![]() | 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The close is in two parts.
1) There is no consensus as to whether the reception section of the article should focus on the Zeitgeist movement or the films. Only a few editors directly answered this question and it would be wrong to extrapolate a consensus from that, even though there appears to be consensus that the article has historically made an artificial distinction between the two. I also note that the page has recently been moved (which this close will endorse), and that the move may affect editors' stances on the question. Therefore: No consensus.
2) The page was recently moved to "Zeitgeist (film series)", with a consensus deriving from this RfC cited in support. This close endorses that action. Even though the RfC question did not invite the discussion, there was clear consensus, at least, that there should be some rationalisation of articled in this topic area, much of which was in support of the type of action undertaken. Merging the articles about the films and their influence seems like a logical response to that, taking into account WP:CFORK. Although I would stop short of saying that consensus for the merge is strong, I think it exists, and consensus against the status quo at the time the RfC was started is very clear. If I were to shy away from declaring a consensus, this would put the recent merge into question, which would not be in the interests of the project and would be a disservice to editors who participated in the RfC. If there are editors who would prefer a different shape of reorganisation without merging these two articles, that's a discussion that can easily follow this close.
Should the reception section focus on The Zeitgeist Movement or the Zeitgeist films?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
What a farce Earl King Jr. You're not some neutral editor. You already made your anti-Zeitgeist sentiments abundantly clear by calling it a cult or a scam. Biased bigots like yourself should have no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.168.153 ( talk) 10:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Damotclese, but you don't go far enough.
Really, anything zeitgeist or venus project doesn't belong on Wikipedia since it's the promotion of a scam. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
As a first step, I've merged and redirected Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward to the (already existing) Zeitgeist (film series). Tom Harrison Talk 11:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it, why does wikipedia need to have any articles for anything zeitgeist? it's a confidence trick, a fiction, false advertising, peter joseph's cult and so forth.
In see also it already mentions, Technological utopianism, if not scam, anything zeitgeist should just redirect to that.
Is Wikipedia in the business of allowing deceptive, malicious groups a platform? Zeitgeist doesn't need article, either no recognition or redirection to the appropriate article. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 03:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Reminder, if you can find a notable journalist or essay or book that has your opinion then that would carry some weight. But, as a person that just 'thinks' your thoughts on this, that is not going to count unless you are published or notable in connection with this subject. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
if this page is "necessary", which I don't think it is, it deserves deletion, There's a lot of things about this article which are just false. First of all, it's not "doubtful" if zeitgeist is a real movement or not, it isn't. Presently the article although says it's a movement it implies it's an internet cult by mentioning TZM being "directed" by its leader peter joseph, why the implication? why not just say what it is: a deceptive internet cult which promotes an Utopia, which relates to communism looks good on paper, disastrous in reality, it used brainwashed people's real money to promote such material under this "zeitgeist" label.
Obviously better worded than that, but this article fails to say what the "movement" really is showing how gullible whoever is editing it. So is it Wikipedia's job to inform or deceive? The-Land's-Way ( talk) 07:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Anything "zeitgeist" IS a "mouth piece of Peter Joseph information.", I'm guessing you just can't see this. The only neutral and sane thing to suggest on this talk page is this page's deletion.
No I don't want to "start a blog" I'd like to see zeitgeist deleted and events banned as much as possible. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
zeitgeist shit shouldn't be on wikipedia, it's false advertising, and that's not neutral.
That's how it is, the subject itself cannot be neutrally discussed since it's utopian fantasy bullshit, therefore this page should be deleted. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
As you say: "Consider him salvation". Whether online or in real life, cults shouldn't be tolerated, they wreck people's lives. What's worse is that it's considered a movement and not at the very least a religion. That's "what".
it's a total bullshit made-up fringe group, it seems as if anyone makes a bullshit group on any site it should be cataloged for some reason. Zeitgeist is worth deleting not mentioning. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 04:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to have a Wikipedia page on the zeitgeist movement, this shouldnt be complicated. There is nothing to polarize or make neutral, make the page about what the zeitgeist movement is. Not about advocates or critics opinions. Im probably wasting my time since its known how critics have been having their way with Wikipedia on things that are highly debated. Its easier remove content then to fix or add. Looking at you Earl King Jr, if you would want to prove that your not acting with the wrong intentions of controlling information on something you disagree with, write a better article that actually meets wikipedia rules and that is an information page about the movement.
