Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement: Difference between revisions

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 Wikipedia'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 C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 C‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

The criticism area is out of date, it refers mainly to the 1st of the Zeitgeist movies which is not officially considered a production by the movement and if it wasn't produced by the one of the founders of the movement it would be totally irrelevant(Peter Joseph himself said this in many youtube interviews, if it's needed i will provide links and then there is also the clear statement in the FAQ http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq11). Further information for any unbiased editors of this page can be found in the FAQ http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq as well as in the orientation guide "The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/orientation which is up to date and relevant and also addresses in a thorough fashion all the criticism presented - if anyone of the edit warriors would be bothered to read it. Please end this edit war that's been going on around here for a while now, let the Zeitgeist Movement present the relevant information on this page and not just outdated point of views of questionable american media outlets which are irrelevant for a global organization of thousands of people. (Signed: A member of the movement)

The criticism isn't meant to be "correct" criticism of the movement - it's just presenting critique of it. However the movement's response of such should be equally presented hence someone added a new section for that recently. Also wikipedia isn't for members of movements to portray themselves but to neutrally describe a movement's ideas (which of course mainly origninate/are described on their official webpages). And that's restricted to the "Views"-section. Sadly there are a bunch of gatekeepers in here that view at as their duty to block any relevant or non-negative information on the page and attempt to advocate for their anti-TZM opinions. --2A01:4A0:10:AD10:3827:86DF:A0A5:835B (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promptly deleted by our dear friends, we don't want no real information to be presented on the page of these hippie feggits misters AndyTheGrump and Earl King Jr. now do we? "This is 'Murika bois, we dun care about no solutions to our problems, and those that don't agree aren't PATRIOTS and HATE MURIKA!" "Bias??? We call that lack of sourcin' here in United States of Wikipedia boi, now git ur dumb european terrorist towelhead ass out of dis hir page before i edit ur ass for lack of sourcin'!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.215.241 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Furthermore, I would like to point out a contradiction within the article's propositions. It states in the History section: >>The Zeitgeist Movement's origin was a reaction to Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008).[11]<< If that is so, then why all the ongoing hype about Zeitgeist: The Movie as the central theme in the Criticisms section? It would be different if The Zeitgeist Movement began due to Zeitgeist: The Movie. But that is not the truth. Therefore, the very basis of having such criticisms are flawed as well. JamesB17 (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) Russia Today:

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

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

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

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

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

ours/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Direct criticism of The Movement's officially published materials have ranged from claims of utopian- ism, to transition problems to a loss of work incentives.^[1]

However, the most negative of criticism towards The Zeitgeist Movement actually regards the personal expression of Peter Joseph in his first documentary film called “Zeitgeist: The Movie”. Tablet Magazine^[2], the Journal of Contemporary Religion^[3] and other outlets have targeted so-called “conspiracy” themes in their objections to The Zeitgeist Movement itself. However, none of The Zeitgeist Movement’s official materials online, since its inception, have made any recommendation of such “conspiracy” themes^[4] and Peter Joseph, the founder and core spokesman, has commented numerous times on the false conflation of his personal work and The Movement, which he deems as either deliberately malicious by biased reporters or simply poor research.^[5] JamesB17 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I just rolled back three edits, but my finger slipped and I hit the return key rather than finishing my edit summary, which should have erad 'You can't just say stuff, you need sources'. [1]. Sorry about that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(add more here)

