This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
And editor is putting that information off balance to make it look like the 'movement' is widespread and 'taken seriously' without adding the rest of the story line from the article [1] I readded the information. If that editor and another have a problem with that info. best to discuss here and not remove since consensus says it is o.k.. Using the idea of weight really does not apply. Especially since the same editor used a partial quote to make a point and disconnected the later part apparently not to have the point developed fully but to keep it at the snippet and disconnected from the 'whole' level. There is clear consensus from other areas above to use the Goldberg material and I suggest the editor self revert since this smacks now of edit jousting, does the article no good, twists the information and makes it unreliable to partially give an idea without including the bigger aspect. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop being a confrontational Dick on this page. Is that clear enough? Read other threads and you can see for yourself. After seeing how you treat other people and your weird interpretation of events, I may no longer respond to you at all because it does not seem worthwhile after trying. You two tandem editors for yourselves have been against page consensus in most respects, recently especially. And don't bother to respond then to the issue I brought up if you do not care to about framing the information wrong. You or your editing chum. I have zero regard for your offensive style. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 14:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Doubtful. You explain falsely presenting information by chopping off the content in the Goldberg piece for positive effect, her statement about people gathering 'to' the movement, without adding the rest of the content that proceeds that which puts it into a completely different light. That clearly misrepresents the information from the Goldberg piece. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The "Jew-baiting subtext" is nonexistent, it's slander, total nonsense.
Which is why TZM was "genuinely baffled" when in "2009 a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism."
We were banned for what we generally advocate, the end of trading or the free market in favour of an open source social system.
We weren't banned for anti-Semitism since I don't advocate anti-Semitism, I'm against ALL religions or the right to belief since it's socially corrosive. Anyone who can understand how religion is manipulating and relies on ignorance sees it's destructive under the guise of "freedom" or the "right to believe"
Some official looking article slandering TZM will not make the slander true. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As has been noted e.g. at WP:RSN, it is frequently a mistake to assume that article headlines are written by the journalist named - they are often written by subeditors and the like. In the case of this edit [5] I reverted, it seems self-evident that Goldberg wasn't responsible for the headline. She wrote "At times, [TZM] even seems like the world’s first Internet-based cult..." - an equivocal statement, and not one that concurs with the headline's "The Zeitgeist movement is the first Internet-based apocalyptic cult..." AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that statement "TZM is an Internet cult.", in short: No Weren't not, but there are those like Earl who label me as such because they don't like what I advocate and have gotten comfortable to our sick social attributes, most notably: Property and Trading, because they lead to poverty and war. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If zeitgeist is propaganda, cite credible sources and add that to the article. James Gilligan who's a violence expert says that "Punishment is the most powerful provoker of violence we've yet discovered", I'm glad you're fascist? Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 10:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy, like I said why not cite some credible sources which show TZM is a cult?
For example the Scientology counter websites take the "beliefs of Scientology" and examine them, deconstruct them for what they really are, Brainwashing techniques: Staring straight into people's eyes for an hour has a hypnotising effect which is why Scientology use such a technique.
Saying TZM is a cult without providing credible sources from at least a few cult experts, with concrete evidence/arguments of brainwashing techniques, is no different than the TZM hate-blogs which supposedly "counter" TZM with outright slander, in some ways they do stop critical thought because people want to be comforted with bullshit lies. Attempting to source the most negative articles about TZM is propaganda.
Replying to your bullshit: an Open Source social system of Science is not "an ideological fascist cult of elitist technocratic utopianism" like you say.
And the right to prayer is socially corrosive since prayer is violence since it's a lie to claim that god exists and you must pray to him etc, it's a social cancer, a pure scam. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 00:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Earl, it appears you cannot tell the difference between a Movie and a Movement? since you still want to draw a dubious connection for the sake of slander. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 00:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Earl King Jr. recently added this material to the Reception section: [6] -- She went on to say: "Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement. Many were genuinely baffled in 2009 when a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism. Others seem a bit embarrassed by the first Zeitgeist; they’ll often say it’s “irrelevant”—one of TZM’s favorite epithets—because it came out before the movement got started. But no one is disavowing it, and so a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia. (my bolding)
This addition violates neutrality in 2 ways. First, that amount of material clearly violates WP:Weight by the size of the addition. Tablet magazine is a fairly obscure source and doesn't deserve more weight than everything else in the section; using it as a source in the article is not a problem, but the way that it is being used is. The other neutrality violation is that before he made this addition, that section already mentioned antisemitism, and from the same source, by stating, "and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", which is still in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Removed the section header that for some reason someone put on. The discussion should not veer off if same discussion with too many separate talk page headings, unneeded.
So, no problem it is now only referencing antisemitic once instead of twice [8]. Too much valuable information there to toss, plus consensus is divided. No doubt many Zeitgeist supporters have come to the page and said exactly what M. Goldberg is saying they say even though that is neither here nor there for a talk page it is a good source. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 23:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the only thread I've started regarding this material. You should not have added "Jew-baiting" to the article if you didn't want it to be discussed. The fact that you still think it's appropriate is beyond me. As another editor noted above [9] you really don't understand some core aspects of Wikipedia. I've clearly explained at the beginning of this section why the material in general violates WP:Weight, and continues to. Your ranting about the first film shows how little understanding you actually have of the material you're editing, which is really problematic. And given that the majority of your edit history is related to Zeitgeist in some way [10] this is also problematic. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
It's slander, fear propaganda, it doesn't need to make sense, just source it to give a negative perspective of TZM, yeah that would be a "good source".
