![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
user 66.183.104.162 has vandalized the article. (The vandal, 66.183.104.162, wrote in their edit summary: "Dear god, what the? This is 99% directly copied from, or a minor re-phrasing of, the movement's official website.) (Tag: section blanking)" This edit summary by the vandal is not supported by any sources. All the content that was removed by the vandal is fully supported by our set of reliable sources, as was agreed by consensus. (This does not mean that the material the vandal deleted could not be further improved. For example, see the discussion in the section titled 'Prolix' above on this talk page.)
After I revert the vandalism, I'll try to restore the further edits that were made by editors following the vandalism.
By the way, I disagree with some (not all) of the edits that were made post-vandalism. But first, I will try to restore the edits that were made post-vandalism.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 15:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I went back to the consensus version, but also incorporated most edits that were made post the enormous deletion by Zazaban. For example, I included most of the edits by Earl King, but I did not include any attempts to delete verifiable citations from our set of reliable sources, and instead of these citations use references to the miserable, ugly, skeletal, un-encyclopedic page so-called Resource-based economy. Also note that the definition of the term 'Zeitgeist' in the first sentence of the lede is identical to that of Wikipedia itself. And regarding the term 'sustainable development' where Zazaban requested a clarification, I provided a clarification, and removed the clarify tags.
IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
"Consensus version by Ankh, Andy, Tom, Bob, Jeraphine, OpenFuture, Harizotoh9, Arthur, and Ijon." -- I don't appreciate my name being used in such manner, I haven't specifically said that that version was fine by me. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That I didn't revert it doesn't mean I support it. Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Zazaban, I posted a version of the article for your review (I immediately reverted my edit). I removed material from the 'Mission' section to try to address your concerns (and Tom's concerns regarding prolix). Let me know what you think about my proposed edit. (Please try to be as specific as possible in your feedback so that I can continue to revise the article to try to reach a compromise with you.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Tablet is not a reliable source. The full magazine is available online free of charge, and readers can receive it in their email-box daily. There are no advertisements. Who or what funds this so-called "magazine"? This is the link to Tablet's 'About Us' page. Next, the website of Nextbook Inc is very skeletal. It claims it is a non-profit, but it does not offer information about their funding source(s). I could not find any indication they have the kind of reasonably high journalistic standards demanded by Wikipedia as described in WP policies and guidelines (such as employing staff persons responsible for fact checking, dire consequences for employees if the paper loses its reputation, journalists who can lose their livelihoods if they don't adhere to high standards, etc).
Another (big) hint Tablet is not a reliable source is my point-by-point analysis of Michelle Goldberg's Tablet hit piece/ hack job/ hate- and fear-mongering job, given in my detailed comments in the 'Antisemitism' section on this talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 21:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The statement supported by this source does not form a view at all. It makes a factual statement: That TZM has been criticized for a perceived antisemitism. That's not a view in any ordinary sense. The statement isn't that TZM is anti-semitic. That *would* be a view, but this case isn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on my cursory review of this Talk page and the article, and the discussion at ANI, here are my suggestions. First, editors should focus on content, not on each other's conduct. That is particularly true for Earl King. Second, posts should be shorter and not as repetitive. That is particularly true for Ijon. Third, it is less important what TZM says about itself than what secondary sources say about TZM. The WP article is not a platform for TZM to gush its views. With that point in mind, I am going to revert Ijon's latest changes to the article, which seem to me to violate that point and to go against the consensus on this page. Finally, if editors cannot agree on the content of the article, take it to WP:DRN or some other content-based forum in WP:DR.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
In my view the first place to start is the Activities section. As a reader, I have almost no idea what it means. The first two sentences are marginally comprehensible, but the last sentence is meaningless to me. And even the first sentence begins as if the reader knows the history of the movement. There needs to be some material pre-2011 that describes what the "ideas from The Venus Project" are - a wikilink isn't good enough. Then, something can be said about the "split" and what it means. The Z-Day subsection is mostly a piece of fluff and isn't helpful to understanding what TZM does.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I placed "undue weight" tags in the 'Criticism' section per discussion above and per discussion on DRN; Copy-pasted explanation of 'sustainable development' from WP article on same, in order to remove the 'clarification' tag; and contributed several minor edits. My edits have been deleted by Earl King Jr. I reverted his deletion. In his edit summary he claimed there is consensus. Please note that based on the discussion in the 'Consensus' section above, the only consensus is that there is no consensus at this time. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 03:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