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

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

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

Technological_utopianism should be removed from the See also section as it doesn't properly coincide with a resource based economy(I believe that's why it's been introduced there) since a resource based economy is not an utopia(as per the definition of the word utopia) but is actually a system with the goals to solve problems in an efficient and sustainable way - thus inherently not perfect, one of the requirements of utopia - as per it's definition in many TZM and TVP texts and videos out of which most notable is the 1974 interview of Jaques Fresco with Larry King https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ZutTwKPRM. I believe it's hard to get the actual source of that interview for a non american but maybe our american friends can help with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.166.197 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TZM may well say that their objectives aren't utopian - other sources have however said exactly that. It isn't up to Wikipedia to decide who is right. The link seems entirely reasonable to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Removal of your personal opinion from the section added would leave us with nothing but a blank denial from TZM that they are conspiracy theorists etc. The source you link (a TZM FAQ [2]) entirely fails to address the criticisms in any meaningful way. Would adding "The Zeitgeist movement states that it does not "Support forbidden 'Conspiracy Theories'" and that it is not "Anti-Religious" actually add much to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"....is an assortment of N.w.O. Lizard gene conspiracy stuff" There's no reference to "Lizard genes" in the Zeitgeist series, OK? Thank you and goodbye.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Zeitgeist" is a very generic term referring to themes and beliefs present in society. Which is a very wide topic and also changes with time. Earlier, PJ was talking about religion and terrorism, then moved on to economics and sustainability. Why he kept the same name - probably because he didn't realise he would change his mind about his earlier work or predict just how misused it would be by people who fail to do their research. Regarding your Simpsons example: South Park used to be all about crude jokes, now it tends to discuss recent events and political issues. They still do crude jokes but the point is that even things with the same name can be very different in their early and late days (not to mention countless bands that completely changed genres).

Reliable source about the change already mentioned twice on this Talk page: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0 --Melarish (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is not in question, however the disconnection between the first movie and the movement is explicit on the movement's website, and this has to appear in a subsection 'response to criticism'. I can see no better source than the movement's website for such de declaration. Not including this statement is providing only half the truth, thus a biased point of view. Ukuk (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the philosophy section it says:

The movement advocates the elimination of money and property

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

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

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

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

Earl King Jr., you clearly don't understand what Fixuture.member means by, "Please somehow incorporate that distinction." Distinction here does not refer to the YouTube source. It refers to the distinction made by the source. Fixuture.member even explains this, saying "Please somehow incorporate that distinction." He even says later, "I'll try to find some source on that." Your condescension (i.e. statements such as "Fixuture, it might be a good idea for you to study about Wikipedia. Right now it seems you have no real idea of the mechanics of how it works.") is not based on proper consideration.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Though Peter Joesph makes it clear in his interviews that 'gate keepers' control this article, his term he uses on the official Zeitgeist Youtube station, that is not the case. There is no conspiracy here to present Zeitgeist in a certain way." Fixuture.member's post above didn't bring up the issue of conspiracy, so you have no real justification for "schooling" him by bringing it up. There's no reason to dig up his grave this time.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixuture.member, I would recommend a filtered Google Scholar search for reliable sources about the Zeitgeist Movement. Here's one. It's better practice on Wikipedia to look for a reliable source for the Zeitgeist Movement before deciding what information to incorporate. That way, instead of skipping every reliable source that doesn't cover the specific sub-issue you are looking for, you are instead picking up all the good stuff as you find it. It's much, much faster that way.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Which "article" are you talking about? My link returns a bunch of search results.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 04:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that by "here's one" you meant the article at the top of the list: [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reason magazine