Regarding TZM history, I believe it's too focused on Peter Joseph's history rather than the movement's. So I think it would be approprite to add a short sentence like: Most recently, Sam Vallely a member of TZM released his first documentary, Will Work For Free (2013), which describes technological unemployment, the idea that machines are replacing jobs which the movement speaks about. This has a third party article, I'd like to know the verdict if it's a "reliable source". Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In the history section of TZM there's a focus on "Peter Joseph's History" with the movement, which is a bias/implication that TZM is lead by PJ, especially with the "Key People Peter Joseph" false label as well. If you want the article to ne neutral, without the "PJ is the leader" implication, history elements of TZM would be allowed on the article from third party sources. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 04:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It does present recent TZM history, the release of a new documentary about technological unemployment. There are no "key members of TZM" that's pure slander. Someone is "key member" when they express TZM's train of thought, the focus on Peter Joseph = leader just because he started it off is basically the accusation that TZM is a cult, and there's been trolls who hang around cult expert forums and when the trolls don't agree with the cult experts saying, "no TZM is not a cult", the trolls proclaim themselves as being more of an expert than them. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 05:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't see how the article says "Nothing". If this article is meant to be neutral regarding TZM's activities, it seems like "TZM is the world's first internet cult" and "Peter Joseph is a key person" is more relevant in the "Reception" section than Most recently, Sam Vallely a member of TZM released his first documentary, Will Work For Free (2013), which describes technological unemployment, the idea that machines are replacing jobs which the movement speaks about. If not "Histroy" maybe it belongs in "Currently" then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeon-characteristic ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as Peter Joseph it was him that introduced the Zeitgeist idea into society via his movies and he created the movement. whether that makes him a leader is rhetorical in argument. He runs the thing. The party line of the group is that it has no leaders but that would go against any kind of known anthropological ideas about humans and groups, but that is my opinion. s.D.s. got these threads all mixed up now and probably for comments on Michelle's article they should be put into the area above this one, that is the one that originally was discussing this. This is a separate thread to that one now. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Regarding the article I which I think should be referenced for will work for free in the TZM wiki, it would be counter intuitive to claim "it's advertising while while looking like a real paper" "the person that produced the movie must have uploaded a Youtube video and then placed this product description in this online shopping paper?" No, the person who made will work for free did not create that article and it's an Anti-commercial or Anti-advertising documentary, how do you "advertise" a documentary which is against "advertising" (well made lie designed in such a way to get someone to buy a product/service)? and I still think it deserves a one sentence mention, like in media reception or something since wiki is meant to be unbiased, and the TZM wiki includes a bunch of slanderous false claims about it Peter Joseph is not TZM's leader (the implication of being just like L. Ron Hubbard creating Scientology). The Science which shows trading or free market capitalism is bad for human health is simply sourced in Moving Forward, Addendum, and therefore sourced by TZM. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to find third party articles which show TZM is a cult, money making scheme, religion etc. That would very much help me relinquish my involvement with TZM :P Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of all the Cult Experts I messaged one replied with "Don't have time, sorry" (Daniel Shaw), since I can't get cult experts to speak about TZM, that must mean some journalist is right, with the other source stating I'm a member of a political movement. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) And Rick Ross has got better things to do as well, damn, I guess a biased journalist can say TZM is a cult and get away with it. "There were some comments and a flame war about this at the message board. I am not interested in getting involved at Wikipedia, which I regard as a worthless mess when it comes to controversial issues and editors with an axe to grind. Rick Ross" Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 23:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
Has been removed by SomeDifferentStuff arguing that it is in the wrong article which is a nonstarter argument and accusing an editor of pilfering the info. from the other article. This is not only a breach of editing civil discourse in his edit summary but the same issue which recently flared and people commented that removing the Goldberg material from the article is not a good plan. It is true that SomeDifferentStuff does pov for Zeitgeist movement as history shows and that is not a good idea. Removing good citable materiel in this article really should stop. Just because a lot of Zeitgeist supporters end up here, is no reason they should control the article with there slanted pov. Neutral presentation demands information be put here regardless of the Zeitgeist supporters anti Goldberg tendency. Zeitgeist movement is based from a spin-off of the first movie, the second movie introduced it. History is clear on that. Lets not repeat the tedious business of taking this information from the article over and over. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
TZM is a Movement, not a Movie, Earl King.
The Movement is represented by the Orientation Guide(s), it explains why free market trading or property is unsustainble: it's based on selfishness, and why a transition to a Resource based economy (Open Source Science) would be better.
It appears you've got the slanted pov. Canobanbon ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
the reason why people want a "connection" between zeitgeist the movie and TZM is because the first fim does not discuss what TZM is about whatsoever and it's used as a tactic to pass off the movement as a group of "conspiracy theorists".