The main question precluding any page in wikipedia is, WHAT IS. Now make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.108.66 ( talk) 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The Zeitgeist Movement has a membership of at least half a million last I checked, probably far more than that now, and exists independent of any art projects by Peter Joseph, who is also a leading figure of the movement (leading as in how visible he is due to the movies, but not a leader of it per se). If a bona fide organized effort like TZM has no place on Wikipedia, I regret my Wikipedia donations... deleting pages because you're ill informed about the content doesn't strike me as the way to go. 79.133.30.101 ( talk) 14:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Ridiculous. From http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/structure one can follow to numerous state-specific and nation specific local groups, all with web presences, many with organized meetings on a regular basis, and collectively that is the de-centralized and cooperative Zeitgeist Movement that IS NOT the same as the art projects by Peter Joseph. If you erase the page on the grounds that it isn't an organization you may as well go remove the sections on the Republican Party. 79.133.30.101 ( talk) 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. This is white knighting at its finest. 2007 was a long time ago and the movement has developed identification on its own and Although A film maker used the term in a film that is in no way ownership of such a broad term.
"Zeitgeist" was used by google long before the film for fucks sake. Every editor here who trashes the term seems to forget that this term exists outside of the film series... or even Peter Joseph for that matter. These so called "neutral editors" Are a disgrace to this community.
A "Zeitgiest Movement" is such a simple term... it simply means "the ideas of a generation". Google literally uses that definition in its search indexing. With the advent of the internet, we all have this debate on a global platform and are participating in the spread of ideas across borders with instant ease.
Sure the term is so simple that does it really worth mentioning? Well yes!! Think about the term "cultural lag". Don't you think that The Zeitgeist Movement is a little more relevant seeing there are so many important ideas on the internet that would be helpful for many of the more isolated countries on earth?
Seriously guys, don't get so caught up thinking this one guy is a "cult leader". You simply demonstrate your lack of understanding of the term.
The idea is a persistant one, so lets embrace the term that strives to share the fruits of current scientific and cultural fruits and not turn this into a "films only derp derp" approach. End of unsigned and non robot signed comment by anon. above.
A "Zeitgiest Movement" is such a simple term... it simply means "the ideas of a generation". Google literally uses that definition in its search indexing. With the advent of the internet, we all have this debate on a global platform and are participating in the spread of ideas across borders with instant ease.
I think this is good information [1] According to author Sarah Posner 'The Zeitgeist Film Series website elliptically describes “The Zeitgeist movement” as calling for a “new social system:”' [1] Any one disagree? If so why? It is one of the few sources that comment on the subject. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
References
My question is why you are trying to use references to the first film to debase the views of the movement? -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 06:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Technocracy is already listed in the links on the article in See Also. No reason to also put Technocracy Movement. The link to Technocracy already given already has the information about the Technocracy movement. So, its like giving the information twice if both links are used. Just having the Technocracy link there covers it as that article also contains information on any movement. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 21:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)The Journal of Evolution and Technology (JET) is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal published by the IEET. JET welcomes submissions on subject matters that many mainstream journals shun as too speculative, radical, or interdisciplinary on all issues relating to the future prospects of the human species and its descendants. Since its inception in 1998, JET has had five editors-in-chief: Dr. Nick Bostrom, Dr. Robin Hanson, Dr. Mark Walker, Dr. James Hughes and and (currently) Dr. Russell Blackford. All submissions deemed to be of sufficient quality to merit consideration are reviewed by internal and external reviewers. Historically, the journal has had an acceptance rate of roughly 25%. Submission guidelines here. -- http://www.ieet.org/index.php/IEET/publications