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

• Tablet magazine

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

• Zeitgeist sources

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

• Criticism section

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

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

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

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

Going back to the 'Tablet' source, it seems that it possibly isn't alone in suggesting that TZM indulges in antisemitism. An article on taz.de, the website for Die Tageszeitung, a left-leaning German paper, seems to be suggesting much the same thing. [4] The article is in German though, and it probably needs careful translation by a neutral person before we cite it - it is obviously a sensitive subject, and we have to get it right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that neither The New York Times source in this article nor The Huffington Post mentioned anything about antisemitism? - Why would they leave that out? - The only source we have right now supporting that material is a relatively new online magazine called Tablet Magazine. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Are you seriously suggesting that all third-party sources have to express the same opinions regarding the TZM? Excluding a source because it doesn't say the same thing as another one isn't Wikipedia policy as far as I'm aware. And no, the 'Tablet' isn't the only source regarding concerns about antisemitism - I've just provided another source that has said the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking you why neither The New York Times source in this article nor The Huffington Post mentioned anything about antisemitism. And please quote the new source as I don't read German. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My German isn't good enough to rely on - which is why I suggested a neutral translation. Meanwhile, Google translate seems to do well enough to get the gist of it: A section heading entitled 'Eklige Holocaust-Äußerungen' ('Disgusting Holocaust remarks' according to Google translate) may give a clue. As for why the NYT, and the Huff blog don't mention antisemitism, I really couldn't say, and it isn't my job to speculate. We use sources for what they say, not what they don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can recall per memory, I believe that all of those were sources that either a) describe what TZM is and b) responding to criticism via official organizational material and figureheads. I fail to see how any of such sources, which was agreed upon by everyone now disputing this (with the exception of the newcomers). Did something in Wikipedia's policies change that forbid such use of self-published material? Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing what the "Views" of the organization are, the current section contains both secondary and primary sources, both of which are appropriate. For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property,^[6][7] in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library.^[8] -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor an accurate description. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Zeitgeist Movement Faq's is already used and should not be used at all. Its not up to Wikipedia to be a format, voice for explaining from their point of view what they are. That is self sourcing material. The whole issue is conjecture anyway. Its just Peter Josephs opinion and that could change. Adding more stuff from Zeitgeist has to be a bad idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. One of the most important aspects is that we only make descriptive claims about the information contained in this primary; no analysis or interpretation. The example I posted in my previous comment is a good example of this. The material we are using is specifically discussing the philosophy of the organization, material that as far as I know is only available in this primary. The FAQ is a collaborative effort. Here is a link to the FAQ and here is a link to the 320 page book by the organization. -- Lastly, the way attribution is used in the current article is clear and appropriate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the language you want to incorporate, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library., what does that even mean? Basically it is some kind of blue sky statement with no outside backing of any kind. Its like saying the movement wants to put a chicken in every pot, like a political statement. It means nothing and if no outside sources have written up any material on that we can not use it for anything. Sourcing to their own Faq's material? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Harizotoh9 is complaining about too heavy use of self-sourcing. Now to make it clearer: what are you sourcing in a wiki-page on a book ? Most likely you're going to heavily source the book itself of course. (Example: Up from Dragons)

The same goes for this movement. In the part of the wiki-page ascribed to describing their core ideas you're going to have heavy use of "self-sourcing". The same is true for wiki-pages for all kinds of similar movements/perspectives such as Anarcho-Capitalism. Please go to that wiki-page and look up the references section and their associated text-sections. As you would expect most of them are of common representatives of anarcho-capitalist thought such as Murray N. Rothbard or Friedman.

I agree that TZM is a relatively new movement and still in very fluid/dynamic phase - however its main concepts should be described properly. And the best way for doing so is to refer to the book "The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" which was written by a variety of TZM members and serves (analogically speaking) as the movement's genetic code. Again, please first review other wiki-pages of similar type.

--Fixuture.member (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the best way to do it is to summarize what reliable secondary sources say about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you just ignore the point about books and other similar movements ? If that's your take on it there's plenty of work to do on the Anarcho-Capitalism-page. --Fixuture.member (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For all its faults the Anarcho-Capitalism article cites a wide variety of sources. It is problematic however, I agree. Sadly, there has been a long-running problem on Wikipedia regarding the promotion of Rothbard, the Austrian school of economics, and related issues - as can be demonstrated by the interminable discussions on WP:ANI, ArbCom and the like. I'd not use that article as a positive example of anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unfortunately, this article needs to include some primaries where no other sources exist in order to present a neutral representation when discussing the Philosophy of the organization. One of the most important aspects is that we only make descriptive claims about the information contained in this primary; no analysis or interpretation. The example I posted in a previous comment is a good example of this. The material we are using is specifically discussing the Philosophy of the organization, material that as far as I know is only available in this primary. The way attribution is used in the current article is clear and appropriate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TZM isn't a 'neutral' source regarding TZM... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no requirement for a source to be neutral, but much more importantly, the primaries I am discussing here are being used to talk about the Philosophy of the organization itself; there is no analysis or interpretation. It would be similar to quoting the Bible and then sourcing that quote to the Bible with appropriate attribution, it's absolutely acceptable. We are using these primaries in a way that primaries are meant to be used, without analysis or interpretation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you take a look at our Bible article. Not a single quotation, that I can see. The article is based on academic biblical scholarship - it would be far too easy to cherry-pick isolated passages from the Bible to prove almost anything (as has often been done). Regarding TZM, there is no such scholarship - which has to imply that TZM 'philosophy' isn't actually that notable. We clearly have to say something about the movement's ideology - but limiting it to what little secondary sources have said is clearly preferable to engaging in original research (which is what would be entailed) to determine what particular aspects of TZM's world view are of significance.