But the fact remains that free market capitalism is completely disconnected from Nature and is therefore unsustainable with its promotion of poverty, war and pollution. Nanforgon ( talk) 11:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:DENY WP:FORUM for obvious sock of Canobanbon, who reminds me of User:Zeitgeist-Movement-Member |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That is pretty much your opinion that I am a "sock puppet, meat puppet". If the membership of TZM is "sock puppets, meat puppets" why not provide credible sources to prove this? That's something that can be proven since political parties have been known to hire support for campaigns on social media, like bots for instance. Wikipedia: sockpuppet A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. Tough allogations, how is saying "competitive trading relies on deception since it's about both parties getting the better end of the deal" deceptive? Wikipedia: Meatpuppet Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position. Tough allogations, where's the proof TZM is hiring or bribing members to support TZM? Oh that's right there's none. Back on Topic: "It is part and parcel of the Zeitgeist supporters" Here I am, a zeitgeist supporter who says: "zeitgeist the movie does not discuss what TZM is about whatsoever" But some "editor" or "critic" can say the exact opposite and ignore what a TZM supporter says right in front of him because he wants to support deliberately or ignorantly slanderous sources. The ignorance is so blind... Nanforgon ( talk) 06:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
The Devil's Advocate. Wrong on all counts. Please stop your usual in line editing as a Zeitgeist movement supporter as history has show you are in that pov zone. 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." She went on to write that the film borrows from the work of Eustace Mullins, Lyndon LaRouche, and radio host Alex Jones, saying that Zeitgeist: The Movie portrays a cabal of international bankers purportedly ruling the world.[11] In an interview with TheMarker, Joseph stated that while the film does mention bankers it does not seek to place blame on any individual or group of individuals. He argues they are merely a product of a socioeconomic system in need of change. was added to the article. It is not copy pasted from the source and it is the writer M. Goldbergs take on the movement. Stop mis-characterizing it. You see the quotes? You see the connection she is making between the first movie and the movement? So I assume you will drop the pov Zeitgeist argument now. Please do not repeat the copy paste argument for a fourth time. It was wrong the first time. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
According to what you want to believe are "reliable citations", if you knew anything about TZM you'd realise that TZM is not a "9/11 truth movement". Since you personally don't like the goals of TZM, (an Open Source, environmentally sustainable Society) you want it to be a "9/11 movement" and seek sources which you want to come to that conclusion so you can abuse the group by giving it false labels.
Along with calling science a "political movement" and saying science is "propaganda" or "soap-boxing", and saying "TZM members are sock puppets" or "paid to advocate TZM for deceptive purposes", which are all lies which wiki editors seem to lovingly support. Listitgamedelaywales ( talk) 01:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that :You back again already [13]? Looks like another Zeitgeist Sock for Aeon or one of the others.
I have to tell you guys that we here are members of the new world order and we control the article relentlessly. We all believe in free market capitalism and that climate change is not real and that the Huffington Post and New York times are ridden with Satantanists.
Not really, just kidding. No one in a group controls the article here. Ideally most of Wikipedia is neutrally done. It could be that because conspiracy minded people come here often from the movement sometimes, they may be confused about what goes on generally here. Read some of the guidelines for editing and if you don't feel you can abide them look into Wordpress or Google where you can say what you like. They offer free space for people to vent or make a case for things. Perhaps you do not understand that the talk page of an article can not be used for homilies about such and such or opinions about some aspect using your own original research. Please either learn about this or just stop what you are doing since no one is going to take you seriously because of your approach. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
After you joke, what you say afterwards is the real joke.
"conspiracy minded people come here often from the movement sometimes,"
First off that's a contradiction, it's either "often" or "sometimes"
Secondly, don't be specific, be as vague as possible, to the critical mind, that doesn't make you seem like you know what TZM is about whatsoever or maybe you don't want to understand?
How can't you believe in "free market capitalism"? since you want to label a group using "credible sources" which advocates an "Open Source sharing Society" without war or poverty, with as much bullshit as possible.
Saying such lies like "science is propaganda"
Or "Science is a political movement"
"TZM is a 9/11 truth movement"
Or even worse, "I don't believe in Science, it's all just a matter of opinion."
I think you're totally confused about what TZM is about. Listitgamedelaywales ( talk) 03:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Goldberg's article is about the movement. The quote is informative and consistent with the mainstream view. Tom Harrison Talk 11:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I wrote the excerpt in the Movie article also. It is paraphrased from the Goldberg piece. It is important to put it here also to round out the information. It is not copy pasted from the Goldberg article and that is what counts. I am not going to respond to you on this again. You are a Zeitgeist supporter as shown in the past. Your premise is wrong on this edit anyway. Just like the rest of the Zeitgeist supporters you support their information via Faq's and Joseph or whatever. Refusal to get the point on that is tantamount to wasting every ones time. Not hard to see why you were blocked for tendentiousness before on conspiracy things. You are not at all with any consensus. Your view is proven wrong by reliable sources what little of them we have. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Zeitgeist "critics" have an agenda towards confusing what the movement is about: an Open Source Society.
Either deliberate or pathological lying: the strategy is to confuse zeitgeist movies with a movement out of ignorance to shrug off TZM as not a real group of activists.
When simple searches bring up real advocates of TZM which communicates TZM's goals. But according to slander here, apparently I'm a "sock puppet" or getting paid money to promote TZM, a group which is against trading. The irony.
the idea that "zeitgeist supporters" are biased by default is nonsense, obviously anyone who doesn't like "zeitgeist supporters" hates Open Source. Wowormsbase ( talk) 01:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Should the material sourced to Goldberg's article be edited to note the linkage between the movement and what she is saying about the movie?