An editor wants to restore The New American reference and an article written in Hebrew and translated by an unknown editor. Possibly the Hebrew article is translated by a Wikipedia editor previously editing. The New American is an obscure voice of an obscure political movement known as the John Birch Society. This is not mainstream and not a good reference to get their take on another obscure conspiracy group, the Zeitgeist group. The John Birch Society reference should not be used nor the Hebrew article. This is English Wikipedia and using a Hebrew reference with an unknown translator, not a good idea. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The self released organization book is not notable. Listing a pdf for it does not mean it is notable. 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. end quote AndyTheGrump from the archived discussion here [2] Archive_8# Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Just popped in to see how everybody was! Before this article was seperated, it was pointed out that the refs don't speak of annual events, they speak of a 2nd annual event being held in 2009. While the ref for the 'annual media festival' is from 2012 and does not mention any other festival at all, let alone annual festivals going up to 2015 (the implication of the text). Are you all happy to extrapolate from these paper-thin refs another 6/3 years of festivals? Pincrete ( talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Citing non-English sources. Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. If the article in Hebrew was translated by a reputable source that would change things. Including two links to the Hebrew translation from a foreign language paper is over kill, there are already 4 sources saying Zeitgeist wants to change the economic system. [ [5]] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
it is it, if is reasonable, sufficient evidence to make them think it might join. Why should we trust the "new era"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.178.98.246 ( talk) 09:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There has been a general call by Zeitgeist websites to come here to argue the information for their Faq's material to be the basis of the Wikipedia article. They have lots of members so no doubt a few more will arrive here to tinker the article according to their pov.
Example,statement by *Melarish Ish: Been trying to edit the criticisms to end the association with Zeitgeist: The Movie. Not going too well. I can't edit any more or I might be banned so I'm continuing the argument on the Talk page. Source from Zeitgeist [6] end quote from the Global Zeitgeist Movement Facebook
I don't mind that Malarish is a Zeitgeist member/advocate, but mind that he edit warred the article and is trying to extend the Zeitgeist orgs. information to encompass the Wikipedia information.
Well, I am surprised you know. Its true that many of us here are card carrying members of the N.W.O. and as such we have to suppress groups like yours otherwise they would become wildly popular overnight and Peter Joseph who really deserves to rule the world because of his super brain would become our new god like ruler instead of the current group of secretive bankers and politicians who pay us editors to suppress your group.
Now, apparently you are not going to listen to anything I am saying or suggesting. I suggest you get familiar though with policy. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime does anyone care to check if any of the sources listed on this page qualify as valid sources for the existence of the zeitgesit movement? http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press 5.13.192.162 ( talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Pretty apparent this person I.P. above has edited here many times under different names and i.p.'s. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Again what you are trying to do is not going to happen. That page is not going to be resurrected. Consensus is clearly against that. You are basically harassing editors now redundantly. There was a large debate which is archived. You are wasting our time. Its a primary source also from Zeitgeist so it does not count. We already have their website listed in the article section for itself. As a Facebook Zeitgeist advocate with a conflict of interest because you believe in it I suggest you read guidelines for editing instead of trying to willfully get your way. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Disperse the brewing flame war please, and as far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be a significant amount of bias on the actual page. 175.38.131.50 ( talk) 12:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Zeitgeist the movie is a conspiracy theory movie that explains the world through classic conspiracy themes. The movement is based on the Zeitgeist movies. Though it is denied by the so called Zeitgeist movement that there is a connection from the movies to the movement our sources say otherwise, so Zeitgeist Movement should be in the conspiracy theory category though recently that category has been removed [ [9]]. Our sources tell us that the chain of movies are conspiracy oriented [10]. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Laval, I have removed your 'undue' tag since there seems to be no discussion here about the weight to be attributed to the Goldberg piece. There is quite a lot of 'Goldberg isn't right', here and at the RSN. An editor there had this to say 'Goldberg's piece mentions that Jews are not specifically mentioned but it contains anti-Semitic tropes nonetheless. You may or may not agree, that is fine. If you have other RSes which take a contrary view, you can add them to the article.' That is the proper meaning of 'weight' Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There is no mention there of the 'truth', 'fairness', or 'logic' of the viewpoint only of the weight, relative to other RSs on the subject.
