were actually accusing me of AGF violation).

I fully agree with you that all our edits should be balanced, neutral, unbiased and accurate. Which is exactly why (a) I removed the second, unnecessary, repetitious, redundant mention of 9/11, (our readers already know from the previous paragraph that the first movie discusses 9/11 conspiracies, and there is no need to bore them and tax their valuable time with repetitions), (b) I included the brief mention of dual membership of TZM members, which is well-supported by our sources, and provides balance, un-biasedness and neutrality to our description of the separation between TZM and TVP; and (c) why I provided the internal WP links to wage labor and private property, etc; and why I expanded the "See Also" section --- in addition to the reasons listed in WP:See also -- "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." ... "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. "

A more detailed explanation regarding the removal of the fourth (not second, as I mistakenly stated) mention of conspiracy theories:

First mention of conspiracy theory: "The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Palm Beach Post, Globes, TheMarker, VC Reporter , RT TV and Reason magazine criticized various aspects of the Zeitgeist movement, specifically: ... (d) subscribing to 9/11 conspiracy theories in Zeitgeist: The Movie, the original 2007 documentary that helped launch the movement."

Second discussion of conspiracy theory: "The movement responded to the criticism by saying that ... (d) there is ... "

Third discussion of conspiracy theory: "An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion described the movement as an example of a "conspirituality", a synthesis of New Age spirituality and conspiracy theory"

Fourth mention of conspiracy theory: " ... asserting that Zeitgeist: The Movie claims that "organised religion is about social control and that 9/11 was an inside job." "

Our readers don't need to have their time wasted with four repetitions of the same exact issue. The first three are sufficient. By the time they reach the forth, they are well aware that the first movie features conspiracy theories.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(P.S. I'm confused. First Earl King Jr. defended Tom and his comment Then Earl deleted Tom's suggested links for 'See Also' .) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring Ijon. You have reinserted more or less the information 6 times now in a short period without consensus. You removed mine and the other editor you mentioned. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe your accusation of edit warring is in error. I characterize my edits as an editorial disagreement with your repeated reversions of my edits. I believe my edits are fully justified, as detailed in my comments above. (And I included Tom's suggestions for See Also into the article.)

For example, Peter Kropotkin's books are freely available on Wikisource. Based on reading PK's books and also based on the material in our WP article on PK and our articles on PK's work, TZM's ideas as described in detailed in our many secondary and primary sources - TZM's criticism of capitalism and their solutions/ ideas to replace capitalism - - are practically identical to those of Kropotkin. (Except, of course, that TZM was founded 100 years after Kropotkin, and thus TZM's ideas seem to be more up-to-date with the current spirit of the times (e.g. current science and technology, current modes of governance and culture, etc. --- but the key concepts and core ideas of TZM are identical to those of PK.)

Another person we should include in 'See also' is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, because he heavily influenced Marx and most of the other people who influenced PK (who then heavily influenced TTM, who heavily influenced TVP, and thus TZM). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should under "See also" add Wyrzysk, because that's where Werner von Braun is born, and he was the directory of the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the man behind the Saturn V rocket that flew Buzz Aldrin to the moon. Buzz is a freemason, just like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who heavily influenced Marx, and Jacque Fresco used to be a Marxist before he invented the Resource-Based Economy that incluenced TZM at it's start. So clearly Wyrzysk must be under "See also". --OpenFuture (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Perfect: Creating a standard perfect Maze usually involves "growing" the Maze while ensuring the no loops and no isolations restriction is kept. Start with the outer wall, and add a wall segment touching it at random. Keep on adding wall segments to the Maze at random, but ensure that each new segment touches an existing wall at one end, and has its other end in an unmade portion of the Maze. If you ever added a wall segment where both ends were separate from the rest of the Maze, that would create a detached wall with a loop around it, and if you ever added a segment such that both ends touch the Maze, that would create an inaccessible area. This is the wall adding method; a nearly identical way to do it is passage carved, where new passage sections are carved such that exactly one end touches an existing passage. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to jump in here and then jump right back out. First, taking out the last sentence of the NYT quote doesn't fix the problem. The remaining quote does not fairly characterize the assertion in the material. It is clear from reading the quote in context that the NYT is talking about what the speaker(s) and the movement thinks, not what the NYT thinks. It should be removed from the article. Second, removing the 9/11 reference in the paragraph about the journal is not source-compliant as the source specifically refers to the 9/11 conspiracy theory when discussing the movement.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, how do you, or other editors recommend to fix that without removing the NYT quote from the article. Shall we say that "the NYT wrote that" instead of "The NYT described the movement's philosophy as", or something like that. what Bbb23 is saying is confusing to me, because in the TZM Z-day presentation that the NYT is referring to, TZM did not refer to its own presentation as "a utopian presentation" and TZM did not describe it's vision by saying that it's similar to "Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his "Imagine" days". These words are the NYT's words, not Zeitgeist's. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have a recommendation except that the quote doesn't belong in the article at all. The quote is clearly derivative of what the movement is saying, almost mocking, actually. Thanks for reinstating the 9/11 phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• The first time I read it I thought it was mocking. With each successive time I read it I'm less sure it is mocking and more and more convinced it is almost complimentary. But I don't know how to word it properly in order to address your valid and reasonable concerns, so I agree with your suggestion to remove it. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear OpenFuture, Earl and Tom, I'd like to suggest a method to resolve the editorial (content) dispute regarding 'See also.'