No Copied from the movie article with no changes? No it was brought to this article from another Wikipedia article and paraphrased from the Goldberg article. Lets not confuse things. It was not copy pasted from the Goldberg article as you seem to imply. It is very basic limited information from the Goldberg article. The Goldberg information previously was taken out of the article by Zeitgeist supporters and another now departed editor. Recently you tried to take the article out of the conspiracy theory article headings. I guess that speaks to the problems of the article being loaded up with Zeitgeist pro sock puppets, meat puppets and sympathizers who constantly chip away at the article toward a Zeitgeist pov. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Goldberg's article is about the movement (to the extent that there is a movement.) Anyway, making a big distinction between the movie and the movement is not something the sources do. No doubt there are other equally good ways to summarize Goldberg's points, but my eyes are starting to glaze over. Tom Harrison Talk 10:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I never once stated or implied that Earl was copy-pasting from the source. He seems to wrongly take my comments about him copy-pasting from the Wikipedia article about the movie as being about copy-pasting from the Goldberg article. As to his other comments, one need only look at the edit summaries.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain yourself SomeDifferentStuff from adding the Zeitgeist Movement viewpoint from their faq's material that the first movie is not connected in any way to the 'movement'. Despite the fact that you have/had no backing for your edit you have made this same claim over and over and over and are showing your tendentious failure of not getting the point, the reason you were blocked from editing these articles previously [14] diff. I hate to upbraid you this way but you just keep doing the same thing over and over and removing information from a reliable source that contradicts your (Zeitgeist official view) gets tiresome. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 22:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Realistically I'm trying to remove any neutrality regarding TZM and I desire strong negative publicity of them because I don't like Open Source. But since there are no mainstream sources for TZM at all, the TZM article, the Moving Forward Article, the Peter Joseph article, should all be removed. Groshnte ( talk) 10:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(Previous edit warrior returns against consensus. ProZeitgeist editor removes and soapbox's for the first movie not being connected, which the article says 'is'. Original research from the Zeitgeist Movement. Stop.
This "connection" is an obvious distraction away from what TZM's goal is; an Open Source society. Because Peter Joseph started a movement, a piece of work which doesn't relate to TZM's goals is related to TZM's goals because you want to reference an article which slanders TZM? That pretty much sums it up. Groshnte ( talk) 10:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
saying "TZM members are sock puppets" or "paid to advocate TZM for deceptive purposes", is a lie which wiki editors seem to lovingly support.
"You are what we call"? is wikipedia a secret society now?
Science is not an opinion, you might want to check the meanings of the words you use. Nhtgrfjtf ( talk) 06:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No, 06:36, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+385) . . Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement (→Recent Goldberg edit) (current) An edit history of one edit.
But you are what we call a sockpuppet or meat puppet for a banned user.
Wikipedia has been a secret society yes for a long time, how you found out about it we will never know but we are checking carefully. Normally we never get called out about this but I guess you are super smart because of that damn Peter Joseph guy. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems you believe wikipedia is a secret society considering the self-referring of the term "sock puppet", the reluctance recognise the definition or hide behind it: Basically someone who's paid money to promote propaganda, to deceive or mislead, in this case the zeitgeist moment, and the reluctance to display any evidence whatsoever to support this accusation? There's still None by the way. Grsgrsgse ( talk) 07:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
keep up that ostracism of zeitgeist members since they express views which you personally disagree with so you can misrepresent TZM as much as possible. Such as the belief science is a political movement, or Peter Joseph is the "leader" of TZM or TZM is a cult. None of which is backed up by any real evidence. Hngtjtdf ( talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This article seems to advance the movement and is written for commercial gain, per WP:COI.
"Joseph's films which form the basis of the Zeitgeist movements ideas are critical of market capitalism and the price system in general. Joseph created a political movement according to The Telegraph, that assumes future generations will view religious ideas as a misleading method of controlling society and embrace sustainable ecological concepts."
Should be rewritten to:
"The Zeitgeist Movement..." explain that it was the product of Joseph's films. The Telegraph reference should be removed, with multiple references at the end of the section.
Dark Liberty ( talk) 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Although the emphasis on the movies in the reception section has been a recurring problem, this most recent edit by Earl has made it worse. This removed details about the diversity of the movement among other details, but kept commentary that was solely about the movie. It also removed an article from the Palm Beach Post that was entirely about the movement and could be useful in further expanding content on this page. We have multiple reliable sources that are almost entirely about the movement and only mention the movies as necessity requires yet the reception section, which constitutes about half of the article, is almost entirely commentary about the movies. This problem needs to be rectified.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This NYTs article is about The Zeitgeist Movement and therefore any quotes from the New York Time Article should relate to the writer's view of The Zeitgeist Movement and not the films. peter joseph or the like.
This is basic, common logic.
The following as been added to describe The New York Times actual statements about TZM's work:
The vision of "a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life."
The prior statement: "An article in The New York Times noted that Zeitgeist The Movie may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job” 'perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population', a point of view Mr. Joseph said he "moved away from" (as of 2009 in an interview)
Has nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement and ignores everything the NYTs reporter has to say about the actual movement's work itself and the event he attended. This is clearly being placed here to distort the view of The Zeitgeist Movement by people who prefer to not properly represent TZM.