I have not been involved with this article for a long time, when I was previously involved, the biggest problem seemed to be the lack of any RS positive or negative. I don't think that has changed much, another review (Kinney), also commented on how close some of the ideas in the films were to far-right and anti-semetic ideas The nefarious International Bankers meme has been propagating itself since at least the mid-1800s and has long been a mainstay of radical right-wing circles where it has often overlapped with mutterings about Jewish cabals … … The over-all temper of the video is rather like the John Birch Society on acid. Given that at least two of the small number of RS mention the connection with 'far-right' and anti-semetic' ideas, I find it difficult to see how this is a 'weightless' viewpoint, especially as it is clearly labelled as Goldberg's opinion/criticism, not as fact. Pincrete ( talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"Originally the ideas connected were based on a societal model by [[Jacque Fresco]] a [[social engineer]] with [[Jacque Fresco#The Venus Project and later career|The Venus Project]] company.<ref>http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/the-view-from-venus/Content?oid=2248863 Retrieved April-2-2016</ref>{{r|socialeng}}" was added to the lead by Earl King Jr, but then removed as undiscussed by SAnjit45. So let's discuss it.
I don't think there is a doubt that it's true, and there is a source. I have no problems with the addition. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 14:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This is redundant and misleading since the z movement hasn't been involved with venus project for 5 years. It is old and belongs in the internal, not the lead. JWilson0923 ( talk) 02:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
How come the lede is short? It does not summarise the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
In reference to this edit: [12]
The Zeitgeist movement do NOT want democracy, see for example "Rational Consensus" in their FAQ, where Democracy is called "mob rule". [13]. Peter Joseph also frequently talks about Democracy as something negative. It is quite clear from their own writings and videos that Democracy is not included in the TMZ vision. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 09:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
(He actually said he wanted to abandon democracy again in a reply to this article, but that reply is unfortunately gone, and not archived, it seems. However, Gilonis respons to the reply is available, and mentions this. [14]) -- OpenFuture ( talk) 09:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
That is arguable. He may not be trying to discredit it all all but trying to accurately portray it. Hard to say without taking some side pro or con. Interesting that Joseph went from Ron Paul To J. Fresco which is a bit of a leap. The story is that Fresco contacted him after Fresco saw the first movie. That might be a good thing to mention in the article even though they are not now associated. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
A section was added about Perry Gruber and his attempts to make an implementation of ideas "similar" to the Zeitgeist movement. I'm skeptical to this for several reasons: 1. It's not actually exactly the same ideas, in fact, it's only same as it thinks getting rid of money means getting rid of poverty. 2. I'm highly skeptical to people who claim to have invented something that is better than capitalism, but asks for money. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 07:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)== Implementation == In 2015, the Portland weekly, Street Roots, reported that a number of groups in Portland and in Chico, California are attempting to implement the economic model of the Venus and Zeitgeist movements. As reported, various groups and individuals are working on a series of demonstration projects, while another is developing a software backbone, called Copiosis, to improve society's utilization of knowledge, skills, labor, and resources. The software is based on the work of sociologist, author, and computer programmer, Larry K. Mason. [1] [2]
References
Current revision [16] I changed the wording a lot because the previous edit did not accurately give the information. It seemed to water it down or just take a couple of things while leaving out the gist of the information. If that citation is going to be used its better not to cherry pick or rephrase it for its good parts or less controversial parts. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Is that Chapters section really meaningful? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Basically the 'movement' originally is based on Fresco's ideas and when the two groups split it might have in effect ended the 'movement' though that is hard to say but it certainly is not written about now and it was when they were connected. Regardless I have added more information on Fresco and that relationship which I am guessing is important to understanding the two groups and their past situation. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking around for more sources, critical or otherwise, I found found this. Its old also but what is the sentiment? Could this be a source or citation for information in the article [17] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The close is in two parts.
