![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Re "Vague": Although the sentence is understandable English, it's really just buzzwords with little concrete meaning. Hence, it's vague in one sense, and not vague at all in another. You could say that the term "Vague" is a bit vague. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure 'vague' even covers it. What exactly (or even vaguely) is 'a final frontier' supposed to mean? And why should believing in 'non-finite process[es]' preclude utopianism? And how does having 'resource allocation' done by machines preclude utopianism for that matter? The sentence starts off all right, but as soon as it gets beyond 'because' we have a Star Trek reference or something, followed by a train of non sequiteurs. As far as I'm aware, the only responses from TZM regarding claims of utopianism have involved redefining what they think 'utopianism' means in order to argue that it isn't applicable to them. This seems to be more of the same. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It's useful to the reader if we include a limited amount of this kind of language in the article, but we might do better to use a direct quote. Tom Harrison Talk 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a need to have so many references, each with a link? Has anyone checked whether the multiple links are helpful for this encyclopedic article? For example, stuff like [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and [10][7][1][9][3][11][4][5][6][8][17] seem to have no value other than to include every possible TZM link. Why mention eight publishers that have criticized TZM (the first sentence of the "Criticism..." section)? Anyone interested in this page might like to look at Peter Joseph where the same problems apply, and where the external links section is badly in need of a prune. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
So it would sound like an encyclopedic lead and not a pamphlet. To describe some internet/facebook based advocacy group as "nonviolent" is redundent. Further more, "sustainability organization" is logically in place with other subjects advocated- this makes it sounds like a pamphlet. Further more, the computers and robots are a major feature that should be on the lead. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. This belongs in the criticisms section and is promotional. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Earl King Jr, I didn't cite any sources with my edit. It was a summary of multiple statements on the movements website regarding resource distribution in their proposed resource based economy. The statement in the wikipedia article that "all resources would be equally shared" is inaccurate. They propose strategic resource management via the scientific method for social concern, utilising data such as consumption and depletion rates. Any thoughts?
Zeitgeist Movement Mission Statement "the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions."
Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 1) No money or market system.
"True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation."
Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 3) Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach "consumption statistics are accessed, rates of depletion monitoring, distribution logically formulated, etc. In other words, it is a full Systems Approach to earthly resource management, production and distribution, with the goal of absolute efficiency, conservation and sustainability"
Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 4) Access over Property "It is important to point out the TZM advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency, not any surface influence by these supposed "Communist" ideals."
Hemi2050 ( talk) 12:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
DS, are you repeatedly removing my inclusion of ZMF because of Examiner.com? Please see this on Examiner.com. Additionally, ZMF is also discussed in an RT TV interview on TZM, as well as on ZMF's and TZM's official websites.
Zeitgeist Media Festival Official Website
The Zeitgeist Movement discussion, RT TV, Sept. 14, 2011</ref>
Zeitgeist Media Festival Challenges the World to Be Positive, Vicki Godal, Examiner.com, 3 August 2012
IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
At the request of AndyTheGrump I have started this talk thread in response to a request for a citation (in the criticism section) on October 10th, 2012. Please anyone feel free to add any citations that may help and fall under wiki policy. Thank you kindly! Zgoutreach ( talk) 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
And here's another questionable source: [4] What the heck is it supposed to be cited for? That Vancouver hosted the 2012 Z-Day 'main events'? Given that it reads like a TZM blurb, I see no reason to treat it as remotely WP:RS. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there aren't enough good secondary sources for us to have an article on the movement. Could be merged into the article about the movie? Tom Harrison Talk 11:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Since there isn't a valid source for the somewhat ambiguous and open-ended statement that Zeitgeist the Moive helped 'inspire the Zeitgeist Movement', should this whole statement not be taken down? This a popular misconception, not an accurate summary and of all potential 'inspirations', which could be listed ad nauseam, the first movie in the filmmaker's trilogy not only does not take primacy, but is decidedly the least relevant as a source of inspiration. It is not a neutral choice of wording to end that sentence on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.124.169 ( talk) 09:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
"There are lots of strange things about the Zeitgeist phenomenon, but strangest is how it got started. It's a global organization..." This is extremely sloppy journalism. It conflates Zeitgeist: the Movie with the Zeitgeist Movement (this is the point of my original comment) and is therefore either purposefully misleading or simply the product of intellectual laziness. That's not my call and does not ultimately matter, what matters is the un-deniable misleading conflation of the two phenomena as one phenomenon, in which all activities with this film are fungible with the "global organization", meaning the Zeitgeist Movement. It's quite obvious that the "should we say sparked instead of inspire" response comment is pithy, the point of my original comment being the conflation, not a pedantic concern about the word 'inspire', but I'm quite sure the responder and anyone reading this knows that. I'm surprised at the conversation about centering around how we could use a word other than 'inspired', such as 'motivated', aside from an exercise in pedantry this is completely missing the point: the conflation of the film with the movement, and that above quote from Goldberg is a wonderful case in point. The Zeitgeist Movement was neither inspired, nor sparked, nor motivated into existence by Zeitgeist: the Movie, and this quote from Michelle Goldberg is ludicrous. A far more accurate 'spark' would be the latter part of the second movie Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Jacque Fresco, and furthermore any comment on their current dissociation is quite irrelevant to that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 08:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that such a third party source would be deemed unreliable when (crucially) checked against the facts, the source in question does not even claim this, so it should actually be taken down. In fact the likely issue is more probably those wishing to cast it under a certain light, blurring the lines between the two and making this categorical/ontological error that is supposedly '3rd party cited' and hence pushed out as legitimate. I'm afraid while you are correct about valid and reliable 3rd party sources, checked against the facts (unless reported as opinion's and views, not fact), you're not by alluding to me in a veiled way as trying to cast something under a positive light that is factually erroneous under closer inspection. That's ad hominem, and irrelevant. 