SweetGirlLove ( talk) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
And editor is putting that information off balance to make it look like the 'movement' is widespread and 'taken seriously' without adding the rest of the story line from the article [1] I readded the information. If that editor and another have a problem with that info. best to discuss here and not remove since consensus says it is o.k.. Using the idea of weight really does not apply. Especially since the same editor used a partial quote to make a point and disconnected the later part apparently not to have the point developed fully but to keep it at the snippet and disconnected from the 'whole' level. There is clear consensus from other areas above to use the Goldberg material and I suggest the editor self revert since this smacks now of edit jousting, does the article no good, twists the information and makes it unreliable to partially give an idea without including the bigger aspect. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop being a confrontational Dick on this page. Is that clear enough? Read other threads and you can see for yourself. After seeing how you treat other people and your weird interpretation of events, I may no longer respond to you at all because it does not seem worthwhile after trying. You two tandem editors for yourselves have been against page consensus in most respects, recently especially. And don't bother to respond then to the issue I brought up if you do not care to about framing the information wrong. You or your editing chum. I have zero regard for your offensive style. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 14:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Doubtful. You explain falsely presenting information by chopping off the content in the Goldberg piece for positive effect, her statement about people gathering 'to' the movement, without adding the rest of the content that proceeds that which puts it into a completely different light. That clearly misrepresents the information from the Goldberg piece. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The "Jew-baiting subtext" is nonexistent, it's slander, total nonsense.
Which is why TZM was "genuinely baffled" when in "2009 a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism."
We were banned for what we generally advocate, the end of trading or the free market in favour of an open source social system.
We weren't banned for anti-Semitism since I don't advocate anti-Semitism, I'm against ALL religions or the right to belief since it's socially corrosive. Anyone who can understand how religion is manipulating and relies on ignorance sees it's destructive under the guise of "freedom" or the "right to believe"
Some official looking article slandering TZM will not make the slander true. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As has been noted e.g. at WP:RSN, it is frequently a mistake to assume that article headlines are written by the journalist named - they are often written by subeditors and the like. In the case of this edit [5] I reverted, it seems self-evident that Goldberg wasn't responsible for the headline. She wrote "At times, [TZM] even seems like the world’s first Internet-based cult..." - an equivocal statement, and not one that concurs with the headline's "The Zeitgeist movement is the first Internet-based apocalyptic cult..." AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that statement "TZM is an Internet cult.", in short: No Weren't not, but there are those like Earl who label me as such because they don't like what I advocate and have gotten comfortable to our sick social attributes, most notably: Property and Trading, because they lead to poverty and war. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If zeitgeist is propaganda, cite credible sources and add that to the article. James Gilligan who's a violence expert says that "Punishment is the most powerful provoker of violence we've yet discovered", I'm glad you're fascist? Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 10:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy, like I said why not cite some credible sources which show TZM is a cult?
For example the Scientology counter websites take the "beliefs of Scientology" and examine them, deconstruct them for what they really are, Brainwashing techniques: Staring straight into people's eyes for an hour has a hypnotising effect which is why Scientology use such a technique.
Saying TZM is a cult without providing credible sources from at least a few cult experts, with concrete evidence/arguments of brainwashing techniques, is no different than the TZM hate-blogs which supposedly "counter" TZM with outright slander, in some ways they do stop critical thought because people want to be comforted with bullshit lies. Attempting to source the most negative articles about TZM is propaganda.
Replying to your bullshit: an Open Source social system of Science is not "an ideological fascist cult of elitist technocratic utopianism" like you say.
And the right to prayer is socially corrosive since prayer is violence since it's a lie to claim that god exists and you must pray to him etc, it's a social cancer, a pure scam. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 00:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Earl, it appears you cannot tell the difference between a Movie and a Movement? since you still want to draw a dubious connection for the sake of slander. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 00:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Earl King Jr. recently added this material to the Reception section: [6] -- She went on to say: "Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement. Many were genuinely baffled in 2009 when a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism. Others seem a bit embarrassed by the first Zeitgeist; they’ll often say it’s “irrelevant”—one of TZM’s favorite epithets—because it came out before the movement got started. But no one is disavowing it, and so a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia. (my bolding)
This addition violates neutrality in 2 ways. First, that amount of material clearly violates WP:Weight by the size of the addition. Tablet magazine is a fairly obscure source and doesn't deserve more weight than everything else in the section; using it as a source in the article is not a problem, but the way that it is being used is. The other neutrality violation is that before he made this addition, that section already mentioned antisemitism, and from the same source, by stating, "and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", which is still in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Removed the section header that for some reason someone put on. The discussion should not veer off if same discussion with too many separate talk page headings, unneeded.
So, no problem it is now only referencing antisemitic once instead of twice [8]. Too much valuable information there to toss, plus consensus is divided. No doubt many Zeitgeist supporters have come to the page and said exactly what M. Goldberg is saying they say even though that is neither here nor there for a talk page it is a good source. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 23:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the only thread I've started regarding this material. You should not have added "Jew-baiting" to the article if you didn't want it to be discussed. The fact that you still think it's appropriate is beyond me. As another editor noted above [9] you really don't understand some core aspects of Wikipedia. I've clearly explained at the beginning of this section why the material in general violates WP:Weight, and continues to. Your ranting about the first film shows how little understanding you actually have of the material you're editing, which is really problematic. And given that the majority of your edit history is related to Zeitgeist in some way [10] this is also problematic. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
It's slander, fear propaganda, it doesn't need to make sense, just source it to give a negative perspective of TZM, yeah that would be a "good source".