And if Wikipedia has no requirement for a source to be neutral (which it doesn't - hence the 'criticism' section), why did you suggest that TZM material would constitute a "neutral representation"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, what are you talking about? Original research is not an issue here as we have a source, and the fact that it's a primary is still in no way a violation of OR as there is no analysis or interpretation of the source.

You stated, "it would be far too easy to cherry-pick isolated passages from the Bible to prove almost anything." Again, what are you talking about? No one is trying to prove anything. The material in the Views section is representing the views of that organization, nothing more. Nowhere does it say that those views are accurate. We are using these primaries in a way that primaries are meant to be used, without analysis or interpretation.

Regarding why this primary source is necessary for a "neutral representation", I will repost what I've already explained: For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property,^[6][7] in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library.^[9] -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor an accurate description. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - you are merely asserting that your own opinion is more 'neutral' than the Huff post's. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double nope. Agreed. Unfortunately, this article needs to include some primaries where no other sources exist in order to present a neutral representation when discussing the Philosophy of the organization. end quote. Why is their 'philosophy' notable? Also the statement of that book being the genetic code of the movement? No, its just more primary self sourced stuff. The book is not notable. The Faq's if it were notable somehow might be discussed on some outside article or critical essay but it is not. There is a link to the Zeitgeist movement on the article page. Anyone wishing to understand the strange, intricate, so called philosophy of it can go there and learn about the lending libraries and property annulment aspects of free distribution. Trying to breakdown their rhetorical aspects to some pure form here is a nonstarter using their latest criteria. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that both you guys think you have ownership of this article, with Earl King Jr. largely being a single topic editor (subjects related to Zeitgeist in some way), but that doesn't give you the right to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Primary sources are absolutely appropriate in certain instances and I've already explained why they are necessary here. I gotta say, my experience with Earl King Jr. over time has largely been one of feeling bullied through the process of edit warring. Just as he recently reverted the article even though there is an ongoing discussion taking place, the illusion of ownership is securely entrenched. And if you actually had a solid understanding of how Wikipedia works you would've known that sources are not required to be notable, only article topics. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - you aren't going to be allowed to cherry-pick from TZM primary sources to insert your personal opinion as to what TZM stands for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No again SomeDifferentStuff you and a bunch of socks and meat puppets are now trying to dominate the article while a few neutral editors step in now and then to stop you and them. Adding something like this???? like you are trying to do in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library, is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this library type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. end quote from SomeDifferentStuff. Intentionally misguiding the reader by not adding some self sourced nonsense about strategic access system libraries? That is not even a real thing, its some neologism phrase by Peter Joseph or one of his helpers. Why not just say a supermarket without a check out? It sure is not notable in any way. Zero comments about it in the press. We can not have the article be a blog/website format for Zeitgeist supporters or ideologues. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. The material is sourced, and even though you hate the fact that it IS sourced, I've already explained why a primary is appropriate here. And again, according to Wikipedia policy, sources are NOT required to be notable, only article topics. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still aren't going to be allowed to cherry-pick from TZM primary sources to insert your personal opinion as to what TZM stands for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since its so hard to find outside information on this article subject maybe we could post some links here to see if they are good enough to use or not. How about this one?