'Baggage' of the first film is only relevant as a guilty-by-association ploy in conflating the two. There is quite a problematic issue here in fact: representing as 'fact' in an encyclopedia only what is 3rd party sourced, albeit an assertion that is even factually inaccurate and not even backed up by the source in question, which may indeed lead to false inferences by the casual readers. I'm afraid the reality has nothing to do with my being neutral to the promotion of a social movement, but that I am not neutral to the facts. Any decent journalist or researcher must check 2nd or 3rd party sources against the facts. "To most neutral observers, the movie was the initial thing that got the movement going and that has been written about and sited by outside third party or second party sources," this is rather like FOX news saying "A lot of people say (fill in the blank)" and "Most people think (fill in the blank)". Even if 'a lot of people' think something, such as the earth being flat, it is only correct to report this belief, not this fact, despite the plethora of flat earth 2nd and 3rd party sources out there. Quite objectively, the movement did not exist at the making of the first movie, and the second movie introduces the movement and calls for members. If every single rational argument and presentation of facts in a scientific journal required 3rd party sources, it would retard the ability to actually make rational inferences. It is quite clear that the creation of the movement follows its inception in the second film, not the first, and this is not an 'undocumented claim' or personal opinion. But in lieu of presenting rational inferences from facts, a reliable 3rd party source is required for a claim. That statement has neither: not only is it factually erroneous, but reading its so-called source (Huffington Post article) at no point do they actually state that "(Zeitgeist: the Movie is) the original 2007 film that helped inspire the movement". So while its the notion of good research, ethical standards and epistemology I'm really quite bothered by, and the idea that opinionated and problematic '2nd and 3rd party sources' can be presented as fact when they don't actually measure up against the facts, I don't even need to engage in that--the source doesn't show what the article claims, therefore its invalid. Now I'm sure there are factually erroneous sources out there, that can be used with the ambiguous language to misinform people as to the facts, and I can be told that I or anyone else concerned with properly representing the facts is engaging in bias or otherwise lacking a source, but for the moment that current part of the article is wrong no matter how you offer it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 13:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
202.7.222.243, for starters it is better to make your ideas concise and not get into a rhetorical polemic WP: Too long; didn't read: and your ideas have not gained any traction by repeating them over and over. As far as the actual issue in discussion the arguments you are using do not hold water if I can put it bluntly. En. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and can not be used to present an organization in some way that they either o.k. or veto, and members or hangers on of different social groups can not come here to present a biased view of information according to their opinions. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right about being more brief, not with regards to your continued labeling as 'not holding water' nor a 'biased view according to opinion'. The source from Huffington Post does not show what the article claims. This is unbiased and a high school essay would be docked points for this. Secondly, the movement objectively stemmed from the second film, not the first, this is not the product of opinion or a 'hanger on' of a social movement. These are not 'my ideas' but my analysis of another's unverified, un-sourced opinion. I'm afraid this is rather weak tea for polemic: in fact it's quite cut and dry. But you are right about brevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 08:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
In hindsight I find it interesting you're contesting this when the page itself calls that source into question. Read the source, check the facts. Find another source that actually claims the first movie was the catalyst for the movement, and then we can talk about the factual basis of that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 08:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources policy, "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". At present there are no translations provided. Given the controversial nature of the movement, and the dependence the article places on such sources, can I ask that such translations be provided so readers can confirm that the material is being cited accurately. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears to be very messy. It's been related to these "Utopianism", "Technological utopianism", "Utopian socialism", either someone does not know a lot about socialism, or they just felt like adding the appropriate link, or I can be misinformed, As far as I know; the TZM advocates an emerging society that is based on scientific and technological understanding of human beings and where we inhabit, based on mostly what Jacque Fresco envisions for a better society. I'd also be careful adding in "Utopia" seeing as that term is deemed unacceptable, due to TZM constantly saying that there is "No such thing as a perfect society", and mentioning an "Evolving society", they strongly support a sustainable society, as well as maximum scientific and technological advancement and a removal of politics, therefore it cannot be a socialist view, nor utopian. It would make more sense if it was linked as a anarcho-technocratic movement. I am tempted to make a change on that, but seeing as I am not an official user, I am just making a reasonable suggestion and would like to ask the community if it would make more sense to leave it as a technocratic movement. -- 82.34.155.229 ( talk) 18:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
"Who says it's "Utopian"? Third-party sources. That is what we base articles on." Surely not merely third-party sources, but third-party sources checked against the facts. There are third party sources claiming Hoover was a crossdresser...although come to think of it maybe he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 08:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Actually it is about checking it against the facts to ensure it's a reliable source. That's part of the process before other 3rd party sources are suggested in replacement. And I wasn't talking about 'facts', but facts. "Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance." I have no problem at all with the 'utopian' part, that's properly sourced. I will add a sourced response in time. In the future when I have time, I will make and suggest a number of changes, including the overall structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 11:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The current state of the article is missing some important goals and suggested methods on solving crysis. I refer to the German version, the scientific method. Images are missing, activism is missing. Eduard Gotwig ( talk) 11:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have a valid point, but Andy is right about third-party reliable sources. It is true that something may be blindingly obvious, yet an acceptable source may not be there yet, or another source may be used to claim otherwise. Fresco was into technocracy, so if you search around enough you'll probably find a source, and then you can maybe add a sentence saying Fresco himself claimed he was exposed to, or part of it, and then later put technocracy in the See Also section. I was reading the Objectivism page (Ayn Rand) and there is a lot that is directly derived from her own writings. Perhaps Fresco has some technocracy discussion in his own writings, or lecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 02:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Noted Earl, I will set up an account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 07:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Zeitgeist The Movie and The Zeitgeist Movement: Why are "movie" criticisms being placed here?