In the sequel I discuss several facts, some (but not all) of which I have discussed and supported in my preceding comments. I respect the fact you don't like it when editors repeat themselves, but I'm including some older material here only for the sake of completeness and continuity/ flow with my newer comments:

All of Brown's ideas, including but not limited to her essay 'Does work really work?' are almost identical to those of TZM. (That is, in a Venn diagram, Brown's ideas form a subset within the larger set of the ideas of TZM.) This is supported by at least one secondary source (the Globes article) and primary sources (sections of TZM podcasts and videos discussing TZM's philosophy of work in TZM's proposed economy).

All the ideas of The Technocracy Movement (TTM) are almost identical to those of TZM.

All the ideas of Peter Kropotkin are almost identical to those of TZM, based on a careful reading of PK's books and papers, which are available freely on Wikisource and/or Anarchist websites, and comparing them to our secondary and primary sources (TZM podcasts, videos, newsletters, etc).

Carl Marx, Carl Sagan and John Lennon are mentioned directly in the New York Times (NYT) article on TZM: "... a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life. In other words, a not entirely inappropriate response to the zeitgeist itself, ..."

This relationship between my links and TZM is not tangentiality. For Brown, TTM and PK the relationship is (almost) equivalence. For Marx, Sagan and Lennon this is based, at a minimum, on a direct quote from what is widely considered to be one of the very best papers in the world, read daily by tens of millions of people globally.

Thus, the links I included in the 'See also' section satisfy all of the criteria listed in WP:See also:

(a) my suggested links are related to TZM,

(b) they are at least peripherally relevant to TZM,

(c) they reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on TZM,

(d) they are limited to a reasonable number, and

(e) they enable readers to explore further (quoting from WP:See also: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant.")

I suggest we resolve this issue as follows:

Please describe specifically, precisely and exactly (without any vagueness or ambiguity, please):

(1) which one(s) of the five specific criteria listed above are violated by my links, listed above in this comment, and

(2) how, specifically, precisely and exactly, do they violate these criteria?

In order to resolve the editorial conflict, it is important that you please answer both questions for all the links I listed above (and please do not conveniently focus on only a single one of the links I listed above, or a subset of the links I listed, or on the issue of (almost)-equivalence, because it is not even remotely necessary to establish near-equivalence for inclusion in 'See also').

In the past (for example when OpenFuture required some sort of proof that TZM officially is not using the term RBE anymore, or in his discussion of fatal flaws of our set of reliable secondary sources on the DRN, or in his most-recent edit summary calling all my links 'completely irrelevant' despite the strong evidence showing relevancy), I found some of his explanations/ comments to be vague, insufficiently precise and insufficiently specific. This resulted in my having to interpret OpenFuture's comments to try to understand the bottom line of his comments, apparently without success, because when I responded to his comments, he informed me that my interpretations were incorrect, and further correspondence led me to become increasingly frustrated, and seemingly my comments have similarly made him increasingly more frustrated also.

Thus, in order to resolve this editorial conflict, it is critical that in all future comments, you (and I, and all editors, of course) try to be as specific, precise and exact as possible, to prevent the cycle of frustration and anger and wasting your, mine, and other editors' time. Thanks.

Suggested format (suggested template) of response. I suggest all 3 of you (OpenFuture, Earl, Tom) edit the same bulleted list below. This way, we'll have only one list to discuss, instead of 3 separate lists. Once your (one and only) list is complete and final, I'll respond to it.

* L. Susan Brown violates criteria (here, please use one or more of the letters (a) through (e)), because (please provide a specific, precise and exact explanation)

* TTM violates criteria (one or more of the letters (a) through (e)), because (explanation)

* Kropotkin violates criteria (...), because (...)

* Carl Marx violates criteria (...), because ...

* Carl Sagan violates criteria (...), because ...

* John Lennon violates criteria (...), because ...

* Imagine (song) violates criteria (...), because (...)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer this, and here is why:

IjonTichyIjonTichy has recently retracted an apology he made to me for reasons that are entirely devoid of any connection to reality. Within those reasons he accuses me of saying things I never said, doing things I never did and having opinions I never had. I have no time or inclination to deal with this kind of nonsense drama, in which I include the above rant.