[5]

Anyone have others they would like to post and discuss? Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't going to use websites of fringe far-left organisations as sources, for much the same reasons we avoid using TZM itself. They are reliable sources only for their own opinions, and such opinions are of little significance as far as Wikipedia is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's enlist all critical articles on TZM, the more ridiculous the better (I personally think they're a lizard-racist-9/11 truther-faked moonlanding-new age-nazi-conspiracy-suicide-cult).

No, seriously by posting such links it just perfectly reveals your bias. If you're recognizing that as a valid source but apparently not RussiaToday I'm just speechless.

Related to this: Complaints about Self-sourcing

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

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story/1936879-toronto-s-first-tool-library-to-open-at-parc-in-march/

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/new_world_re_order/8838/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=2

http://rt.com/usa/zeitgeist-moving-money-utopia/

http://rt.com/shows/boom-bust/dollar-debasement-zeitgeist-movement-346/

http://rt.com/news/economic-systems-peter-joseph/

http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/opinion-world-s-th-annual-z-day-call-for-a/article_325f2b9e-ad4e-11e3-aa3c-001a4bcf6878.html

examiner.com/article/what-is-the-zeitgeist-movement

examiner.com/article/the-zeitgeist-movement-part-1-of-8

examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-media-festival-challenges-the-world-to-be-positive

examiner.com/article/peter-joseph-zeitgeist-movement-founder-on-innagural-zeitgeist-media-festival

examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-movement-selects-bucky-fuller-critical-path-first-book-of-the-month

examiner.com/article/the-zeitgeist-movement-resource-based-economy

examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-addendum-film-review-past-present-and-future-of-money-and-economics

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/zeitgeist-creator-peter-josephs-culture-in-decline-season-finale-tale-of-two-worlds-released-september-6-222661521.html

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/letters/ci_13488825

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/tag/the-zeitgeist-movement/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-357795975.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2248499841.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-339980011.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-253448169.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-203179719.html

Ojai Valley News January 19, 2011 "'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward' coming to Ojai Friday" http://www.gillsotu.com/files/OVN01-19_12033.pdf

http://www.gillsotu.com/files/OVN01-19_12033.pdf

http://www.dailyprogress.com/entertainment/first-local-zeitgeist-day-part-of-global-pause-to-focus/article_e486425a-8cf5-11e2-817e-001a4bcf6878.html

More to follow. --Fixuture.member (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine any sources for consideration to material that (a) actually mentions TZM (unlike this for instance [6]), (b) isn't already cited in the article, (c) isn't self-evident promotional material submitted by TZM members, and (d) is published in a reliable source ([7] for example has already been discussed, along with other material at the reliable sources noticeboard[8]) - and note that examiner.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia as an unreliable source lacking appropriate editorial oversight. I see no reason why people should waste their time looking through material which clearly isn't WP:RS. And to avoid further unnecessary time-wasting, please explain what proposed content the material would be cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Ok

(b) As there are some edit-flaming anti-TZM guys maintaining this page you can't know what else they/you are going to delete. Hence I'd rather save it all up in here.

(c) The only article that might concern is the prnewswire one. However it's sourcing the production company so that might be a valid source for a note on the series issued there.

(d) There's only a link to it. And why shouldn't it be a reliable source ? And that links.org site should be a reliable then ?! Ok for examiner.

The person who started this section only asked for links, not for their associated edits.