YouTube citations are problematic and rarely a good idea to use as sources. Some are probable copyright violations. Unless the copyright holder has an official channel, they can't be used. Others are just unreliable. Thus, the two YouTube cites used by Earl for Fresco and for Joseph were posted to YouTube, not by either of the alleged speakers, but by others. There is no way to authenticate such material. It's the equivalent of a personal blog using YouTube as the communicator. Also, as an aside, in terms of the last edit by Earl, Fresco comes out of nowhere. Material has to have enough context so the reader can understand what is being said.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
It is very clear that this page undergoes constant, perpetual vandalism is of a subtle nature, colored by controversial and entirety irrelevant posts. Wikipedia is supposed to inform the public about what an org in about and doing in this context. Comparing the event, history actions of The Zeitgeist Movement form actual press, their mission statement and their global actions, there is almost nothing relevant in this article and what is being haphazardly thrown in is only done so for the sake of "flaming" and is clearly biased. Every section is misleading or deficient.
It is a truly sad to see the level of dishonestly here and disheartening to see how malicious many of your controlling parties really are. Reinventor098 ( talk) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following for editors' consideration, including
Reinventor098 (when his block expires). This is the same as the last rough draft I proposed a couple of days ago, except all the quotes from TZM's official Q&A website have been removed, and thus the new draft is based exclusively on verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources. As always, I suggest editors not waste their time, or mine, attacking me for this draft -- instead, redirect your energies to improving this first rough draft.
After Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus Project, viewed Zeitgeist: The Movie in 2007, he reached out to the film's director, Peter Joseph, and turned Joseph's attention to some of Fresco's work that center on the idea of a new global economy. Within that idea, Joseph felt he had the ability to answer the questions his film posited. In 2008, Joseph released Zeitgeist: Addendum, featuring The Venus Project, at which point Zeitgeist grew into a full-scale movement. Joseph released the movement’s third film, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in January 2011. As of 2011, the movement has hundreds of thousands of members worldwide in hundreds of branches operating independently and autonomously in tens of countries around the world. [1] [3] [5] [6] [8] [9]
TZM views itself as a global grassroots movement in the continuum of social change. The movement says it is trying to point out that what society is doing is not sustainable, and needs to change. The movement's key idea is to share all the world's resources equitably among all the people, and basing all decisions initially on resources while learning to maximize the efficiency of resources through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development (economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come). In the movement's view, automated labor would be perfected on a mass scale, eliminating mundane jobs when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively. [1] [6] [3] The machines will do almost all of the work and humans would oversee the process and supervise the machines. [6] [3] According to the movement, the answer for a corrected, civilized society lies in science and technology which would enable abundance. [1] [3] [5] [6] [8]
IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 15:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the reliable sources noticeboard, there are two scholarly articles that mention this movement and discuss its context. One of them even actually focusses on the "anti-semitic" issue. These academic articles are exactly the high quality sources that should be snapped up by serious editors and used to source and determine weight issues. For example, the fact that there is a scholarly article about the antisemitic issue would likely have a significant impact on the question of inclusion here. In case you missed it, here is the information about the articles again. One is this article (which I can send to any editors who don't have access to it, if they send me an email, as one person has), and one "Grauzonen der Antisemitismusforschung, oder: Versuch, den ‚Zeitgeist' zu verstehen" [Grey areas of anti-Semitism research, or: an attempt to understand "Zeitgeist"], is available here, with an abstract in English. German speakers available on WP to help [3] if you need it.-- Slp1 ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The following is a copy-paste from TZM's official Q&A website. Does this represent a potential legal issue? Our article seems to contain material that may directly contradict this official TZM statement.
Question (11) - Is The Zeitgeist Movement related to Peter Joseph's Film Series?
No. While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.
