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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
(copied from my talk page)
I hope you do not resume editing tendentiously on this article. You removed accurate information that was cited. Not a good idea. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
No. That logic fails. Editors have to exercise judgement about content in a source . There is no real source anywhere of the number of members. Is a member of a blog or forum a member?Unknown. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea to put back some aspect of this information [ [1]]. Its one of our few reliable sources. From the link, 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. “I’m willing to accept that the filmmaker is a person who has a great energy and tremendous ignorance who inadvertently replicated the Nazi view of money manipulation,” says Berlet. “In which case he needs to repudiate it.” That seems unlikely. In a video interview available online, Joseph rails against his critics, “the self-appointed guardians of the status quo.” The first Zeitgeist, he insists, “is based on pre-existing information. There isn’t one thing in that film that doesn’t come from a source.” True enough. The problem is what the sources are.
So opinions about using some aspect of Zeitgeist movement having been banned from studiVZ ? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Clarify? Asking for comments on Zeitgeist being banned on a social networking site in Germany, whether that merits being in the article. Are you pro or con Slade Farney? You are that Slade Farney right? Your old signature would imply a certain bias on this issue? Anyome ever tell you that your signature is annoying? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Being a Holocaust denier and subscribing to the theories of Jewish conspiracy of banking etc. does not preclude one from editing. As a public person with a theory of denial about history that is considered fringe, a little caution is probably needed. The subject on the talk page is whether to include the basics of the 1st Zeitgeist movie which conjured up the Protocols of thr Elders of Zion and the outlook of Nazi Germany and its theories aboit Jewish culture being a large aspect of the 1st movie. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The Goldberg citation says otherwise as do other reliable sources that are not hysterical. The group/movement was banned from that German networking site for promoting antisemitic ideololpgy.. Your public website advocates shall we say fringe thinking on these things. It appears you are trying to influence the article with conspiracy thinking. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have been reverting a sock who keeps recommending to delete this article. The TP history shows the same person with socks constantly suggesting this article should be deleted since 2014 with this . I know who might be doing this. I have a few suggested users who have been blocked prior from these occurrences and have engaged in discussions on this TP. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 19:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@ JudeccaXIII and NeilN: [2]
The Newyork times piece is a good reliable source, but there is no sense in over using it. Its an old story. It does not really deserve a place in the lead given its nearing ten years old and does not reflect the current state of this movement supposing a movement does actually exist now. It would be better in a history section [3], besides the information is already in the Events section in the body of the article so no real reason to list an old event in a current lead. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not a movement though. That is just the title of the organization. According to the Zeitgeist's published book 'The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies “motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.' [1] That is in their own words. Movement is a term for the group or organization. It is not an actual movement of people, it is a concept by an organization. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Earl King Jr., I think the edit by Sfarney improved the article both grammatically and by removing a reaction I'm not sure is needed here. -- NeilN talk to me 04:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You are obviously mistaken about the movies and movement not being connected Two hours into Z-Day, the educational forum associated with the online movie “Zeitgeist,” Peter Joseph, the film’s director and the evening’s M.C., stepped out from behind his lectern and walked forward earnestly on the stage. [6]. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Legitimate complaints should be condensed into a clear set of WP:DIFFs and brought to WP:ANI |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Having looked at the history or what is highly violating and immoral behavior of Earl King Jr., I suggest the full banning of him, as was partly done before for the same reason. His history of non-nuetrality and bias speaks for itself if anyone reviews it and he does not belong anywhere near wikipedia. He has also been reported for destruptive behavior here: [7] He has also been reported for harassing editors here: [8] He also violates wiki rules by deleting the info on his own page, trying to hide his history and many other problems. JWilson0923 ( talk) 22:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. "Fatima 77"'s edits were the most honest edits this page has ever seen and Earl needs to be banned, along with his friends. This is neutrality and should be incorporated. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=727026331&oldid=726969718 74.80.228.162 ( talk) 22:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