--Fixuture.member (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long indiscriminate lists aren't going to achieve anything. And neither is going over the same ground again. If there is new material from reliable third-party sources that can actually add useful content to the article, I'm all in favour of it - but it has to comply with Wikipedia policies regarding sources, and it needs to actually tell us something meaningful about TZM. What we really need is an in-depth discussion of TZM's perspectives written by an uninvolved source (preferably academic) with the credentials to actually analyse them, rather than merely repeating them, or dismissing them as 'utopian', 'cultish' or whatever without explanation. Failing that, we may have to accept that the article will remain much the way it is - there are no circumstances whatsoever where decisions regarding article content will be made by TZM supporters alone, and likewise, TZM supporters are going to have to accept that critical material will remain in the article, despite their objections. It is a requirement of articles that they demonstrate notability through third-party sources - removing critical material would (as well as violating other policies) render the article liable to immediate deletion as failing to demonstrate notability. Frankly though, on a personal level, I find this endless complaining by TZM supporters about the article containing criticism of the movement quite bizarre. You are proposing a fundamental reshaping of the entire global political and economic system. Do you really think it is going to happen without people raising objections? Get real... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any problem with critical material that would address the movement's actual aims - if someone comments "Society will collapse without incentives" or "This is utopian and will never happen", that's relevant criticism because the movement *does* aim to have a society without money, relying on intrinsic motivation. While it *does not* aim to make everyone believe in conspiracies and any journalists making this connection are either extremely paranoid, or are trying to make money off sensationalism (and if WP is citing such tabloids, can it really be taken seriously?). Also, there are enough sources mentioning TZM without the "cult" accusations - the Huffington Post one and NYTimes one, for example, provide a mature and relevant coverage of TZM suitable for an encyclopedia tone. Why do you say that the article would have to be deleted without the irrelevant criticisms? --Melarish (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>including critical ones, on subject matter

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

>arrived at by consensus, after extensive discussion

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

Wikipedia ought to be informative and neutral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am saying you are a worker for the Zeitgeist organization, a public speaker that speaks at their events so you have a conflict of interest and your edits show that you are biased to promote Zeitgeist here. I am also saying that you probably were inspired by the Zeitgeist leader Joseph because he says this article is censored by gatekeepers. Your manner of engaging is not only not friendly your writing is poor in trying to prove your points. Accusing editors of censorship is exactly what Peter Joseph does in his Youtube show. You are acting here as his representative by doing the same. I do not know if they pay their workers or you lecture at their conventions for free? Which is it? Either way unless you are a neutral editor and you are not, then you are in a major conflict of interest as pointed out before in the link I gave of your activist speaking [10]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current article looks a lot like Wikipedia:Coatrack, meaning it is superficially true and properly sourced but takes the focus away from the actual topic. Especially relevant is this section: Wikipedia:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22

• If an article about a journalist mostly describes a conspiracy article he once wrote, the reader will leave the article with the false impression that the journalist's career is mostly about that conspiracy theory, and he is a vocal advocate of the theory.
• An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. --Melarish (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither an article about a journalist, nor does it have a disproportionately long criticism section (it is two sentences long). If you are going to accuse this article of being a coatrack, you need to say what the actual topic should be, and what the focus actually is. The lead, history, and views section, all of which are about the article subject itself, take up the vast bulk of the article. You need to be more specific with your complaint. -- Atama頭 18:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The journalist was an example from the guidelines. The actual topic is The Zeitgeist Movement but the criticisms that get the most attention are about Zeitgeist: The Movie, which already has its own page and includes the same criticisms. The Criticisms section of this article used to be longer, before someone recently (around 6th April) moved the Journal of Contemporary Religion article to "Views" for some bizarre reason. Maybe 1/3 of the article for criticisms is not disproportionately large, I'm not sure what is meant by that, but it doesn't take anything positive from the newspaper/magazine articles listed (it seems to say they are all only critical of the movement but if you read for example the HuffPost one, it is maybe skeptical but also supportive). --Melarish (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there shouldn't be a criticism section at all. Per WP:STRUCTURE:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

So our neutrality policy itself recommends against criticism sections (and has done so for years). Unfortunately, I find that far too many people ignore that part of our NPOV policy and add criticism sections because it's easy. What was done before, where material was moved out of the criticism section into the "views" section, was a good start. I think you do have a point, though, that complaints about the film really don't have a place in this article. They belong in the other article, and if they are there then it's redundant to include them here. -- Atama頭 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'complaints about the film' explicitly mention TZM - and if sources chose to make connections between the two, it isn't our job to second-guess them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that while criticism of the film could be interpreted as criticism of the group, that interpretation skirts a bit close to synthesis. I don't like the idea of conflating criticism of the film with criticism of the group; I don't think it's necessary and it seems redundant when the film has its own article that repeats those criticisms.