The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the ‘The General intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era." The Term "movement" very simply implies ‘motion" and change, Therefore The Zeitgeist Movement is thus an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.
The Movement is not about Comparative Religion, False-Flag Terrorism, Economic Hit-men, Fractional Reserve Banking or the Federal Reserve. The films are unrelated to The Movement in detail and are personal expressions of Peter Joseph. There is often some confusion in this regard and in the most extreme cases some people have the knee-jerk reaction that TZM supports forbidden "Conspiracy Theories" or is "Anti-Religious" or the like. This type or rhetoric tends to be of a pejorative/insulting nature, used in the context of dismissal of The Movement by an erroneous and "taboo" external association. The fact is, there is no direct association whatsoever.
If you are not familiar with what TZM actually is, please review our extensive literature and video/lecture materials on this website.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In response to Bbb23's suggestion on the DRN, my previous 'Mission' section was based on extensive verifiable citations from the HP piece, as well as citations from our other sources. I invite editors to very substantially and very deeply revise this section for neutrality, substance, and whenever and whatever you feel needs revision, with the ultimate goal of inclusion of the (vastly, brutally) revised version in the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 16:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
In response to Bbb23's suggestion, I'm proposing the following very rough draft. I suggest editors not waste their time, or mine, attacking me for this draft -- instead, redirect your energies to vastly, broadly and deeply improving this first rough draft.
"History"
After Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus Project, viewed Zeitgeist: The Movie in 2007, he reached out to the film's director, Peter Joseph, and turned Joseph's attention to some of Fresco's books that center on the idea of a new global economy. Within that idea, Joseph felt he had the ability to answer the questions his film posited. In 2008, Joseph released Zeitgeist: Addendum, featuring The Venus Project, at which point Zeitgeist grew into a full scale movement. Joseph released the movement’s third film, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in January 2011. As of 2011, the movement has hundreds of thousands of members worldwide in hundreds of branches operating independently and autonomously in tens of countries around the world. [1] [3] [5] [6] [8] [9]
"Structure and Processes"
"Chapters "
The movement says its chapters are regional member groups, organized in tiers: International—(countries), State/ Province—(regional distinctions within a given country), and City/ Town—(regional distinctions within a given State or Province). Chapters enable communication among its members, along with other chapters. Periodic meetings are conducted in live and/or virtual (online) settings along with taking part in regional or global events and actions. [9]
"Teams"
The movement says teams are groups of members working with specific projects. Teams generally take two forms: global teams and regional teams. Global teams work on central movement projects which relate to the entire global organization, such as liguistic team, press release team, technology team, lecture team, etc. Regional teams are typically independent of global assessment and are created by the chapter. [9]
"Projects"
The movement says any task of relevant interest agreed upon and set forth by a team, either regional or global. These often include newsletters, events or charity actions. [9]
"Coordinators"
The movement says these are organizers/ representatives for each chapter or team, the point people and basic operation oversight organizers who work with a chapter or team on communication and any related administrative issues. They are not leaders or authorities or decision makers. They are equal in relevance to other members of the respective chapter/ team. They volunteer their time for the sake of relaying consensus information from and to their chapter/ team, along with often taking the initiative for respective projects. Global team coordinators are also not decision-making authorities but, again, volunteer helpers to make sure the processes of each team are going smoothly. [9]
"Fundraising"
The movement says it operates on the basis of time dedication, and not monetary dedication. No chapter is allowed to take donations. Overall, the movement deliberately operates on a personal contribution, volunteer model. [9] However, there are several basic exceptions, discussed in [9].