I have no idea why the criticism section is so focused on "Zeitgeist: The Movie" when not only does The Zeitgeist Movement website state the films are not related, also supporting nothing Zeitgeist: The Movie speaks of in any of it publications or lectures, The Zeitgeist Film Series Website also has no relationship. Is it not odd to conflate the two? Seems very poor and dishonest to posts these things as though they relate. Flowersforparis ( talk) 08:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Above all else, when expanding the article, please adhere to
Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The importance of this article might seem low to the movement right now, however be rest assured that the media does use Wikipedia to find balanced third-party reviews, if they are available. Do not underestimate the potential implications this article will have on the overall impression the general population will have of this movement, especially for those who are just aware enough to feel that they are interested in the idea of it.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Group # | Earl King Jr.'s version | My version |
---|---|---|
0 | The Zeitgeist Movement
Movement logo Abbreviation TZM or ZM Formation August 18, 2008[citation needed] Type Social movement Region served Global Key people Peter Joseph Website www.thezeitgeistmovement.com The Zeitgeist Movement is a grassroots, sustainability advocacy organization founded in 2008. Although founded by Peter Joseph, the movement claims to have no leader.[1] The movement has hundreds of chapters around the world[2][3] which advocate a "resource based economy". |
The Zeitgeist Movement
Movement logo Abbreviation TZM or ZM Formation 2008[1] Type Social movement Region served Global Key people Peter Joseph Website www.thezeitgeistmovement.com The Zeitgeist Movement is a grassroots, sustainability advocacy organization founded in 2008. Although founded by Peter Joseph, the movement claims to have no leader.[2] The movement has hundreds of chapters around the world[3][4] which advocate a "resource based economy". |
1 | The Zeitgeist Movement describes itself as a sustainability advocacy group based on the belief that the "monetary-market" economy can be replaced with a system in which the Earth's resources are allocated by the scientific method.[citation needed][vague] | The Zeitgeist Movement believes that the problems of worldwide contemporary society ranging from issues in politics, socioeconomics, and ecology must be addressed by a new system based on intelligent management of the Earth's resources.[5] |
2 | Members of the group believe in the elimination of debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive.[4] Zeitgeist members say the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt and needs to be replaced with a system based on efficient and careful resource use through the technological potential of sustainable development.[5][6][7] The Zeitgeist group advocates renewable energy and computerized automatic systems on a global scale to provide free food and other necessities and perform most of the resource allocation. [4][7] | The movement believes that humanity can transform into a high-tech and sustainable society with neither a need for money nor stratification of people by social and economic class.[5][6] The Zeitgeist group advocates renewable energy and computerized systems and machines (automation) on a global scale to provide free food and other necessities and perform most of the resource allocation.[7][8] The Zeitgeist Movement views these political, socioeconomic, and ecological aims as imperative for the long-term survival of the human species.[7] |
3 | The name of the group comes from the word zeitgeist and implies a shift in the current spirit of the times. The Zeitgeist Movement's origin was a reaction to Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008).[8] | Following the popularity of Peter Joseph's first major online film, Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007) launched on zeitgeistmovie.com,[9] people contacted him concerning what should be done about the issues it raised.[10] While Joseph in his works supported the views of then U.S. Representative Ron Paul, he views the political and economic landscape so corrupt globally as to be beyond redemption, necessitating a deeply reflective and fundamental shift in how humanity responds to the contemporary problems of modern society.[10] He was later introduced to Venus Project and its designer Jacque Fresco, a radical futurist with prominence in the media for more than half a century.[10]
Zeitgeist: Addendum in (2008) soon followed the original movie. |
4 | The movement used to be the activist arm of The Venus Project (TVP), which featured in the films Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (January 2011) as a possible solution to Earth's cultural and ecological problems,[6] but in April 2011 the groups split and are no longer associated with each other.[9] | The movement used to be the activist arm of The Venus Project (TVP), which featured in the films Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (January 2011) as a possible solution to Earth's cultural and ecological problems,[12] but in April 2011 the groups split and are no longer associated with each other.[13] |
5 | The movement holds an annual event, Z-Day, in March.[4][6] It was first held in 2009 in New York City.[5] | On Sunday, March 15, 2009, a large gathering of 900 approximately people in New York attended an education forum created by the Zeitgeist Movement.[6] Smaller events occurred on the same day across the world.[6] |
6 | The 2010 event also took place in New York, with "337 sympathetic events occurring in over 70 countries worldwide."[4] London hosted the 2011 event[10] and Vancouver hosted the 2012 main event.[11] The 2013 Main event is being held in Los Angeles at the Barnsdall Gallery in Hollywood.[12] | Z-Day is now an annual event in the movement, occurring every following March.[7][12] The 2010 event also took place in New York, with "337 sympathetic events occurring in over 70 countries worldwide."[7] London hosted the 2011 event[14] and Vancouver hosted the 2012 main event.[15] The 2013 Main event was held in Los Angeles at the Barnsdall Gallery in Hollywood.[16] |
7 | The Huffington Post,[4] The New York Times,[5] The Palm Beach Post,[13] Globes,[7] TheMarker,[6] VC Reporter,[14] RT TV[15][16] and Reason magazine[17] criticized various aspects of the Zeitgeist movement, specifically: (a) utopianism, (b) reduced work incentives in their proposed economy, (c) practical difficulties in a transition to that economy, and (d) subscribing to 9/11 conspiracy theories in Zeitgeist: The Movie. Peter Joseph responded to the criticism by saying that practical difficulties could be overcome and that Zeitgeist does not believe in utopia but advocates updating society's notions of economics and politics continuously, re-aligning them with new scientific and technical discoveries, while keeping workers motivated. According to Mr. Joseph there is no direct association between the conspiracy theories in the first Zeitgeist documentary and the movement.[18] | The Huffington Post,[7] The New York Times,[6] The Palm Beach Post,[18] Globes,[8] TheMarker,[12] VC Reporter,[5] RT TV[19][20] and Reason magazine[21] criticized various aspects of the Zeitgeist movement, specifically: (a) utopianism, (b) reduced work incentives in their proposed economy, (c) practical difficulties in a transition to that economy, and (d) subscribing to 9/11 conspiracy theories in Zeitgeist: The Movie.