Regarding TZM history, I believe it's too focused on Peter Joseph's history rather than the movement's. So I think it would be approprite to add a short sentence like: Most recently, Sam Vallely a member of TZM released his first documentary, Will Work For Free (2013), which describes technological unemployment, the idea that machines are replacing jobs which the movement speaks about. This has a third party article, I'd like to know the verdict if it's a "reliable source". Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 23:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In the history section of TZM there's a focus on "Peter Joseph's History" with the movement, which is a bias/implication that TZM is lead by PJ, especially with the "Key People Peter Joseph" false label as well. If you want the article to ne neutral, without the "PJ is the leader" implication, history elements of TZM would be allowed on the article from third party sources. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 04:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It does present recent TZM history, the release of a new documentary about technological unemployment. There are no "key members of TZM" that's pure slander. Someone is "key member" when they express TZM's train of thought, the focus on Peter Joseph = leader just because he started it off is basically the accusation that TZM is a cult, and there's been trolls who hang around cult expert forums and when the trolls don't agree with the cult experts saying, "no TZM is not a cult", the trolls proclaim themselves as being more of an expert than them. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 05:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't see how the article says "Nothing". If this article is meant to be neutral regarding TZM's activities, it seems like "TZM is the world's first internet cult" and "Peter Joseph is a key person" is more relevant in the "Reception" section than Most recently, Sam Vallely a member of TZM released his first documentary, Will Work For Free (2013), which describes technological unemployment, the idea that machines are replacing jobs which the movement speaks about. If not "Histroy" maybe it belongs in "Currently" then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeon-characteristic ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as Peter Joseph it was him that introduced the Zeitgeist idea into society via his movies and he created the movement. whether that makes him a leader is rhetorical in argument. He runs the thing. The party line of the group is that it has no leaders but that would go against any kind of known anthropological ideas about humans and groups, but that is my opinion. s.D.s. got these threads all mixed up now and probably for comments on Michelle's article they should be put into the area above this one, that is the one that originally was discussing this. This is a separate thread to that one now. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Regarding the article I which I think should be referenced for will work for free in the TZM wiki, it would be counter intuitive to claim "it's advertising while while looking like a real paper" "the person that produced the movie must have uploaded a Youtube video and then placed this product description in this online shopping paper?" No, the person who made will work for free did not create that article and it's an Anti-commercial or Anti-advertising documentary, how do you "advertise" a documentary which is against "advertising" (well made lie designed in such a way to get someone to buy a product/service)? and I still think it deserves a one sentence mention, like in media reception or something since wiki is meant to be unbiased, and the TZM wiki includes a bunch of slanderous false claims about it Peter Joseph is not TZM's leader (the implication of being just like L. Ron Hubbard creating Scientology). The Science which shows trading or free market capitalism is bad for human health is simply sourced in Moving Forward, Addendum, and therefore sourced by TZM. If I'm wrong, you're welcome to find third party articles which show TZM is a cult, money making scheme, religion etc. That would very much help me relinquish my involvement with TZM :P Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of all the Cult Experts I messaged one replied with "Don't have time, sorry" (Daniel Shaw), since I can't get cult experts to speak about TZM, that must mean some journalist is right, with the other source stating I'm a member of a political movement. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC) And Rick Ross has got better things to do as well, damn, I guess a biased journalist can say TZM is a cult and get away with it. "There were some comments and a flame war about this at the message board. I am not interested in getting involved at Wikipedia, which I regard as a worthless mess when it comes to controversial issues and editors with an axe to grind. Rick Ross" Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 23:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
Has been removed by SomeDifferentStuff arguing that it is in the wrong article which is a nonstarter argument and accusing an editor of pilfering the info. from the other article. This is not only a breach of editing civil discourse in his edit summary but the same issue which recently flared and people commented that removing the Goldberg material from the article is not a good plan. It is true that SomeDifferentStuff does pov for Zeitgeist movement as history shows and that is not a good idea. Removing good citable materiel in this article really should stop. Just because a lot of Zeitgeist supporters end up here, is no reason they should control the article with there slanted pov. Neutral presentation demands information be put here regardless of the Zeitgeist supporters anti Goldberg tendency. Zeitgeist movement is based from a spin-off of the first movie, the second movie introduced it. History is clear on that. Lets not repeat the tedious business of taking this information from the article over and over. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
TZM is a Movement, not a Movie, Earl King.
The Movement is represented by the Orientation Guide(s), it explains why free market trading or property is unsustainble: it's based on selfishness, and why a transition to a Resource based economy (Open Source Science) would be better.
It appears you've got the slanted pov. Canobanbon ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
the reason why people want a "connection" between zeitgeist the movie and TZM is because the first fim does not discuss what TZM is about whatsoever and it's used as a tactic to pass off the movement as a group of "conspiracy theorists".