"Activities"
TZM views itself as a global grassroots movement in the continuum of social change. The movement says it is trying to point out that what society is doing is not sustainable, and needs to change. The key idea is to share all the world's resources equitably among all the people, and basing all decisions initially on resources while learning to maximize the efficiency of resources through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development (economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come). In the movement's view, automated labor would be perfected on a mass scale, eliminating mundane jobs when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively. [1] [6] [3] The machines will do almost all of the work and humans would oversee the process and supervise the machines. [6] [3] According to the movement, the answer for a corrected, civilized society lies in science and technology which would enable abundance. [1] [3] [5] [6] [8]
Until an ideology split in July 2011, Zeitgeist promoted ideas from The Venus Project. [9] Both groups continue to advocate a world society where resources are sustainably and equitably shared. [1] Zeitgeist members advocate the issues discussed in the films Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, including their view that the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt. [5]
The movement sponsors an annual event, "Z-Day", in March. [1] [5] It was first held in 2009 in New York City. [4] The 2010 event also took place in New York, with "337 sympathetic events occurring in over 70 countries worldwide." [1] London and Vancouver hosted the 2011 and 2012 main events respectively. [10] [11]
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted yet another major edit by Earl King Jr.:
IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Your efforts look increasingly like an apparent attempt to possibly use this article as a coatrack by conflating the first Zeitgeist movie and the Zeitgeist movement. It seems that apparently you first may have hanged anti-semitism on the coatrack, then 9/11 conspiracy theories, and now you may be suggesting to hang violence on the coatrack. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there some reason that you make lines on the talk page like the one below all the time?
It distracts from discussions, and I think its probably against talk page policy because its confusing. Also I admit that in Zeitgeist: Addendum which I have seen snippets of, I was uncomfortably reminded (Fresco) of the leader of the UFO cult Heaven’s Gate, Marshall Applewhite (aka Bo and Do) who died in the cult’s mass suicide in 1997. I think the article should have some mention of Zeitgeist as a cult or as cult-like and there are many citations than could be used for that. Jacques Fresco does have UFO cult connections – he was ‘bestowed the title of Honorary Guide of the Raelian Movement‘ in October 2008 when he was part of Zeitgeist, the Raelian movement being by far the biggest UFO cult on this planet. As for hating Zeitgeist, no I think they are mostly comical and personally do not take them seriously one way or another. I just am here to balance the article if possible because I noticed how bad it was before. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 14:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The info box at the top of this article is really huge. Not sure why. I made it smaller and it looks better. Right now it is 280px. Changing it to 180px seems about right. At the larger size the aesthetic does not look right. Obviously the information remains the same. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
user 66.183.104.162 has vandalized the article. (The vandal, 66.183.104.162, wrote in their edit summary: "Dear god, what the? This is 99% directly copied from, or a minor re-phrasing of, the movement's official website.) (Tag: section blanking)" This edit summary by the vandal is not supported by any sources. All the content that was removed by the vandal is fully supported by our set of reliable sources, as was agreed by consensus. (This does not mean that the material the vandal deleted could not be further improved. For example, see the discussion in the section titled 'Prolix' above on this talk page.)
After I revert the vandalism, I'll try to restore the further edits that were made by editors following the vandalism.
By the way, I disagree with some (not all) of the edits that were made post-vandalism. But first, I will try to restore the edits that were made post-vandalism.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 15:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I went back to the consensus version, but also incorporated most edits that were made post the enormous deletion by Zazaban. For example, I included most of the edits by Earl King, but I did not include any attempts to delete verifiable citations from our set of reliable sources, and instead of these citations use references to the miserable, ugly, skeletal, un-encyclopedic page so-called Resource-based economy. Also note that the definition of the term 'Zeitgeist' in the first sentence of the lede is identical to that of Wikipedia itself. And regarding the term 'sustainable development' where Zazaban requested a clarification, I provided a clarification, and removed the clarify tags.
IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
"Consensus version by Ankh, Andy, Tom, Bob, Jeraphine, OpenFuture, Harizotoh9, Arthur, and Ijon." -- I don't appreciate my name being used in such manner, I haven't specifically said that that version was fine by me. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That I didn't revert it doesn't mean I support it. Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Zazaban, I posted a version of the article for your review (I immediately reverted my edit). I removed material from the 'Mission' section to try to address your concerns (and Tom's concerns regarding prolix). Let me know what you think about my proposed edit. (Please try to be as specific as possible in your feedback so that I can continue to revise the article to try to reach a compromise with you.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Tablet is not a reliable source. The full magazine is available online free of charge, and readers can receive it in their email-box daily. There are no advertisements. Who or what funds this so-called "magazine"? This is the link to Tablet's 'About Us' page. Next, the website of Nextbook Inc is very skeletal. It claims it is a non-profit, but it does not offer information about their funding source(s). I could not find any indication they have the kind of reasonably high journalistic standards demanded by Wikipedia as described in WP policies and guidelines (such as employing staff persons responsible for fact checking, dire consequences for employees if the paper loses its reputation, journalists who can lose their livelihoods if they don't adhere to high standards, etc).