http://www.yongestreetmedia.ca/features/torontozeitgeist060513.aspx http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/new_world_re_order/8838/ http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxOPorto-Peter-Joseph-Arrivin;search%3Apeter%20joseph http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2010/03/15/local-zeitgeist-chapter-celebrates-global-zday http://www.ve.lt/naujienos/lietuva/lietuvos-naujienos/laiko-dvasia-uzvalde-ir-lietuva/ http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/10634-zeitgeist-and-the-venus-project https://www.forewordreviews.com/reviews/the-zeitgeist-movement-defined/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html and many more — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWilson0923 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You are suggesting WP:OWN, and that is not the way it works. Nobody owns this article. Nobody has to ask permission or win approval to edit the topic. You should be ashamed of those misrepresentations. Grammar's Li'l Helper Mmmm, as just another grunt editor here I would suggest that you are tendentiously verbally out of control and the amazing forbearance given you for your comments is really very liberal. As a non Admin. I would suggest you tip toe back a bit and lower the acrimony level. Supporting a Sockpuppet and other single purpose or fake accounts does not win a lot of applause/support. Assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, for disputes, seek dispute resolution Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC) I'd like to add this same complaint on James Earl King Jr. regarding his obvious unfair bias against TZM's wiki, restricting new and relevant info appropriate to what an informative outlined Wikipedia page on TZM would be, while sourcing particular associations which radicalize and alienate TZM in outright bias. Please remove him from participation. He's not neutral, just sits on the site undoing what are legitimate, well sourced, matter of fact contributions, preventing anything other than what supports the fringe/obscure perception he works so hard to shape. IntegrasRadiata ( talk) 08:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
Apparently from their self published book the name of the group is a little different than any kind of organic movement and more accurately at least in part they are better termed an organization except for when they 'title' themselves in their information.
According to the Zeitgeist's self published book which is cited in the article 'The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies “motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.' [1] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Please read the information above from the Zeitgeist Movement group's book. They say what they are. I am not arguing anything. This is the exact quote The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies "motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time. So that is the quote which is given as a direct quote in the article. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably belongs more on the peter joseph article but another movement related book is coming out on amazon by PJ called "The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression", which might be worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzeeem-account ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 October 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
(copied from my talk page)
I hope you do not resume editing tendentiously on this article. You removed accurate information that was cited. Not a good idea. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
No. That logic fails. Editors have to exercise judgement about content in a source . There is no real source anywhere of the number of members. Is a member of a blog or forum a member?Unknown. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea to put back some aspect of this information [ [1]]. Its one of our few reliable sources. From the link, 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. “I’m willing to accept that the filmmaker is a person who has a great energy and tremendous ignorance who inadvertently replicated the Nazi view of money manipulation,” says Berlet. “In which case he needs to repudiate it.” That seems unlikely. In a video interview available online, Joseph rails against his critics, “the self-appointed guardians of the status quo.” The first Zeitgeist, he insists, “is based on pre-existing information. There isn’t one thing in that film that doesn’t come from a source.” True enough. The problem is what the sources are.