Peter Joseph responded to the criticism by saying that practical difficulties could be overcome and that Zeitgeist does not believe in utopia but advocates updating society's notions of economics and politics continuously, re-aligning them with new scientific and technical discoveries, while keeping workers motivated.[5] According to Mr. Joseph there is no direct association between the conspiracy theories in the first Zeitgeist documentary and the movement.[5][22] |
8 | An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion described the movement as an example of a "conspirituality", a synthesis of New Age spirituality and conspiracy theory, asserting that Zeitgeist: The Movie claims that "organised religion is about social control and that 9/11 was an inside job."[19] The movement said that the article paints an "incorrect, misleading, offensive and defaming picture of the movement", and that the conspiracy narratives in the first movie are unrelated to the movement.[18] | The presence of the Zeitgeist Movement has been noted in various articles and papers. An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion described the Zeitgeist Movement as an example of a "conspirituality", which it defines as, "a rapidly growing web movement expressing an ideology fueled by political disillusionment and the popularity of alternative worldviews."[17] Despite comments suggesting that his films made "surreal claims", the videos and the movement have attracted people in the millions.[12][8] |
9 | In Tablet magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being "steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", and called the Zeitgeist movement "the world's first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity."[20] Zeitgeist said the accusations were "erroneous, pejorative, derogatory and intended to silence the movement's message", and that the movement does not blame international bankers, corporate leaders or politicians as individuals, but rather the global socioeconomic system that supports their values.[6] | In Tablet magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being "steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", and called the Zeitgeist movement "the world's first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity."[10] Zeitgeist said the accusations were "erroneous, pejorative, derogatory and intended to silence the movement's message", and that the movement does not blame international bankers, corporate leaders or politicians as individuals, but rather the global socioeconomic system that supports their values.[12] |
Consensus right now is that your edits are POV material the tone is non neutral Kmarinas86. The article attracts along with Technocracy articles, J. Fresco, Zeitgeist, Peter Joseph etc. loyalists of those groups that though well intentioned are so invested as members or hangers on that things start getting twisted from neutral presentation or bloated with minutia that reflects the groups ideas too much without critical thinking. Just a simple thing like making the lead information logo picture of the article too big becomes an issue. Why make that bigger than it needs to be for the article? Also the idea is not to grow the article, it is to present the facts and a neutral perspective on the subject. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
BETTER WORDING
In the summary of the 'Philosophy' of The Zeitgeist Movement it is stated 'a sustainability advocacy group based on the belief'. The word and term 'belief' has a specific meaning which is non-correlational with many anti-theistic aspects of the movement. A better (more appropriate for accurately conveying information) word may be 'idea' or 'concept' or 'practise' etc. 195.49.180.114 ( talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I had wrote several talk sections in the past on this page. They were all meaningful and to democratize this talk page. They were all erased by the Zeitgeist editors on this talk page.
However Wikipedia makes it history cannot be hidden:
If you read this then trace back to 2011 December. Notice all the criticism talk on the page? It is there for a reason. The reason is to show that there are many visions to one idea and many pages to a book, both negative and positive. However the talk section has been updated continuously and ideas and opinions removed. I consider this a blasphemy to the ideas of a free internet.
Zeitgeist should be criticized for its ideas. People have the right to know. If the idea is to establish a new system then that should go by finding a sponsorship, advertising, Facebook groups etc...
You cannot erase talk pages, they are meant for ideas to be spread. If you remove sections of a talk page then you're doing it wrong. And if the only valid reason is that it would be taking up too much space then I think that there should be a rule about that. Like removing data on every 1 Jan of the year. Unlike that, here we get the most precious criticisms removed so that Zeitgeist ideas get a positive connotation.
If you remove this i will start vandalizing the page for the sole purpose of it getting protected. You just can't and shouldn't and may not remove criticisms of Zeitgeist. When you're building an idea you want to get public support and it you get the readers angry then you're not on the bright path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.17.190 ( talk) 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussions about TZM - it is intended solely for discussions concerning article content. If you vandalise Wikipedia your edits will be deleted and you will be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
At two stages in the second paragraph it references 'belief'. Whilst the word has a common usage synchronous in some regards with idea, think, advocate etc. etc. in many regards, it is not appropriate. The movement itself is not belief-based nor does it advocate the utilisation of the belief mechanic. As an anti-religious member/advocator of The Zeitgeist Movement a discrepency is thus caused. Belief could be appropriated for other words which do not hold religious connotations. Could someone who knows what they're doing please do this as it would be much appreciated. 82.132.222.204 ( talk) 19:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The word belief has religious connotations since religions are belief-based systems (i.e. the utilisation of the belief mechanic), that is systems that consider the mechanic of belief to be a valid form of knowledge acquisition.
I hereby refer you to an article written on the subject of beliefs:
'The meaning of belief
To establish a common ground for the general concept of belief, I hold to the common usage of the term from the American Heritage dictionary:
Belief: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing; faith. 2. Mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as true; especially, a particular tenet, or a body of tenets, accepted by a group of persons.
Believe: 1 To accept as true or real. 2. To credit with veracity; have confidence in; trust.
In its simplest form, belief occurs as a mental act, a thinking process in the brain that requires two things: a feeling and a logical statement. To "believe" requires a conscious feeling of truth. To communicate what this feeling refers to requires some form of logical structure such as spoken or written language. Thus a belief requires a thought and a conscious feeling of "truth" which, according to neurological brain research, stems from the limbic part of the brain (discussed in the mechanism of belief, below). Thus, belief occurs as a thought with a feeling or emotion "attached." In other words: Belief= emotion + logic. Because belief requires emotion, it also represents a psychological state, not simply a mechanical thinking state.
In all cases, I refer to beliefs as occurring in an aware state of consciousness. Beliefs here do not refer to subconscious thoughts, or any mental activity occurring below the threshold of consciousness. Nor do beliefs apply to sleeping and dream states, or to unconscious habits, or instincts. When a person owns a belief, s/he consciously accepts their own belief. The degree of feeling to which one accepts their own beliefs, as valid, can vary from mild acceptance to certain absoluteness. Thus it would prove meaningless to say that a person has beliefs without them knowing it or for them to deny their own beliefs. Obviously, a person who does not believe in something, does not believe in that something; a person who believes in something, does believe in that something. Belief requires conscious acceptance.'
From the source http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm
Furthermore Wikipedia should be tending towards a more accurate portrayal of subject matters within its circumference, a simple change of wording helps illuminate a more accurate picture of the subject matter less afflicted with misappropriated wording, since it's representing a line of thinking, expressed through a movement, it should do it's best to clarify the intents of the movement without misportraying it to non-theists, anti-theists and otherwise non-anti-religious persons.
'How belief confuses arguments
In the mildest form of belief, that of acceptance without absoluteness, a speaker or writer could simply replace belief words with more discriptive words to avoid confusion.
