![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow, that was fast. I never got a speedy deletion tag seconds after I created any article. What's with all the hate? This is a very interesting film about a VERY notable subject, ie: your MONEY.
It is also quite notable in many communties (also 1.6 million google hits), and have been viewed by almost one quarter MILLION people on youtube alone. This documentary is part of a growing culture of "awaken" individuals seeing the system for the first time.. one of the famous ones.
personally I find it funny that humanity has been asleep for so long regarding the very concept of Money that seems to be anywhere...:)-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be absurd to delete this article. It says so little about so much. Improve, expand, reference, many things. But delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.6.91 ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"It was created within the growing Internet culture that has created films such as Zeitgeist, the Movie..."
Is this work in any way related to Zeitgeist? I think this particular comment is off topic and not related to "Money as Debt". I do agree that the article should be kept, but I'm unsure what this zeitgeist reference is about? Can we just remove this comment entirely? Retrogradeorbit ( talk) 09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"It was created within the growing Internet culture that has created films such as Zeitgeist, the Movie, and partly as a response to the global economic crisis of 2008."
Whow! They responded to the 2008 crisis six years before it happened! By time-warp? 79.217.227.179 ( talk) 11:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the link to the Radical Teacher article. The whole article can apparently be found here. It's useless as a source or for further reading - it only contains one and half sentences about the film: With particular pleasure I included a captivating, provocative, and freely available animated history of money by Canadian artist and activist Paul Grignon (Money as Debt). ... most students wrote vague summaries of the first film by Grignon
He had a genius quote, before he died bankrupt, and has his estate solf to pay of international personal debt
It is mentioned in the film, maong other things, I think It'll be great to incorporate it in the article somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.56.193 ( talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Money#Misattributed
Chrisahn ( talk) 16:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Misattributed
Chrisahn ( talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Misattributed
Chrisahn ( talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Wilson never said anything like the quote above, he created more of this problem than recognizing it. The film, however, is an excellent piece of work - notice the panic it caused on wikipedia as a reference. IE I didn't ehar/remember this qoute - maybe I saw a later corrected version - with or without the quote the research stands. Panic on fellow wikis ( actually nothing in it many/few didn't know already).
159.105.80.220 (
talk) 12:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A quick check of thwe wikipedia article on Wilson attributes the bulk of these quotes to Wilson in his The New Freedom. The first sentence has been added over time but most of the meaning survived. Page numbers etc are given - maybe Wilson had a stroke before the Fed was founded, maybe he didn't know he was establishing the same mess he thought he was curing - or maybe not, but he wrote the quote it appears.
159.105.80.220 (
talk)
13:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men." This is from Chapter VIII of New Freedom - Gutenberg Project. The quotes that are a little off are at least close in ideas. His real quote is better than the paraphrased versions, I think.
159.105.80.220 (
talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like Grignon to have explained why his new system of money creation would be less capable of manipulation than the old or current systems. Without some darconian controls the entrepeunerial spirit seems to find ways around all good deeds. I think this is the thing I saw most missing in the film - I missed the quote problem ( I was too dizzy from the fractional money talk).
159.105.80.220 (
talk)
16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The real quote is drastically different and totally changes the meaning. Patently obvious, and nothing like the "paraphrased" version 89.247.94.156 ( talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Squiddy wants to remove the quote from 20 Minuten. That source is probably the most reputable of all the sources in the article (second only to Anthropology Today). It was one of two or three sources that helped establish notability in the latest deletion debate. Yes, the criticism is vague, but that's because Money as Debt is an irrelevant movie that no reasonable person writes about, because it presents a completely wrong idea of money, which anyone who reads and understands Fractional reserve banking and a few other articles easily realizes. It's not 20 Minuten who edit carelessly, it's Paul Grignon. Chrisahn ( talk) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence to support that those words quoted were from Kucinich and not an advertisement for this movie. Furthermore, OpEdNews has come up a handful of times at the reliable sources noticeboard and are not considered reliable. [1] [2]. Please stop adding this back. They're not a source for information, nor notability as a self-published source. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
See WP:RSOPINION. It is apparent that Dennis Kucinich authored the article at OpEdNews, does not publish the website himself, and that he has authored numerous articles published there. The article in question has his byline and you offer no proof here that the work there was a forgery written by someone else. Yes, OpEdNews is a website that has political leanings, but as WP:RS instructs "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.", and clarifies "the word "'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings
...and even with other instances where OpEdNews itself may have been disallowed for sourcing facts, I am not using the website to assert a fact, but rather to cite a published opinion of the writer. A clue might be seen in that it was used to source an opinion in the reception section. IE: In the contested OpEdNews source, Congressman Kucinich himself personally wrote about " Bailouts". The segment being contested is his intro to the article he wrote, where he himself calls Grignon's film, "a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system." As opinion is not offered as fact, do you have an issue with use of a Congressman's specific and published public opinion? Or would you wish the section re-written to make it clear that is is opinion, and not fact? Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wow, that was fast. I never got a speedy deletion tag seconds after I created any article. What's with all the hate? This is a very interesting film about a VERY notable subject, ie: your MONEY.