But the fact remains that free market capitalism is completely disconnected from Nature and is therefore unsustainable with its promotion of poverty, war and pollution. Nanforgon ( talk) 11:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:DENY WP:FORUM for obvious sock of Canobanbon, who reminds me of User:Zeitgeist-Movement-Member |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
That is pretty much your opinion that I am a "sock puppet, meat puppet". If the membership of TZM is "sock puppets, meat puppets" why not provide credible sources to prove this? That's something that can be proven since political parties have been known to hire support for campaigns on social media, like bots for instance. Wikipedia: sockpuppet A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. Tough allogations, how is saying "competitive trading relies on deception since it's about both parties getting the better end of the deal" deceptive? Wikipedia: Meatpuppet Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position. Tough allogations, where's the proof TZM is hiring or bribing members to support TZM? Oh that's right there's none. Back on Topic: "It is part and parcel of the Zeitgeist supporters" Here I am, a zeitgeist supporter who says: "zeitgeist the movie does not discuss what TZM is about whatsoever" But some "editor" or "critic" can say the exact opposite and ignore what a TZM supporter says right in front of him because he wants to support deliberately or ignorantly slanderous sources. The ignorance is so blind... Nanforgon ( talk) 06:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
The Devil's Advocate. Wrong on all counts. Please stop your usual in line editing as a Zeitgeist movement supporter as history has show you are in that pov zone. 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." She went on to write that the film borrows from the work of Eustace Mullins, Lyndon LaRouche, and radio host Alex Jones, saying that Zeitgeist: The Movie portrays a cabal of international bankers purportedly ruling the world.[11] In an interview with TheMarker, Joseph stated that while the film does mention bankers it does not seek to place blame on any individual or group of individuals. He argues they are merely a product of a socioeconomic system in need of change. was added to the article. It is not copy pasted from the source and it is the writer M. Goldbergs take on the movement. Stop mis-characterizing it. You see the quotes? You see the connection she is making between the first movie and the movement? So I assume you will drop the pov Zeitgeist argument now. Please do not repeat the copy paste argument for a fourth time. It was wrong the first time. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
According to what you want to believe are "reliable citations", if you knew anything about TZM you'd realise that TZM is not a "9/11 truth movement". Since you personally don't like the goals of TZM, (an Open Source, environmentally sustainable Society) you want it to be a "9/11 movement" and seek sources which you want to come to that conclusion so you can abuse the group by giving it false labels.
Along with calling science a "political movement" and saying science is "propaganda" or "soap-boxing", and saying "TZM members are sock puppets" or "paid to advocate TZM for deceptive purposes", which are all lies which wiki editors seem to lovingly support. Listitgamedelaywales ( talk) 01:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that :You back again already [13]? Looks like another Zeitgeist Sock for Aeon or one of the others.
I have to tell you guys that we here are members of the new world order and we control the article relentlessly. We all believe in free market capitalism and that climate change is not real and that the Huffington Post and New York times are ridden with Satantanists.
Not really, just kidding. No one in a group controls the article here. Ideally most of Wikipedia is neutrally done. It could be that because conspiracy minded people come here often from the movement sometimes, they may be confused about what goes on generally here. Read some of the guidelines for editing and if you don't feel you can abide them look into Wordpress or Google where you can say what you like. They offer free space for people to vent or make a case for things. Perhaps you do not understand that the talk page of an article can not be used for homilies about such and such or opinions about some aspect using your own original research. Please either learn about this or just stop what you are doing since no one is going to take you seriously because of your approach. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
After you joke, what you say afterwards is the real joke.
"conspiracy minded people come here often from the movement sometimes,"
First off that's a contradiction, it's either "often" or "sometimes"
Secondly, don't be specific, be as vague as possible, to the critical mind, that doesn't make you seem like you know what TZM is about whatsoever or maybe you don't want to understand?
How can't you believe in "free market capitalism"? since you want to label a group using "credible sources" which advocates an "Open Source sharing Society" without war or poverty, with as much bullshit as possible.
Saying such lies like "science is propaganda"
Or "Science is a political movement"
"TZM is a 9/11 truth movement"
Or even worse, "I don't believe in Science, it's all just a matter of opinion."
I think you're totally confused about what TZM is about. Listitgamedelaywales ( talk) 03:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Goldberg's article is about the movement. The quote is informative and consistent with the mainstream view. Tom Harrison Talk 11:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I wrote the excerpt in the Movie article also. It is paraphrased from the Goldberg piece. It is important to put it here also to round out the information. It is not copy pasted from the Goldberg article and that is what counts. I am not going to respond to you on this again. You are a Zeitgeist supporter as shown in the past. Your premise is wrong on this edit anyway. Just like the rest of the Zeitgeist supporters you support their information via Faq's and Joseph or whatever. Refusal to get the point on that is tantamount to wasting every ones time. Not hard to see why you were blocked for tendentiousness before on conspiracy things. You are not at all with any consensus. Your view is proven wrong by reliable sources what little of them we have. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Zeitgeist "critics" have an agenda towards confusing what the movement is about: an Open Source Society.
Either deliberate or pathological lying: the strategy is to confuse zeitgeist movies with a movement out of ignorance to shrug off TZM as not a real group of activists.
When simple searches bring up real advocates of TZM which communicates TZM's goals. But according to slander here, apparently I'm a "sock puppet" or getting paid money to promote TZM, a group which is against trading. The irony.
the idea that "zeitgeist supporters" are biased by default is nonsense, obviously anyone who doesn't like "zeitgeist supporters" hates Open Source. Wowormsbase ( talk) 01:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Should the material sourced to Goldberg's article be edited to note the linkage between the movement and what she is saying about the movie?