Note that in most instances, one can replace the word "believe" with the word "think". For example:
"I believe it will rain tonight."
can transpose into:
"I think it will rain tonight." '
In addition The Zeitgeist Movement is not a sentient entity, it cannot think for itself and thus cannot fall prey to owning or accepting beliefs, only members of it can, adding a further inaccuracy to the use of the term. As not all members of the movement utilise beliefs, nor does the movement itself profess or advocate the utilsation of said mechanic it is inaccurate. A simple change of wording for gaining extra clarity cannot be a bad thing surely? 109.144.188.234 ( talk) 15:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello WikiFellows.
There is so much data not mentioned on this page about what TZM is and does that it is just strange. If this page is to fit the characteristics of a Group Biography, as per wikipedias standards, why do we not give it a comprehendible format that actually gives the reader a basic understanding of the interests and pursuits of TZM? Below is a re-write I have created which I would like to propose as a well needed update. Please review by section. I have take great time with this so please give it some thought. I have taken great care keep this concise and objective. I have only taken the official materials of TZM and added it, along with a balanced "response and criticism" section. Please note the sources.
THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT
The Zeitgeist Movement is a self-described Global Sustainability Advocacy Organization which conducts community based activism and awareness actions through a network of Global/Regional Chapters, Project Teams, Annual Events, & Media Work. [1] It currently has Chapters in over 50 countries [2] and seeks economic and social reform on the global scale, in the form of a new social system. [3]
1 Philosophy
2 History
2.1 Origins 2.2 Venus Project Split
3 Organization and Activism
3.1 Chapters 3.2 Zeitgeist Day 3.3 Zeitgeist Media Festival 3.4 Podcast
4 Media Coverage and Criticism
4.1 Positive Reactions 4.2 Criticism: Philosophy
5 External Links
-
1: Philosophy
According to Movement's official Orientation Guide, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to transition the global social system and economic approach to a “Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy”, defined as: “An adaptive socioeconomic system actively derived from direct physical reference to the governing scientific laws of nature.” [4] It views the Market Economy as “unsustainable” [5] existing as inferior in its efficiency, compared to a direct “technical” approach, which could enable a world without the need of money to meet basic human needs, solving many global problems, such as poverty. [6] The Zeitgeist Movement also sees the current socioeconomic approach to be an unnecessarily negative factor on public health. [7]
2: History
2.1 Origins
The Zeitgeist Movement was founded by filmmaker Peter Joseph in association with The Venus Project, featuring a call for social reformation in his documentary film Zeitgeist: Addendum. After the release of the film in 2008, the internet network and chapter structure slowly emerged. The first major event of The Zeitgeist Movement occurred to a sold out audience of 900 in New York City, months after the release of Zeitgeist Addendum. The New York Times described the event as “The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life.” [8]
2.2 The Venus Project Split
The Zeitgeist Movement in its original form was in partnership with a organization headed by engineer Jacque Fresco called “The Venus Project”. However, in 2011 disagreement over future direction occurred which caused the two organizations to disband, with The Venus Project breaking its association. [9]
3: Organization and Activism
3.1 Chapters
The Zeitgeist Movement is a self-proclaimed leaderless movement [10] operating in a network of Chapters. While maintaining a large online presence as well, a system of coordinators, teams and projects work to connect the Movement globally through mainly concerted events. [11]
3.2 Zeitgeist Day
The core public expression of The Zeitgeist Movement is it annual Zeitgeist Day or “Zday” global gathering. This annually includes one “main event” and parallel regional events.
[12] In 2009, the main event was in New York City
[13], along with the event in 2010.
[14] In 2011, the main event occurred in London
[15] Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)., 2012 in Vancouver
[16] and 2013 in Los Angeles.
[17]
[18] Hundreds of parallel events have also occurred each year in up to 60 countries.
[19]
[20] Notable attendees have been musician
Brandon Boyd from the group Incubus
[21] and Actress Michelle Rodriguez.
[22]
3.3 Zeitgeist Media Festival
Started in 2011, The Zeitgeist Media Festival is an annual socially conscious arts festival which conducts a Main Event each year in Hollywood California. [23] In 2011, the event was at the Music Box with a notable line up including Billy Gibbons and Natacha Atlas [24]. In 2012, the event was held at Club Avalon [25], including notable actor Rutger Hauer [26], best selling author Marianne Williamson [27] and others. The 2013 event will also be held at Avalon on Aug 4th. [28] As with Zeitgeist Day, many parallel international events also occur during the same weekend, in global unity. [29] [30]
3.4 Weekly Podcast
Notable figures and coordinators of The Zeitgeist Movement participate in a weekly podcast rotation via BlogtalkRadio. [31] This podcast serves as a core information base for global members.