It is also quite notable in many communties (also 1.6 million google hits), and have been viewed by almost one quarter MILLION people on youtube alone. This documentary is part of a growing culture of "awaken" individuals seeing the system for the first time.. one of the famous ones.
personally I find it funny that humanity has been asleep for so long regarding the very concept of Money that seems to be anywhere...:)-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be absurd to delete this article. It says so little about so much. Improve, expand, reference, many things. But delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.6.91 ( talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"It was created within the growing Internet culture that has created films such as Zeitgeist, the Movie..."
Is this work in any way related to Zeitgeist? I think this particular comment is off topic and not related to "Money as Debt". I do agree that the article should be kept, but I'm unsure what this zeitgeist reference is about? Can we just remove this comment entirely? Retrogradeorbit ( talk) 09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"It was created within the growing Internet culture that has created films such as Zeitgeist, the Movie, and partly as a response to the global economic crisis of 2008."
Whow! They responded to the 2008 crisis six years before it happened! By time-warp? 79.217.227.179 ( talk) 11:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the link to the Radical Teacher article. The whole article can apparently be found here. It's useless as a source or for further reading - it only contains one and half sentences about the film: With particular pleasure I included a captivating, provocative, and freely available animated history of money by Canadian artist and activist Paul Grignon (Money as Debt). ... most students wrote vague summaries of the first film by Grignon
He had a genius quote, before he died bankrupt, and has his estate solf to pay of international personal debt
It is mentioned in the film, maong other things, I think It'll be great to incorporate it in the article somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.56.193 ( talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Money#Misattributed
Chrisahn ( talk) 16:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Misattributed
Chrisahn ( talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Misattributed
Chrisahn ( talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Wilson never said anything like the quote above, he created more of this problem than recognizing it. The film, however, is an excellent piece of work - notice the panic it caused on wikipedia as a reference. IE I didn't ehar/remember this qoute - maybe I saw a later corrected version - with or without the quote the research stands. Panic on fellow wikis ( actually nothing in it many/few didn't know already).
159.105.80.220 (
talk) 12:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A quick check of thwe wikipedia article on Wilson attributes the bulk of these quotes to Wilson in his The New Freedom. The first sentence has been added over time but most of the meaning survived. Page numbers etc are given - maybe Wilson had a stroke before the Fed was founded, maybe he didn't know he was establishing the same mess he thought he was curing - or maybe not, but he wrote the quote it appears.
159.105.80.220 (
talk)
13:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men." This is from Chapter VIII of New Freedom - Gutenberg Project. The quotes that are a little off are at least close in ideas. His real quote is better than the paraphrased versions, I think.
159.105.80.220 (
talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like Grignon to have explained why his new system of money creation would be less capable of manipulation than the old or current systems. Without some darconian controls the entrepeunerial spirit seems to find ways around all good deeds. I think this is the thing I saw most missing in the film - I missed the quote problem ( I was too dizzy from the fractional money talk).
159.105.80.220 (
talk)
16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The real quote is drastically different and totally changes the meaning. Patently obvious, and nothing like the "paraphrased" version 89.247.94.156 ( talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Squiddy wants to remove the quote from 20 Minuten. That source is probably the most reputable of all the sources in the article (second only to Anthropology Today). It was one of two or three sources that helped establish notability in the latest deletion debate. Yes, the criticism is vague, but that's because Money as Debt is an irrelevant movie that no reasonable person writes about, because it presents a completely wrong idea of money, which anyone who reads and understands Fractional reserve banking and a few other articles easily realizes. It's not 20 Minuten who edit carelessly, it's Paul Grignon. Chrisahn ( talk) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence to support that those words quoted were from Kucinich and not an advertisement for this movie. Furthermore, OpEdNews has come up a handful of times at the reliable sources noticeboard and are not considered reliable. [1] [2]. Please stop adding this back. They're not a source for information, nor notability as a self-published source. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
See WP:RSOPINION. It is apparent that Dennis Kucinich authored the article at OpEdNews, does not publish the website himself, and that he has authored numerous articles published there. The article in question has his byline and you offer no proof here that the work there was a forgery written by someone else. Yes, OpEdNews is a website that has political leanings, but as WP:RS instructs "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.", and clarifies "the word "'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings
...and even with other instances where OpEdNews itself may have been disallowed for sourcing facts, I am not using the website to assert a fact, but rather to cite a published opinion of the writer. A clue might be seen in that it was used to source an opinion in the reception section. IE: In the contested OpEdNews source, Congressman Kucinich himself personally wrote about " Bailouts". The segment being contested is his intro to the article he wrote, where he himself calls Grignon's film, "a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system." As opinion is not offered as fact, do you have an issue with use of a Congressman's specific and published public opinion? Or would you wish the section re-written to make it clear that is is opinion, and not fact? Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)