Another (big) hint Tablet is not a reliable source is my point-by-point analysis of Michelle Goldberg's Tablet hit piece/ hack job/ hate- and fear-mongering job, given in my detailed comments in the 'Antisemitism' section on this talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 21:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The statement supported by this source does not form a view at all. It makes a factual statement: That TZM has been criticized for a perceived antisemitism. That's not a view in any ordinary sense. The statement isn't that TZM is anti-semitic. That *would* be a view, but this case isn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on my cursory review of this Talk page and the article, and the discussion at ANI, here are my suggestions. First, editors should focus on content, not on each other's conduct. That is particularly true for Earl King. Second, posts should be shorter and not as repetitive. That is particularly true for Ijon. Third, it is less important what TZM says about itself than what secondary sources say about TZM. The WP article is not a platform for TZM to gush its views. With that point in mind, I am going to revert Ijon's latest changes to the article, which seem to me to violate that point and to go against the consensus on this page. Finally, if editors cannot agree on the content of the article, take it to WP:DRN or some other content-based forum in WP:DR.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
In my view the first place to start is the Activities section. As a reader, I have almost no idea what it means. The first two sentences are marginally comprehensible, but the last sentence is meaningless to me. And even the first sentence begins as if the reader knows the history of the movement. There needs to be some material pre-2011 that describes what the "ideas from The Venus Project" are - a wikilink isn't good enough. Then, something can be said about the "split" and what it means. The Z-Day subsection is mostly a piece of fluff and isn't helpful to understanding what TZM does.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I placed "undue weight" tags in the 'Criticism' section per discussion above and per discussion on DRN; Copy-pasted explanation of 'sustainable development' from WP article on same, in order to remove the 'clarification' tag; and contributed several minor edits. My edits have been deleted by Earl King Jr. I reverted his deletion. In his edit summary he claimed there is consensus. Please note that based on the discussion in the 'Consensus' section above, the only consensus is that there is no consensus at this time. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 03:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
YouTube citations are problematic and rarely a good idea to use as sources. Some are probable copyright violations. Unless the copyright holder has an official channel, they can't be used. Others are just unreliable. Thus, the two YouTube cites used by Earl for Fresco and for Joseph were posted to YouTube, not by either of the alleged speakers, but by others. There is no way to authenticate such material. It's the equivalent of a personal blog using YouTube as the communicator. Also, as an aside, in terms of the last edit by Earl, Fresco comes out of nowhere. Material has to have enough context so the reader can understand what is being said.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
It is very clear that this page undergoes constant, perpetual vandalism is of a subtle nature, colored by controversial and entirety irrelevant posts. Wikipedia is supposed to inform the public about what an org in about and doing in this context. Comparing the event, history actions of The Zeitgeist Movement form actual press, their mission statement and their global actions, there is almost nothing relevant in this article and what is being haphazardly thrown in is only done so for the sake of "flaming" and is clearly biased. Every section is misleading or deficient.
It is a truly sad to see the level of dishonestly here and disheartening to see how malicious many of your controlling parties really are. Reinventor098 ( talk) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following for editors' consideration, including
Reinventor098 (when his block expires). This is the same as the last rough draft I proposed a couple of days ago, except all the quotes from TZM's official Q&A website have been removed, and thus the new draft is based exclusively on verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources. As always, I suggest editors not waste their time, or mine, attacking me for this draft -- instead, redirect your energies to improving this first rough draft.
After Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus Project, viewed Zeitgeist: The Movie in 2007, he reached out to the film's director, Peter Joseph, and turned Joseph's attention to some of Fresco's work that center on the idea of a new global economy. Within that idea, Joseph felt he had the ability to answer the questions his film posited. In 2008, Joseph released Zeitgeist: Addendum, featuring The Venus Project, at which point Zeitgeist grew into a full-scale movement. Joseph released the movement’s third film, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in January 2011. As of 2011, the movement has hundreds of thousands of members worldwide in hundreds of branches operating independently and autonomously in tens of countries around the world. [1] [3] [5] [6] [8] [9]
TZM views itself as a global grassroots movement in the continuum of social change. The movement says it is trying to point out that what society is doing is not sustainable, and needs to change. The movement's key idea is to share all the world's resources equitably among all the people, and basing all decisions initially on resources while learning to maximize the efficiency of resources through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development (economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come). In the movement's view, automated labor would be perfected on a mass scale, eliminating mundane jobs when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively. [1] [6] [3] The machines will do almost all of the work and humans would oversee the process and supervise the machines. [6] [3] According to the movement, the answer for a corrected, civilized society lies in science and technology which would enable abundance. [1] [3] [5] [6] [8]
IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 15:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the reliable sources noticeboard, there are two scholarly articles that mention this movement and discuss its context. One of them even actually focusses on the "anti-semitic" issue. These academic articles are exactly the high quality sources that should be snapped up by serious editors and used to source and determine weight issues. For example, the fact that there is a scholarly article about the antisemitic issue would likely have a significant impact on the question of inclusion here. In case you missed it, here is the information about the articles again. One is this article (which I can send to any editors who don't have access to it, if they send me an email, as one person has), and one "Grauzonen der Antisemitismusforschung, oder: Versuch, den ‚Zeitgeist' zu verstehen" [Grey areas of anti-Semitism research, or: an attempt to understand "Zeitgeist"], is available here, with an abstract in English. German speakers available on WP to help [3] if you need it.-- Slp1 ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The following is a copy-paste from TZM's official Q&A website. Does this represent a potential legal issue? Our article seems to contain material that may directly contradict this official TZM statement.
Question (11) - Is The Zeitgeist Movement related to Peter Joseph's Film Series?
No. While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.
The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the ‘The General intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era." The Term "movement" very simply implies ‘motion" and change, Therefore The Zeitgeist Movement is thus an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.
The Movement is not about Comparative Religion, False-Flag Terrorism, Economic Hit-men, Fractional Reserve Banking or the Federal Reserve. The films are unrelated to The Movement in detail and are personal expressions of Peter Joseph. There is often some confusion in this regard and in the most extreme cases some people have the knee-jerk reaction that TZM supports forbidden "Conspiracy Theories" or is "Anti-Religious" or the like. This type or rhetoric tends to be of a pejorative/insulting nature, used in the context of dismissal of The Movement by an erroneous and "taboo" external association. The fact is, there is no direct association whatsoever.
If you are not familiar with what TZM actually is, please review our extensive literature and video/lecture materials on this website.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In response to Bbb23's suggestion on the DRN, my previous 'Mission' section was based on extensive verifiable citations from the HP piece, as well as citations from our other sources. I invite editors to very substantially and very deeply revise this section for neutrality, substance, and whenever and whatever you feel needs revision, with the ultimate goal of inclusion of the (vastly, brutally) revised version in the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 16:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
In response to Bbb23's suggestion, I'm proposing the following very rough draft. I suggest editors not waste their time, or mine, attacking me for this draft -- instead, redirect your energies to vastly, broadly and deeply improving this first rough draft.