For example, look at Ku Klux Klan. (I'm not citing this article as an example because I'm drawing any kind of parallels between the ideologies of the two groups.) The Klan also got its (re-)start through a film, The Birth of a Nation, which helped popularize the organization and portrayed values and beliefs of the group. The Klan article doesn't need to conflate criticism of the film with criticism of the organization. Granted, the Klan has 100+ years of history to draw from, while TZM is less than a decade old, but I think the amount of weight in the Klan article given to the film is appropriate. I don't think that we need much more information about Zeitgeist: The Movie than what is present in the history section of this article, and that includes criticisms of the film. I'm in no way suggesting that we whitewash this article, but I think any criticisms should be those directly about the group, its founder, and/or other individual members or subgroups. -- Atama頭 22:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how quoting a source which combines criticism of the film with criticism of TZM can possibly be synthesis - it is the source that makes the connection, not us. As for citing other material instead, that is all well and good, if it can be found. As it stands, the article barely passes Wikipedia notability criteria, based on the material we cite. If we were to start removing critical material without adding new material first, we'd be left with little more than a single NYT article and a Huff Post blog - clearly unacceptable, even ignoring NPOV issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I suppose it's not synthesis if we're not just the ones making the connection. This article does need some work, but there's nothing that needs immediate attention. I still think that the criticism section should be eliminated, but that can be done as the article is expanded. -- Atama頭 00:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

On its official website, Greenpeace defines its mission as the following:

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace by:

• Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change.
• Defending our oceans by challenging wasteful and destructive fishing, and creating a global network of marine reserves.

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

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

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

Let's take a close look at the references.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In regards to WP:SELFSOURCE:

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

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

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And incidentally, I would suggest that TZM instructs its supporters to act like adults, rather than juvenile illiterate vandals like the jerk responsible for this edit. [11] The article is currently under 'pending changes' limitations, and the next step is likely to be full protection, which will make editing a very slow process indeed, and more or less guarantee that the article stays much as it has been, regardless of what TZM think of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Incidentally, as I've already pointed out, the German Wikipedia cites an article from Die Tageszeitung, which (going by Google translate) isn't exactly complementary regarding TMZ. [12] Would you be happy for us to cite this? And if not, what objections (based on Wikipedia policy) would you have? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Added inline POV tag.[13] -- This is a clear violation of neutrality. According to WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Given that no other sources have stated anything like, "will view Christianity as a fraud", this material does not carry the appropriate weight to be included in the lead. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Is Zeitgeist really a leaderless movement because they say it is? It appears to not be a leaderless movement at all and appears to be tightly controlled and led by Peter Joseph. Is there any information out there that points that out beside [14]. Its an incorporated LLC by Peter Joseph and makes money that way, so we probably can make that clear in the article. The 'movement' could defacto be a following. The activist arm of the 'venus project' ended up looking strange after the venus project (which is the work of just two people) disassociated itself from it. I think we need to show who actually controls the purse strings of this so I am re-adding that information with a primary and secondary source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Here is the diff [15] Gentle machine productions is as close to the Zeitgeist as you can get if looking for something real as to who 'owns' or controls or created it. There is no technical Zeitgeist Movement, its not incorporated but Gentle machines production is how Peter Joseph makes money, or one way. I think we should include the information. Zeitgeist movement is really the personal project of Peter Joseph and the only societal connection as far as a money trail goes through his production company. Why not have the article reflect who is in control of the whole thing? Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

You have some issue with this not being a real thing?? [16] Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This source has a lot to do with the Zeitgeist movement information wise [17] ? Existing and developing projects of Gentle Machine Productions include The Zeitgeist Film Trilogy, the Culture in Decline Bi-monthly Web Series, along Peter Joseph's new feature film project: InterReflections. Peter also produces literary works, musical scores and other personal art which is also available. Also, in conjunction with The Zeitgeist Movement, a global non-profit sustainability advocacy group inspired by the Zeitgeist Film Series So, there are primary and secondary sources connected to posting that information in the history area. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

New Edit.