4 Media Coverage and Criticism
4.1: Media Coverage
The Zeitgeist Movement has received notable international media coverage, including the New York Times [32], Huffington Post, [33] Globes, [34] The Marker [35] Russia Today [36] [37] [38] [39] Hollywood Today [40] and The Young Turks [41]. Reactions to The Zeitgeist Movement have been mixed and often controversial due to its association to the founder Peter Joseph and his critically acclaimed Zeitgeist Film Series [42], which is described as unrelated to The Zeitgeist Movement in terms of its tenets and goals, merely existing as an inspiration. [43] [44]
4:2 Criticism
Direct criticism of The Movement's officially published materials have ranged from claims of utopianism, to transition problems to a loss of work incentives. [45] However, the vast majority of extreme criticism towards The Zeitgeist Movement regards the personal expression of Peter Joseph in his first documentary film called “Zeitgeist: The Movie”. Tablet Magazine [46], the Journal of Contemporary Religion [47] and other outlets have targeted so-called “conspiracy” themes in their objections to The Zeitgeist Movement itself. However, none of The Zeitgeist Movement’s official materials since its inception, have made any recommendation of such “conspiracy” themes [48] and Peter Joseph, the founder and core spokesman, has commented numerous times on the false conflation of his personal work and The Movement, which he deems as either deliberately malicious by biased reporters or simply poor research. [49]
5 External Links
External Links: Main http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com Global Chapters http://www.tzmchapters.net Official Blog http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com Official Forum http://www.thezeitgeistmovementforum.org Zeitgeist Media Project: http://zeitgeistmediaproject.com ZeitNews Technology: http://www.zeitnews.org Zeitgeist Day Global: http://zdayglobal.org Zeitgeist Media Festival: http://zeitgeistmediafestival.org Global Redesign Institute: http://www.globalredesigninstitute.org TZM Social Network: http://tzmnetwork.com TZM Global on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/tzmglobal TZM Global on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tzmglobal TZM Global Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TZMOfficialChannel
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB17 ( talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 July 2013
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Re "Vague": Although the sentence is understandable English, it's really just buzzwords with little concrete meaning. Hence, it's vague in one sense, and not vague at all in another. You could say that the term "Vague" is a bit vague. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure 'vague' even covers it. What exactly (or even vaguely) is 'a final frontier' supposed to mean? And why should believing in 'non-finite process[es]' preclude utopianism? And how does having 'resource allocation' done by machines preclude utopianism for that matter? The sentence starts off all right, but as soon as it gets beyond 'because' we have a Star Trek reference or something, followed by a train of non sequiteurs. As far as I'm aware, the only responses from TZM regarding claims of utopianism have involved redefining what they think 'utopianism' means in order to argue that it isn't applicable to them. This seems to be more of the same. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It's useful to the reader if we include a limited amount of this kind of language in the article, but we might do better to use a direct quote. Tom Harrison Talk 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a need to have so many references, each with a link? Has anyone checked whether the multiple links are helpful for this encyclopedic article? For example, stuff like [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and [10][7][1][9][3][11][4][5][6][8][17] seem to have no value other than to include every possible TZM link. Why mention eight publishers that have criticized TZM (the first sentence of the "Criticism..." section)? Anyone interested in this page might like to look at Peter Joseph where the same problems apply, and where the external links section is badly in need of a prune. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
So it would sound like an encyclopedic lead and not a pamphlet. To describe some internet/facebook based advocacy group as "nonviolent" is redundent. Further more, "sustainability organization" is logically in place with other subjects advocated- this makes it sounds like a pamphlet. Further more, the computers and robots are a major feature that should be on the lead. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. This belongs in the criticisms section and is promotional. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Earl King Jr, I didn't cite any sources with my edit. It was a summary of multiple statements on the movements website regarding resource distribution in their proposed resource based economy. The statement in the wikipedia article that "all resources would be equally shared" is inaccurate. They propose strategic resource management via the scientific method for social concern, utilising data such as consumption and depletion rates. Any thoughts?
Zeitgeist Movement Mission Statement "the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions."
Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 1) No money or market system.
"True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation."
Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 3) Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach "consumption statistics are accessed, rates of depletion monitoring, distribution logically formulated, etc. In other words, it is a full Systems Approach to earthly resource management, production and distribution, with the goal of absolute efficiency, conservation and sustainability"
Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 4) Access over Property "It is important to point out the TZM advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency, not any surface influence by these supposed "Communist" ideals."
Hemi2050 ( talk) 12:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
DS, are you repeatedly removing my inclusion of ZMF because of Examiner.com? Please see this on Examiner.com. Additionally, ZMF is also discussed in an RT TV interview on TZM, as well as on ZMF's and TZM's official websites.
Zeitgeist Media Festival Official Website
The Zeitgeist Movement discussion, RT TV, Sept. 14, 2011</ref>
Zeitgeist Media Festival Challenges the World to Be Positive, Vicki Godal, Examiner.com, 3 August 2012
IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
At the request of AndyTheGrump I have started this talk thread in response to a request for a citation (in the criticism section) on October 10th, 2012. Please anyone feel free to add any citations that may help and fall under wiki policy. Thank you kindly! Zgoutreach ( talk) 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
And here's another questionable source: [4] What the heck is it supposed to be cited for? That Vancouver hosted the 2012 Z-Day 'main events'? Given that it reads like a TZM blurb, I see no reason to treat it as remotely WP:RS. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there aren't enough good secondary sources for us to have an article on the movement. Could be merged into the article about the movie? Tom Harrison Talk 11:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Since there isn't a valid source for the somewhat ambiguous and open-ended statement that Zeitgeist the Moive helped 'inspire the Zeitgeist Movement', should this whole statement not be taken down? This a popular misconception, not an accurate summary and of all potential 'inspirations', which could be listed ad nauseam, the first movie in the filmmaker's trilogy not only does not take primacy, but is decidedly the least relevant as a source of inspiration. It is not a neutral choice of wording to end that sentence on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.124.169 ( talk) 09:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