1) There is no consensus as to whether the reception section of the article should focus on the Zeitgeist movement or the films. Only a few editors directly answered this question and it would be wrong to extrapolate a consensus from that, even though there appears to be consensus that the article has historically made an artificial distinction between the two. I also note that the page has recently been moved (which this close will endorse), and that the move may affect editors' stances on the question. Therefore: No consensus.
2) The page was recently moved to "Zeitgeist (film series)", with a consensus deriving from this RfC cited in support. This close endorses that action. Even though the RfC question did not invite the discussion, there was clear consensus, at least, that there should be some rationalisation of articled in this topic area, much of which was in support of the type of action undertaken. Merging the articles about the films and their influence seems like a logical response to that, taking into account WP:CFORK. Although I would stop short of saying that consensus for the merge is strong, I think it exists, and consensus against the status quo at the time the RfC was started is very clear. If I were to shy away from declaring a consensus, this would put the recent merge into question, which would not be in the interests of the project and would be a disservice to editors who participated in the RfC. If there are editors who would prefer a different shape of reorganisation without merging these two articles, that's a discussion that can easily follow this close.
Should the reception section focus on The Zeitgeist Movement or the Zeitgeist films?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
What a farce Earl King Jr. You're not some neutral editor. You already made your anti-Zeitgeist sentiments abundantly clear by calling it a cult or a scam. Biased bigots like yourself should have no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.168.153 ( talk) 10:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Damotclese, but you don't go far enough.
Really, anything zeitgeist or venus project doesn't belong on Wikipedia since it's the promotion of a scam. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
As a first step, I've merged and redirected Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward to the (already existing) Zeitgeist (film series). Tom Harrison Talk 11:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it, why does wikipedia need to have any articles for anything zeitgeist? it's a confidence trick, a fiction, false advertising, peter joseph's cult and so forth.
In see also it already mentions, Technological utopianism, if not scam, anything zeitgeist should just redirect to that.
Is Wikipedia in the business of allowing deceptive, malicious groups a platform? Zeitgeist doesn't need article, either no recognition or redirection to the appropriate article. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 03:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Reminder, if you can find a notable journalist or essay or book that has your opinion then that would carry some weight. But, as a person that just 'thinks' your thoughts on this, that is not going to count unless you are published or notable in connection with this subject. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
if this page is "necessary", which I don't think it is, it deserves deletion, There's a lot of things about this article which are just false. First of all, it's not "doubtful" if zeitgeist is a real movement or not, it isn't. Presently the article although says it's a movement it implies it's an internet cult by mentioning TZM being "directed" by its leader peter joseph, why the implication? why not just say what it is: a deceptive internet cult which promotes an Utopia, which relates to communism looks good on paper, disastrous in reality, it used brainwashed people's real money to promote such material under this "zeitgeist" label.
Obviously better worded than that, but this article fails to say what the "movement" really is showing how gullible whoever is editing it. So is it Wikipedia's job to inform or deceive? The-Land's-Way ( talk) 07:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Anything "zeitgeist" IS a "mouth piece of Peter Joseph information.", I'm guessing you just can't see this. The only neutral and sane thing to suggest on this talk page is this page's deletion.
No I don't want to "start a blog" I'd like to see zeitgeist deleted and events banned as much as possible. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
zeitgeist shit shouldn't be on wikipedia, it's false advertising, and that's not neutral.
That's how it is, the subject itself cannot be neutrally discussed since it's utopian fantasy bullshit, therefore this page should be deleted. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
As you say: "Consider him salvation". Whether online or in real life, cults shouldn't be tolerated, they wreck people's lives. What's worse is that it's considered a movement and not at the very least a religion. That's "what".
it's a total bullshit made-up fringe group, it seems as if anyone makes a bullshit group on any site it should be cataloged for some reason. Zeitgeist is worth deleting not mentioning. The-Land's-Way ( talk) 04:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is it so hard to have a Wikipedia page on the zeitgeist movement, this shouldnt be complicated. There is nothing to polarize or make neutral, make the page about what the zeitgeist movement is. Not about advocates or critics opinions. Im probably wasting my time since its known how critics have been having their way with Wikipedia on things that are highly debated. Its easier remove content then to fix or add. Looking at you Earl King Jr, if you would want to prove that your not acting with the wrong intentions of controlling information on something you disagree with, write a better article that actually meets wikipedia rules and that is an information page about the movement.