Existing and developing projects of Peter Josephs Gentle Machine Productions include The Zeitgeist Film Trilogy, the Culture in Decline Bi-monthly Web Series, along Peter Joseph's new feature film project: InterReflections. Gentle Machines Productions works in conjunction with The Zeitgeist Movement, a group inspired by the Zeitgeist Film Series, Peter underwrites the main, annual live concert event called the "Zeitgeist Media Festival" through Gentle Machines LLC. [18] so this one along with these [19] and [20]

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

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

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

New edit,

The Zeitgeist Movement uses Peter Joseph's limited liability corporation Gentle Machines Productions to develop projects including The Zeitgeist Film Trilogy, the Culture in Decline Bi-monthly Web Series, and Peter Joseph's new feature film project: InterReflections. Gentle Machines Productions works in conjunction with The Zeitgeist Movement, a group inspired by the Zeitgeist Film Series. Peter underwrites the main, annual live concert event called the "Zeitgeist Media Festival" through Gentle Machines LLC. [21] so this one along with these [22] and [23] Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Not speculation. Its black and white. It is the basis of the Zeitgeist movies, the production company that made them along with Peter Joseph. Most companies have owners and people involved and some are llc's like this one. Its just factual information about the subject [24]. I guess bating otherwise is just that. Baiting otherwise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its not my personal opinion. I think you are way overboard and not correct. Your track record tells me that your technique of communication leaves a lot to be desired and this shows that [25]. You are not editing the article you are positioned over it and harassing. Stop. Your premise is not correct. You think that Peter Joseph is not the founder of the Zeitgeist movement? You think he is not the leader? Maybe you think it was not him that made the movie also? Hectoring people and editing disruptively is what you are doing and you are not really contributing to the article except by slashing and burning. There are times for that also I agree, but you have to be realistic about it also Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this article is good, then it deserves one of these . Too bad it doesn't yet.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Political movement

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

Social movement

Social movements are a type of group action. They are large, sometimes informal, groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social change.

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

+1 for social movement, because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I do agree with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is about The Zeitgeist Movement. It is not about Zeitgeist, The Movie, and accordingly should not be describing the contents of the movie except in as much as reliable sources do when making a direct connection. Material such as is included in this edit [26] is clearly off-topic, and accordingly should be removed as contrary to policy. We have had ongoing problems with TZM supporters engaging in synthesis to include material not directly supported by sources, and I see no reason why experienced contributors who clearly should know better should get away with doing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are going to do as you like, thats the way Wikipedia works but edit warring over something so simple as the connection between the first movie and the movement does not make sense at all. We have sourced material that draws the connection, it is a direct connection [27] and there are other sources, many that confirm that the movie Zeitgeist the movie is the beginning of the Zeitgeist movement. Sorry to say your opinion means just about nothing Andy in regard to this issue, though its good you wish to discuss it on the talk page. Off topic? Hardly. It is the topic, in spades. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Andy, you really need to stop thinking you are right on this even though you think you are right, you are wrong. As has been said it is a major paper and the section in the article is for reactions to the movie and context of what the movie is and its effects on the so called 'movement' by a notable film critic [29] Is it just a strange coincidence that the Zeitgeist movement, Peter Joseph, says that there is 'no connection to the movement' and that is parroted by the many Zeitgeist sock puppets and meat puppets and hangers on and other assorted convicted Zeitgeist enthusiasts which believe that gospel? So, not only are you against consensus on this you seem to be failing to get it that it is sourced as said to a big paper. I have no dog in this contest. Even though the article basically is mine now because I rewrote it several times over from the god awful mess it was previously. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Merging is good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started the process and this guy accused me of 'being' a Zionist Agenda. That made me scratch my head [30] I think he should be kicked out of editing Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]