Although there is no doubt about IjonTichyIjonTichy's good faith, he still do not understand that his opinions are not reliable sources, despite this being explained to him over and over; and he also clearly above are asking me to prove non-existence by asking me in what way links are *not* related to TZM. These things raises doubts of his wp:competence.

As a result of these issues I no longer have any inclination to try and engage him in rational discussion, as it's clearly not working. Someone else will have to deal with him. Our future cooperation will have to go via dispute resolutions and administrators. I'm sorry for this, but I really think it's the only way. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I revised the above suggestion for conflict resolution to include Earl and Tom. I revised it without realizing that OpenFuture has already posted a response.

The above is not a rant. It is a specific, precise plan to avoid additional frustrations, anger, hurt feelings and waste of time while moving forward in resolving the conflict. The plan is based strictly on the specifications listed in WP:See also.

OpenFuture has casually dismissed all my links (and Tom's 3 links) as 'completely irrelevant' in his edit summary. He has not bothered to write a comment to explain why all my links are 'completely irrelevant', except for a sarcastic and bizarre note that did nothing to help move the conflict-resolution process forward.(And how exactly does his sarcasm and attempt to degrade my comments, and his brief, blanket dismissal of my links as 'completely irrelevant' constitute 'rational discussion'? Why is my reasoning for the links, some of which are directly discussed in the NYT an 'opinion'? Why is my reasoning for links that are supported by Globes and TZM audio and video materials an 'opinion'?) Again due to the vagueness, imprecision and lack of exactness of OpenFuture's explanation of his deletion of my links, it is impossible to ascertain what OpenFuture actually means when he says 'completely irrelevant', and one has to resort to interpretations. Surely OpenFuture will then conveniently claim that my interpretations are incorrect and accuse me of of saying things he never said, blame me for accusing him of doing things he never did and blame me for accusing him of having opinions he never had. Why doesn't he simply fill out the simple form/ template I prepared, to help us understand his reasoning and to help us move the edit-resolution process forward?

I have no choice but try to interpret his intentions. In my interpretation of his brief edit summary (and he will surely attack me for my interpretation), it seems he already determined that all the links, without exception, are *not* related to TZM. That is, judging only from his saying 'completely irrelevant', my interpretation is that he is saying all my (and Tom's) links violate criteria (b) above (he may believe they also violate other criteria in addition to (b) but OpenFuture's creation of artificial scarcity in precision and exactness of information does not provide us with sufficient knowledge to determine the specific additional criteria violations, if any). If indeed he is saying my links (and Tom's) violate criteria (b), he would seem to be in error, because my (and Tom's) links easily satisfy criteria (b). I'm only asking for Earl, Tom and OpenFuture to provide the specific, exact reasoning behind their blanket and repeated dismissal of all my links, so that I can respond to their specific reasoning, so that we can make progress on resolving the editorial (content) conflict. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To resolve this editorial conflict, it is critical that in all future comments, all editors try very hard to be as specific, precise and exact as possible, to prevent the recurring cycle of frustration and anger and wasting editors' time. Thanks.

Suggested format (suggested template) of response. I suggest Earl and Tom (and OpenFuture is welcome too, if he chooses to change his mind) edit the same bulleted list below. This way, we'll have only one list to discuss, instead of 2-3 separate lists. Once the list is complete and final, I'll respond to it.

* L. Susan Brown violates criteria (here, please use one or more of the letters (a) through (e)), because (here, please provide a specific, precise and exact explanation)

* TTM violates criteria (one or more of the letters (a) through (e)), because (explanation)

* Kropotkin violates criteria (...), because (...)

* Carl Marx violates criteria (...), because ...

* Carl Sagan violates criteria (...), because ...

* John Lennon violates criteria (...), because ...

* Imagine (song) violates criteria (...), because (...)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My response is this segment from here wp:competence and with a combination of your edit warring on the article, being warned about that, personal attacks, and repeating the same things countless times, ignoring friendly help and suggestions and saying things like For Brown, TTM and PK the relationship is (almost) equivalence. For Marx, Sagan and Lennon this is based, at a minimum, on a direct quote from what is widely considered to be one of the very best papers in the world, read daily by tens of millions of people globally. End quote IjonTichyIjonTichy, its seems impossible to debate because no one is going to be drawn into a debate that does not make a lot of sense. There is no connection of the things you are suggesting except the usual suspects of cross connected tangential things. Also your opinions on things like the New York Times does not add anything to the debate. Personally I think it is one of the worst papers on the planet, I think its a corporate fascist rag, but no one cares about my opinion here, its my opinion but has no bearing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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