The main question precluding any page in wikipedia is, WHAT IS. Now make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.108.66 ( talk) 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The Zeitgeist Movement has a membership of at least half a million last I checked, probably far more than that now, and exists independent of any art projects by Peter Joseph, who is also a leading figure of the movement (leading as in how visible he is due to the movies, but not a leader of it per se). If a bona fide organized effort like TZM has no place on Wikipedia, I regret my Wikipedia donations... deleting pages because you're ill informed about the content doesn't strike me as the way to go. 79.133.30.101 ( talk) 14:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Ridiculous. From http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/structure one can follow to numerous state-specific and nation specific local groups, all with web presences, many with organized meetings on a regular basis, and collectively that is the de-centralized and cooperative Zeitgeist Movement that IS NOT the same as the art projects by Peter Joseph. If you erase the page on the grounds that it isn't an organization you may as well go remove the sections on the Republican Party. 79.133.30.101 ( talk) 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. This is white knighting at its finest. 2007 was a long time ago and the movement has developed identification on its own and Although A film maker used the term in a film that is in no way ownership of such a broad term.
"Zeitgeist" was used by google long before the film for fucks sake. Every editor here who trashes the term seems to forget that this term exists outside of the film series... or even Peter Joseph for that matter. These so called "neutral editors" Are a disgrace to this community.
A "Zeitgiest Movement" is such a simple term... it simply means "the ideas of a generation". Google literally uses that definition in its search indexing. With the advent of the internet, we all have this debate on a global platform and are participating in the spread of ideas across borders with instant ease.
Sure the term is so simple that does it really worth mentioning? Well yes!! Think about the term "cultural lag". Don't you think that The Zeitgeist Movement is a little more relevant seeing there are so many important ideas on the internet that would be helpful for many of the more isolated countries on earth?
Seriously guys, don't get so caught up thinking this one guy is a "cult leader". You simply demonstrate your lack of understanding of the term.
The idea is a persistant one, so lets embrace the term that strives to share the fruits of current scientific and cultural fruits and not turn this into a "films only derp derp" approach. End of unsigned and non robot signed comment by anon. above.
A "Zeitgiest Movement" is such a simple term... it simply means "the ideas of a generation". Google literally uses that definition in its search indexing. With the advent of the internet, we all have this debate on a global platform and are participating in the spread of ideas across borders with instant ease.
I think this is good information [1] According to author Sarah Posner 'The Zeitgeist Film Series website elliptically describes “The Zeitgeist movement” as calling for a “new social system:”' [1] Any one disagree? If so why? It is one of the few sources that comment on the subject. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
References
My question is why you are trying to use references to the first film to debase the views of the movement? -- TTTommy111 ( talk) 06:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Technocracy is already listed in the links on the article in See Also. No reason to also put Technocracy Movement. The link to Technocracy already given already has the information about the Technocracy movement. So, its like giving the information twice if both links are used. Just having the Technocracy link there covers it as that article also contains information on any movement. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 21:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)The Journal of Evolution and Technology (JET) is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal published by the IEET. JET welcomes submissions on subject matters that many mainstream journals shun as too speculative, radical, or interdisciplinary on all issues relating to the future prospects of the human species and its descendants. Since its inception in 1998, JET has had five editors-in-chief: Dr. Nick Bostrom, Dr. Robin Hanson, Dr. Mark Walker, Dr. James Hughes and and (currently) Dr. Russell Blackford. All submissions deemed to be of sufficient quality to merit consideration are reviewed by internal and external reviewers. Historically, the journal has had an acceptance rate of roughly 25%. Submission guidelines here. -- http://www.ieet.org/index.php/IEET/publications