No Copied from the movie article with no changes? No it was brought to this article from another Wikipedia article and paraphrased from the Goldberg article. Lets not confuse things. It was not copy pasted from the Goldberg article as you seem to imply. It is very basic limited information from the Goldberg article. The Goldberg information previously was taken out of the article by Zeitgeist supporters and another now departed editor. Recently you tried to take the article out of the conspiracy theory article headings. I guess that speaks to the problems of the article being loaded up with Zeitgeist pro sock puppets, meat puppets and sympathizers who constantly chip away at the article toward a Zeitgeist pov. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Goldberg's article is about the movement (to the extent that there is a movement.) Anyway, making a big distinction between the movie and the movement is not something the sources do. No doubt there are other equally good ways to summarize Goldberg's points, but my eyes are starting to glaze over. Tom Harrison Talk 10:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I never once stated or implied that Earl was copy-pasting from the source. He seems to wrongly take my comments about him copy-pasting from the Wikipedia article about the movie as being about copy-pasting from the Goldberg article. As to his other comments, one need only look at the edit summaries.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain yourself SomeDifferentStuff from adding the Zeitgeist Movement viewpoint from their faq's material that the first movie is not connected in any way to the 'movement'. Despite the fact that you have/had no backing for your edit you have made this same claim over and over and over and are showing your tendentious failure of not getting the point, the reason you were blocked from editing these articles previously [14] diff. I hate to upbraid you this way but you just keep doing the same thing over and over and removing information from a reliable source that contradicts your (Zeitgeist official view) gets tiresome. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 22:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Realistically I'm trying to remove any neutrality regarding TZM and I desire strong negative publicity of them because I don't like Open Source. But since there are no mainstream sources for TZM at all, the TZM article, the Moving Forward Article, the Peter Joseph article, should all be removed. Groshnte ( talk) 10:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(Previous edit warrior returns against consensus. ProZeitgeist editor removes and soapbox's for the first movie not being connected, which the article says 'is'. Original research from the Zeitgeist Movement. Stop.
This "connection" is an obvious distraction away from what TZM's goal is; an Open Source society. Because Peter Joseph started a movement, a piece of work which doesn't relate to TZM's goals is related to TZM's goals because you want to reference an article which slanders TZM? That pretty much sums it up. Groshnte ( talk) 10:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
saying "TZM members are sock puppets" or "paid to advocate TZM for deceptive purposes", is a lie which wiki editors seem to lovingly support.
"You are what we call"? is wikipedia a secret society now?
Science is not an opinion, you might want to check the meanings of the words you use. Nhtgrfjtf ( talk) 06:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No, 06:36, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+385) . . Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement (→Recent Goldberg edit) (current) An edit history of one edit.
But you are what we call a sockpuppet or meat puppet for a banned user.
Wikipedia has been a secret society yes for a long time, how you found out about it we will never know but we are checking carefully. Normally we never get called out about this but I guess you are super smart because of that damn Peter Joseph guy. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems you believe wikipedia is a secret society considering the self-referring of the term "sock puppet", the reluctance recognise the definition or hide behind it: Basically someone who's paid money to promote propaganda, to deceive or mislead, in this case the zeitgeist moment, and the reluctance to display any evidence whatsoever to support this accusation? There's still None by the way. Grsgrsgse ( talk) 07:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
keep up that ostracism of zeitgeist members since they express views which you personally disagree with so you can misrepresent TZM as much as possible. Such as the belief science is a political movement, or Peter Joseph is the "leader" of TZM or TZM is a cult. None of which is backed up by any real evidence. Hngtjtdf ( talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This article seems to advance the movement and is written for commercial gain, per WP:COI.
"Joseph's films which form the basis of the Zeitgeist movements ideas are critical of market capitalism and the price system in general. Joseph created a political movement according to The Telegraph, that assumes future generations will view religious ideas as a misleading method of controlling society and embrace sustainable ecological concepts."
Should be rewritten to:
"The Zeitgeist Movement..." explain that it was the product of Joseph's films. The Telegraph reference should be removed, with multiple references at the end of the section.
Dark Liberty ( talk) 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Although the emphasis on the movies in the reception section has been a recurring problem, this most recent edit by Earl has made it worse. This removed details about the diversity of the movement among other details, but kept commentary that was solely about the movie. It also removed an article from the Palm Beach Post that was entirely about the movement and could be useful in further expanding content on this page. We have multiple reliable sources that are almost entirely about the movement and only mention the movies as necessity requires yet the reception section, which constitutes about half of the article, is almost entirely commentary about the movies. This problem needs to be rectified.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This NYTs article is about The Zeitgeist Movement and therefore any quotes from the New York Time Article should relate to the writer's view of The Zeitgeist Movement and not the films. peter joseph or the like.
This is basic, common logic.
The following as been added to describe The New York Times actual statements about TZM's work:
The vision of "a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life."
The prior statement: "An article in The New York Times noted that Zeitgeist The Movie may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job” 'perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population', a point of view Mr. Joseph said he "moved away from" (as of 2009 in an interview)
Has nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement and ignores everything the NYTs reporter has to say about the actual movement's work itself and the event he attended. This is clearly being placed here to distort the view of The Zeitgeist Movement by people who prefer to not properly represent TZM.
SweetGirlLove ( talk) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)