"There are lots of strange things about the Zeitgeist phenomenon, but strangest is how it got started. It's a global organization..." This is extremely sloppy journalism. It conflates Zeitgeist: the Movie with the Zeitgeist Movement (this is the point of my original comment) and is therefore either purposefully misleading or simply the product of intellectual laziness. That's not my call and does not ultimately matter, what matters is the un-deniable misleading conflation of the two phenomena as one phenomenon, in which all activities with this film are fungible with the "global organization", meaning the Zeitgeist Movement. It's quite obvious that the "should we say sparked instead of inspire" response comment is pithy, the point of my original comment being the conflation, not a pedantic concern about the word 'inspire', but I'm quite sure the responder and anyone reading this knows that. I'm surprised at the conversation about centering around how we could use a word other than 'inspired', such as 'motivated', aside from an exercise in pedantry this is completely missing the point: the conflation of the film with the movement, and that above quote from Goldberg is a wonderful case in point. The Zeitgeist Movement was neither inspired, nor sparked, nor motivated into existence by Zeitgeist: the Movie, and this quote from Michelle Goldberg is ludicrous. A far more accurate 'spark' would be the latter part of the second movie Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Jacque Fresco, and furthermore any comment on their current dissociation is quite irrelevant to that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 08:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that such a third party source would be deemed unreliable when (crucially) checked against the facts, the source in question does not even claim this, so it should actually be taken down. In fact the likely issue is more probably those wishing to cast it under a certain light, blurring the lines between the two and making this categorical/ontological error that is supposedly '3rd party cited' and hence pushed out as legitimate. I'm afraid while you are correct about valid and reliable 3rd party sources, checked against the facts (unless reported as opinion's and views, not fact), you're not by alluding to me in a veiled way as trying to cast something under a positive light that is factually erroneous under closer inspection. That's ad hominem, and irrelevant. 'Baggage' of the first film is only relevant as a guilty-by-association ploy in conflating the two. There is quite a problematic issue here in fact: representing as 'fact' in an encyclopedia only what is 3rd party sourced, albeit an assertion that is even factually inaccurate and not even backed up by the source in question, which may indeed lead to false inferences by the casual readers. I'm afraid the reality has nothing to do with my being neutral to the promotion of a social movement, but that I am not neutral to the facts. Any decent journalist or researcher must check 2nd or 3rd party sources against the facts. "To most neutral observers, the movie was the initial thing that got the movement going and that has been written about and sited by outside third party or second party sources," this is rather like FOX news saying "A lot of people say (fill in the blank)" and "Most people think (fill in the blank)". Even if 'a lot of people' think something, such as the earth being flat, it is only correct to report this belief, not this fact, despite the plethora of flat earth 2nd and 3rd party sources out there. Quite objectively, the movement did not exist at the making of the first movie, and the second movie introduces the movement and calls for members. If every single rational argument and presentation of facts in a scientific journal required 3rd party sources, it would retard the ability to actually make rational inferences. It is quite clear that the creation of the movement follows its inception in the second film, not the first, and this is not an 'undocumented claim' or personal opinion. But in lieu of presenting rational inferences from facts, a reliable 3rd party source is required for a claim. That statement has neither: not only is it factually erroneous, but reading its so-called source (Huffington Post article) at no point do they actually state that "(Zeitgeist: the Movie is) the original 2007 film that helped inspire the movement". So while its the notion of good research, ethical standards and epistemology I'm really quite bothered by, and the idea that opinionated and problematic '2nd and 3rd party sources' can be presented as fact when they don't actually measure up against the facts, I don't even need to engage in that--the source doesn't show what the article claims, therefore its invalid. Now I'm sure there are factually erroneous sources out there, that can be used with the ambiguous language to misinform people as to the facts, and I can be told that I or anyone else concerned with properly representing the facts is engaging in bias or otherwise lacking a source, but for the moment that current part of the article is wrong no matter how you offer it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 13:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
202.7.222.243, for starters it is better to make your ideas concise and not get into a rhetorical polemic WP: Too long; didn't read: and your ideas have not gained any traction by repeating them over and over. As far as the actual issue in discussion the arguments you are using do not hold water if I can put it bluntly. En. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and can not be used to present an organization in some way that they either o.k. or veto, and members or hangers on of different social groups can not come here to present a biased view of information according to their opinions. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right about being more brief, not with regards to your continued labeling as 'not holding water' nor a 'biased view according to opinion'. The source from Huffington Post does not show what the article claims. This is unbiased and a high school essay would be docked points for this. Secondly, the movement objectively stemmed from the second film, not the first, this is not the product of opinion or a 'hanger on' of a social movement. These are not 'my ideas' but my analysis of another's unverified, un-sourced opinion. I'm afraid this is rather weak tea for polemic: in fact it's quite cut and dry. But you are right about brevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 08:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
In hindsight I find it interesting you're contesting this when the page itself calls that source into question. Read the source, check the facts. Find another source that actually claims the first movie was the catalyst for the movement, and then we can talk about the factual basis of that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 08:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources policy, "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". At present there are no translations provided. Given the controversial nature of the movement, and the dependence the article places on such sources, can I ask that such translations be provided so readers can confirm that the material is being cited accurately. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It appears to be very messy. It's been related to these "Utopianism", "Technological utopianism", "Utopian socialism", either someone does not know a lot about socialism, or they just felt like adding the appropriate link, or I can be misinformed, As far as I know; the TZM advocates an emerging society that is based on scientific and technological understanding of human beings and where we inhabit, based on mostly what Jacque Fresco envisions for a better society. I'd also be careful adding in "Utopia" seeing as that term is deemed unacceptable, due to TZM constantly saying that there is "No such thing as a perfect society", and mentioning an "Evolving society", they strongly support a sustainable society, as well as maximum scientific and technological advancement and a removal of politics, therefore it cannot be a socialist view, nor utopian. It would make more sense if it was linked as a anarcho-technocratic movement. I am tempted to make a change on that, but seeing as I am not an official user, I am just making a reasonable suggestion and would like to ask the community if it would make more sense to leave it as a technocratic movement. -- 82.34.155.229 ( talk) 18:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
"Who says it's "Utopian"? Third-party sources. That is what we base articles on." Surely not merely third-party sources, but third-party sources checked against the facts. There are third party sources claiming Hoover was a crossdresser...although come to think of it maybe he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 08:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Actually it is about checking it against the facts to ensure it's a reliable source. That's part of the process before other 3rd party sources are suggested in replacement. And I wasn't talking about 'facts', but facts. "Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance." I have no problem at all with the 'utopian' part, that's properly sourced. I will add a sourced response in time. In the future when I have time, I will make and suggest a number of changes, including the overall structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 11:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The current state of the article is missing some important goals and suggested methods on solving crysis. I refer to the German version, the scientific method. Images are missing, activism is missing. Eduard Gotwig ( talk) 11:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have a valid point, but Andy is right about third-party reliable sources. It is true that something may be blindingly obvious, yet an acceptable source may not be there yet, or another source may be used to claim otherwise. Fresco was into technocracy, so if you search around enough you'll probably find a source, and then you can maybe add a sentence saying Fresco himself claimed he was exposed to, or part of it, and then later put technocracy in the See Also section. I was reading the Objectivism page (Ayn Rand) and there is a lot that is directly derived from her own writings. Perhaps Fresco has some technocracy discussion in his own writings, or lecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 02:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Noted Earl, I will set up an account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 ( talk) 07:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Zeitgeist The Movie and The Zeitgeist Movement: Why are "movie" criticisms being placed here?