An editor wants to restore The New American reference and an article written in Hebrew and translated by an unknown editor. Possibly the Hebrew article is translated by a Wikipedia editor previously editing. The New American is an obscure voice of an obscure political movement known as the John Birch Society. This is not mainstream and not a good reference to get their take on another obscure conspiracy group, the Zeitgeist group. The John Birch Society reference should not be used nor the Hebrew article. This is English Wikipedia and using a Hebrew reference with an unknown translator, not a good idea. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The self released organization book is not notable. Listing a pdf for it does not mean it is notable. 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. end quote AndyTheGrump from the archived discussion here [2] Archive_8# Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Just popped in to see how everybody was! Before this article was seperated, it was pointed out that the refs don't speak of annual events, they speak of a 2nd annual event being held in 2009. While the ref for the 'annual media festival' is from 2012 and does not mention any other festival at all, let alone annual festivals going up to 2015 (the implication of the text). Are you all happy to extrapolate from these paper-thin refs another 6/3 years of festivals? Pincrete ( talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Citing non-English sources. Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. If the article in Hebrew was translated by a reputable source that would change things. Including two links to the Hebrew translation from a foreign language paper is over kill, there are already 4 sources saying Zeitgeist wants to change the economic system. [ [5]] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
it is it, if is reasonable, sufficient evidence to make them think it might join. Why should we trust the "new era"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.178.98.246 ( talk) 09:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There has been a general call by Zeitgeist websites to come here to argue the information for their Faq's material to be the basis of the Wikipedia article. They have lots of members so no doubt a few more will arrive here to tinker the article according to their pov.
Example,statement by *Melarish Ish: Been trying to edit the criticisms to end the association with Zeitgeist: The Movie. Not going too well. I can't edit any more or I might be banned so I'm continuing the argument on the Talk page. Source from Zeitgeist [6] end quote from the Global Zeitgeist Movement Facebook
I don't mind that Malarish is a Zeitgeist member/advocate, but mind that he edit warred the article and is trying to extend the Zeitgeist orgs. information to encompass the Wikipedia information.
Well, I am surprised you know. Its true that many of us here are card carrying members of the N.W.O. and as such we have to suppress groups like yours otherwise they would become wildly popular overnight and Peter Joseph who really deserves to rule the world because of his super brain would become our new god like ruler instead of the current group of secretive bankers and politicians who pay us editors to suppress your group.
Now, apparently you are not going to listen to anything I am saying or suggesting. I suggest you get familiar though with policy. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime does anyone care to check if any of the sources listed on this page qualify as valid sources for the existence of the zeitgesit movement? http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/press 5.13.192.162 ( talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Pretty apparent this person I.P. above has edited here many times under different names and i.p.'s. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Again what you are trying to do is not going to happen. That page is not going to be resurrected. Consensus is clearly against that. You are basically harassing editors now redundantly. There was a large debate which is archived. You are wasting our time. Its a primary source also from Zeitgeist so it does not count. We already have their website listed in the article section for itself. As a Facebook Zeitgeist advocate with a conflict of interest because you believe in it I suggest you read guidelines for editing instead of trying to willfully get your way. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Disperse the brewing flame war please, and as far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be a significant amount of bias on the actual page. 175.38.131.50 ( talk) 12:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Zeitgeist the movie is a conspiracy theory movie that explains the world through classic conspiracy themes. The movement is based on the Zeitgeist movies. Though it is denied by the so called Zeitgeist movement that there is a connection from the movies to the movement our sources say otherwise, so Zeitgeist Movement should be in the conspiracy theory category though recently that category has been removed [ [9]]. Our sources tell us that the chain of movies are conspiracy oriented [10]. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Laval, I have removed your 'undue' tag since there seems to be no discussion here about the weight to be attributed to the Goldberg piece. There is quite a lot of 'Goldberg isn't right', here and at the RSN. An editor there had this to say 'Goldberg's piece mentions that Jews are not specifically mentioned but it contains anti-Semitic tropes nonetheless. You may or may not agree, that is fine. If you have other RSes which take a contrary view, you can add them to the article.' That is the proper meaning of 'weight' Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There is no mention there of the 'truth', 'fairness', or 'logic' of the viewpoint only of the weight, relative to other RSs on the subject.