So opinions about using some aspect of Zeitgeist movement having been banned from studiVZ ? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Clarify? Asking for comments on Zeitgeist being banned on a social networking site in Germany, whether that merits being in the article. Are you pro or con Slade Farney? You are that Slade Farney right? Your old signature would imply a certain bias on this issue? Anyome ever tell you that your signature is annoying? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Being a Holocaust denier and subscribing to the theories of Jewish conspiracy of banking etc. does not preclude one from editing. As a public person with a theory of denial about history that is considered fringe, a little caution is probably needed. The subject on the talk page is whether to include the basics of the 1st Zeitgeist movie which conjured up the Protocols of thr Elders of Zion and the outlook of Nazi Germany and its theories aboit Jewish culture being a large aspect of the 1st movie. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The Goldberg citation says otherwise as do other reliable sources that are not hysterical. The group/movement was banned from that German networking site for promoting antisemitic ideololpgy.. Your public website advocates shall we say fringe thinking on these things. It appears you are trying to influence the article with conspiracy thinking. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have been reverting a sock who keeps recommending to delete this article. The TP history shows the same person with socks constantly suggesting this article should be deleted since 2014 with this . I know who might be doing this. I have a few suggested users who have been blocked prior from these occurrences and have engaged in discussions on this TP. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 19:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@ JudeccaXIII and NeilN: [2]
The Newyork times piece is a good reliable source, but there is no sense in over using it. Its an old story. It does not really deserve a place in the lead given its nearing ten years old and does not reflect the current state of this movement supposing a movement does actually exist now. It would be better in a history section [3], besides the information is already in the Events section in the body of the article so no real reason to list an old event in a current lead. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not a movement though. That is just the title of the organization. According to the Zeitgeist's published book 'The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies “motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.' [1] That is in their own words. Movement is a term for the group or organization. It is not an actual movement of people, it is a concept by an organization. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Earl King Jr., I think the edit by Sfarney improved the article both grammatically and by removing a reaction I'm not sure is needed here. -- NeilN talk to me 04:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You are obviously mistaken about the movies and movement not being connected Two hours into Z-Day, the educational forum associated with the online movie “Zeitgeist,” Peter Joseph, the film’s director and the evening’s M.C., stepped out from behind his lectern and walked forward earnestly on the stage. [6]. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Legitimate complaints should be condensed into a clear set of WP:DIFFs and brought to WP:ANI |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Having looked at the history or what is highly violating and immoral behavior of Earl King Jr., I suggest the full banning of him, as was partly done before for the same reason. His history of non-nuetrality and bias speaks for itself if anyone reviews it and he does not belong anywhere near wikipedia. He has also been reported for destruptive behavior here: [7] He has also been reported for harassing editors here: [8] He also violates wiki rules by deleting the info on his own page, trying to hide his history and many other problems. JWilson0923 ( talk) 22:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. "Fatima 77"'s edits were the most honest edits this page has ever seen and Earl needs to be banned, along with his friends. This is neutrality and should be incorporated. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=727026331&oldid=726969718 74.80.228.162 ( talk) 22:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
http://www.yongestreetmedia.ca/features/torontozeitgeist060513.aspx http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/new_world_re_order/8838/ http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxOPorto-Peter-Joseph-Arrivin;search%3Apeter%20joseph http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2010/03/15/local-zeitgeist-chapter-celebrates-global-zday http://www.ve.lt/naujienos/lietuva/lietuvos-naujienos/laiko-dvasia-uzvalde-ir-lietuva/ http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/10634-zeitgeist-and-the-venus-project https://www.forewordreviews.com/reviews/the-zeitgeist-movement-defined/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html and many more — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWilson0923 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You are suggesting WP:OWN, and that is not the way it works. Nobody owns this article. Nobody has to ask permission or win approval to edit the topic. You should be ashamed of those misrepresentations. Grammar's Li'l Helper Mmmm, as just another grunt editor here I would suggest that you are tendentiously verbally out of control and the amazing forbearance given you for your comments is really very liberal. As a non Admin. I would suggest you tip toe back a bit and lower the acrimony level. Supporting a Sockpuppet and other single purpose or fake accounts does not win a lot of applause/support. Assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, for disputes, seek dispute resolution Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC) I'd like to add this same complaint on James Earl King Jr. regarding his obvious unfair bias against TZM's wiki, restricting new and relevant info appropriate to what an informative outlined Wikipedia page on TZM would be, while sourcing particular associations which radicalize and alienate TZM in outright bias. Please remove him from participation. He's not neutral, just sits on the site undoing what are legitimate, well sourced, matter of fact contributions, preventing anything other than what supports the fringe/obscure perception he works so hard to shape. IntegrasRadiata ( talk) 08:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC) |
Apparently from their self published book the name of the group is a little different than any kind of organic movement and more accurately at least in part they are better termed an organization except for when they 'title' themselves in their information.
According to the Zeitgeist's self published book which is cited in the article 'The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies “motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.' [1] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Please read the information above from the Zeitgeist Movement group's book. They say what they are. I am not arguing anything. This is the exact quote The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies "motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time. So that is the quote which is given as a direct quote in the article. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably belongs more on the peter joseph article but another movement related book is coming out on amazon by PJ called "The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression", which might be worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzeeem-account ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)