"History"
After Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus Project, viewed Zeitgeist: The Movie in 2007, he reached out to the film's director, Peter Joseph, and turned Joseph's attention to some of Fresco's books that center on the idea of a new global economy. Within that idea, Joseph felt he had the ability to answer the questions his film posited. In 2008, Joseph released Zeitgeist: Addendum, featuring The Venus Project, at which point Zeitgeist grew into a full scale movement. Joseph released the movement’s third film, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in January 2011. As of 2011, the movement has hundreds of thousands of members worldwide in hundreds of branches operating independently and autonomously in tens of countries around the world. [1] [3] [5] [6] [8] [9]
"Structure and Processes"
"Chapters "
The movement says its chapters are regional member groups, organized in tiers: International—(countries), State/ Province—(regional distinctions within a given country), and City/ Town—(regional distinctions within a given State or Province). Chapters enable communication among its members, along with other chapters. Periodic meetings are conducted in live and/or virtual (online) settings along with taking part in regional or global events and actions. [9]
"Teams"
The movement says teams are groups of members working with specific projects. Teams generally take two forms: global teams and regional teams. Global teams work on central movement projects which relate to the entire global organization, such as liguistic team, press release team, technology team, lecture team, etc. Regional teams are typically independent of global assessment and are created by the chapter. [9]
"Projects"
The movement says any task of relevant interest agreed upon and set forth by a team, either regional or global. These often include newsletters, events or charity actions. [9]
"Coordinators"
The movement says these are organizers/ representatives for each chapter or team, the point people and basic operation oversight organizers who work with a chapter or team on communication and any related administrative issues. They are not leaders or authorities or decision makers. They are equal in relevance to other members of the respective chapter/ team. They volunteer their time for the sake of relaying consensus information from and to their chapter/ team, along with often taking the initiative for respective projects. Global team coordinators are also not decision-making authorities but, again, volunteer helpers to make sure the processes of each team are going smoothly. [9]
"Fundraising"
The movement says it operates on the basis of time dedication, and not monetary dedication. No chapter is allowed to take donations. Overall, the movement deliberately operates on a personal contribution, volunteer model. [9] However, there are several basic exceptions, discussed in [9].
"Activities"
TZM views itself as a global grassroots movement in the continuum of social change. The movement says it is trying to point out that what society is doing is not sustainable, and needs to change. The key idea is to share all the world's resources equitably among all the people, and basing all decisions initially on resources while learning to maximize the efficiency of resources through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development (economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come). In the movement's view, automated labor would be perfected on a mass scale, eliminating mundane jobs when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively. [1] [6] [3] The machines will do almost all of the work and humans would oversee the process and supervise the machines. [6] [3] According to the movement, the answer for a corrected, civilized society lies in science and technology which would enable abundance. [1] [3] [5] [6] [8]
Until an ideology split in July 2011, Zeitgeist promoted ideas from The Venus Project. [9] Both groups continue to advocate a world society where resources are sustainably and equitably shared. [1] Zeitgeist members advocate the issues discussed in the films Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, including their view that the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt. [5]
The movement sponsors an annual event, "Z-Day", in March. [1] [5] It was first held in 2009 in New York City. [4] The 2010 event also took place in New York, with "337 sympathetic events occurring in over 70 countries worldwide." [1] London and Vancouver hosted the 2011 and 2012 main events respectively. [10] [11]
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted yet another major edit by Earl King Jr.:
IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Your efforts look increasingly like an apparent attempt to possibly use this article as a coatrack by conflating the first Zeitgeist movie and the Zeitgeist movement. It seems that apparently you first may have hanged anti-semitism on the coatrack, then 9/11 conspiracy theories, and now you may be suggesting to hang violence on the coatrack. IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there some reason that you make lines on the talk page like the one below all the time?
It distracts from discussions, and I think its probably against talk page policy because its confusing. Also I admit that in Zeitgeist: Addendum which I have seen snippets of, I was uncomfortably reminded (Fresco) of the leader of the UFO cult Heaven’s Gate, Marshall Applewhite (aka Bo and Do) who died in the cult’s mass suicide in 1997. I think the article should have some mention of Zeitgeist as a cult or as cult-like and there are many citations than could be used for that. Jacques Fresco does have UFO cult connections – he was ‘bestowed the title of Honorary Guide of the Raelian Movement‘ in October 2008 when he was part of Zeitgeist, the Raelian movement being by far the biggest UFO cult on this planet. As for hating Zeitgeist, no I think they are mostly comical and personally do not take them seriously one way or another. I just am here to balance the article if possible because I noticed how bad it was before. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 14:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The info box at the top of this article is really huge. Not sure why. I made it smaller and it looks better. Right now it is 280px. Changing it to 180px seems about right. At the larger size the aesthetic does not look right. Obviously the information remains the same. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)