I have not been involved with this article for a long time, when I was previously involved, the biggest problem seemed to be the lack of any RS positive or negative. I don't think that has changed much, another review (Kinney), also commented on how close some of the ideas in the films were to far-right and anti-semetic ideas The nefarious International Bankers meme has been propagating itself since at least the mid-1800s and has long been a mainstay of radical right-wing circles where it has often overlapped with mutterings about Jewish cabals … … The over-all temper of the video is rather like the John Birch Society on acid. Given that at least two of the small number of RS mention the connection with 'far-right' and anti-semetic' ideas, I find it difficult to see how this is a 'weightless' viewpoint, especially as it is clearly labelled as Goldberg's opinion/criticism, not as fact. Pincrete ( talk) 22:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"Originally the ideas connected were based on a societal model by [[Jacque Fresco]] a [[social engineer]] with [[Jacque Fresco#The Venus Project and later career|The Venus Project]] company.<ref>http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/the-view-from-venus/Content?oid=2248863 Retrieved April-2-2016</ref>{{r|socialeng}}" was added to the lead by Earl King Jr, but then removed as undiscussed by SAnjit45. So let's discuss it.
I don't think there is a doubt that it's true, and there is a source. I have no problems with the addition. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 14:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This is redundant and misleading since the z movement hasn't been involved with venus project for 5 years. It is old and belongs in the internal, not the lead. JWilson0923 ( talk) 02:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
How come the lede is short? It does not summarise the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
In reference to this edit: [12]
The Zeitgeist movement do NOT want democracy, see for example "Rational Consensus" in their FAQ, where Democracy is called "mob rule". [13]. Peter Joseph also frequently talks about Democracy as something negative. It is quite clear from their own writings and videos that Democracy is not included in the TMZ vision. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 09:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
(He actually said he wanted to abandon democracy again in a reply to this article, but that reply is unfortunately gone, and not archived, it seems. However, Gilonis respons to the reply is available, and mentions this. [14]) -- OpenFuture ( talk) 09:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
That is arguable. He may not be trying to discredit it all all but trying to accurately portray it. Hard to say without taking some side pro or con. Interesting that Joseph went from Ron Paul To J. Fresco which is a bit of a leap. The story is that Fresco contacted him after Fresco saw the first movie. That might be a good thing to mention in the article even though they are not now associated. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
A section was added about Perry Gruber and his attempts to make an implementation of ideas "similar" to the Zeitgeist movement. I'm skeptical to this for several reasons: 1. It's not actually exactly the same ideas, in fact, it's only same as it thinks getting rid of money means getting rid of poverty. 2. I'm highly skeptical to people who claim to have invented something that is better than capitalism, but asks for money. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 07:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)== Implementation == In 2015, the Portland weekly, Street Roots, reported that a number of groups in Portland and in Chico, California are attempting to implement the economic model of the Venus and Zeitgeist movements. As reported, various groups and individuals are working on a series of demonstration projects, while another is developing a software backbone, called Copiosis, to improve society's utilization of knowledge, skills, labor, and resources. The software is based on the work of sociologist, author, and computer programmer, Larry K. Mason. [1] [2]
References
Current revision [16] I changed the wording a lot because the previous edit did not accurately give the information. It seemed to water it down or just take a couple of things while leaving out the gist of the information. If that citation is going to be used its better not to cherry pick or rephrase it for its good parts or less controversial parts. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Is that Chapters section really meaningful? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Basically the 'movement' originally is based on Fresco's ideas and when the two groups split it might have in effect ended the 'movement' though that is hard to say but it certainly is not written about now and it was when they were connected. Regardless I have added more information on Fresco and that relationship which I am guessing is important to understanding the two groups and their past situation. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking around for more sources, critical or otherwise, I found found this. Its old also but what is the sentiment? Could this be a source or citation for information in the article [17] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)