I have no idea why the criticism section is so focused on "Zeitgeist: The Movie" when not only does The Zeitgeist Movement website state the films are not related, also supporting nothing Zeitgeist: The Movie speaks of in any of it publications or lectures, The Zeitgeist Film Series Website also has no relationship. Is it not odd to conflate the two? Seems very poor and dishonest to posts these things as though they relate. Flowersforparis ( talk) 08:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Above all else, when expanding the article, please adhere to
Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The importance of this article might seem low to the movement right now, however be rest assured that the media does use Wikipedia to find balanced third-party reviews, if they are available. Do not underestimate the potential implications this article will have on the overall impression the general population will have of this movement, especially for those who are just aware enough to feel that they are interested in the idea of it.
siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 +
talk
07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Group # | Earl King Jr.'s version | My version |
---|---|---|
0 | The Zeitgeist Movement
Movement logo Abbreviation TZM or ZM Formation August 18, 2008[citation needed] Type Social movement Region served Global Key people Peter Joseph Website www.thezeitgeistmovement.com The Zeitgeist Movement is a grassroots, sustainability advocacy organization founded in 2008. Although founded by Peter Joseph, the movement claims to have no leader.[1] The movement has hundreds of chapters around the world[2][3] which advocate a "resource based economy". |
The Zeitgeist Movement
Movement logo Abbreviation TZM or ZM Formation 2008[1] Type Social movement Region served Global Key people Peter Joseph Website www.thezeitgeistmovement.com The Zeitgeist Movement is a grassroots, sustainability advocacy organization founded in 2008. Although founded by Peter Joseph, the movement claims to have no leader.[2] The movement has hundreds of chapters around the world[3][4] which advocate a "resource based economy". |
1 | The Zeitgeist Movement describes itself as a sustainability advocacy group based on the belief that the "monetary-market" economy can be replaced with a system in which the Earth's resources are allocated by the scientific method.[citation needed][vague] | The Zeitgeist Movement believes that the problems of worldwide contemporary society ranging from issues in politics, socioeconomics, and ecology must be addressed by a new system based on intelligent management of the Earth's resources.[5] |
2 | Members of the group believe in the elimination of debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive.[4] Zeitgeist members say the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt and needs to be replaced with a system based on efficient and careful resource use through the technological potential of sustainable development.[5][6][7] The Zeitgeist group advocates renewable energy and computerized automatic systems on a global scale to provide free food and other necessities and perform most of the resource allocation. [4][7] | The movement believes that humanity can transform into a high-tech and sustainable society with neither a need for money nor stratification of people by social and economic class.[5][6] The Zeitgeist group advocates renewable energy and computerized systems and machines (automation) on a global scale to provide free food and other necessities and perform most of the resource allocation.[7][8] The Zeitgeist Movement views these political, socioeconomic, and ecological aims as imperative for the long-term survival of the human species.[7] |
3 | The name of the group comes from the word zeitgeist and implies a shift in the current spirit of the times. The Zeitgeist Movement's origin was a reaction to Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008).[8] | Following the popularity of Peter Joseph's first major online film, Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007) launched on zeitgeistmovie.com,[9] people contacted him concerning what should be done about the issues it raised.[10] While Joseph in his works supported the views of then U.S. Representative Ron Paul, he views the political and economic landscape so corrupt globally as to be beyond redemption, necessitating a deeply reflective and fundamental shift in how humanity responds to the contemporary problems of modern society.[10] He was later introduced to Venus Project and its designer Jacque Fresco, a radical futurist with prominence in the media for more than half a century.[10]
Zeitgeist: Addendum in (2008) soon followed the original movie. |
4 | The movement used to be the activist arm of The Venus Project (TVP), which featured in the films Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (January 2011) as a possible solution to Earth's cultural and ecological problems,[6] but in April 2011 the groups split and are no longer associated with each other.[9] | The movement used to be the activist arm of The Venus Project (TVP), which featured in the films Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (January 2011) as a possible solution to Earth's cultural and ecological problems,[12] but in April 2011 the groups split and are no longer associated with each other.[13] |
5 | The movement holds an annual event, Z-Day, in March.[4][6] It was first held in 2009 in New York City.[5] | On Sunday, March 15, 2009, a large gathering of 900 approximately people in New York attended an education forum created by the Zeitgeist Movement.[6] Smaller events occurred on the same day across the world.[6] |
6 | The 2010 event also took place in New York, with "337 sympathetic events occurring in over 70 countries worldwide."[4] London hosted the 2011 event[10] and Vancouver hosted the 2012 main event.[11] The 2013 Main event is being held in Los Angeles at the Barnsdall Gallery in Hollywood.[12] | Z-Day is now an annual event in the movement, occurring every following March.[7][12] The 2010 event also took place in New York, with "337 sympathetic events occurring in over 70 countries worldwide."[7] London hosted the 2011 event[14] and Vancouver hosted the 2012 main event.[15] The 2013 Main event was held in Los Angeles at the Barnsdall Gallery in Hollywood.[16] |
7 | The Huffington Post,[4] The New York Times,[5] The Palm Beach Post,[13] Globes,[7] TheMarker,[6] VC Reporter,[14] RT TV[15][16] and Reason magazine[17] criticized various aspects of the Zeitgeist movement, specifically: (a) utopianism, (b) reduced work incentives in their proposed economy, (c) practical difficulties in a transition to that economy, and (d) subscribing to 9/11 conspiracy theories in Zeitgeist: The Movie. Peter Joseph responded to the criticism by saying that practical difficulties could be overcome and that Zeitgeist does not believe in utopia but advocates updating society's notions of economics and politics continuously, re-aligning them with new scientific and technical discoveries, while keeping workers motivated. According to Mr. Joseph there is no direct association between the conspiracy theories in the first Zeitgeist documentary and the movement.[18] | The Huffington Post,[7] The New York Times,[6] The Palm Beach Post,[18] Globes,[8] TheMarker,[12] VC Reporter,[5] RT TV[19][20] and Reason magazine[21] criticized various aspects of the Zeitgeist movement, specifically: (a) utopianism, (b) reduced work incentives in their proposed economy, (c) practical difficulties in a transition to that economy, and (d) subscribing to 9/11 conspiracy theories in Zeitgeist: The Movie.
Peter Joseph responded to the criticism by saying that practical difficulties could be overcome and that Zeitgeist does not believe in utopia but advocates updating society's notions of economics and politics continuously, re-aligning them with new scientific and technical discoveries, while keeping workers motivated.[5] According to Mr. Joseph there is no direct association between the conspiracy theories in the first Zeitgeist documentary and the movement.[5][22] |
8 | An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion described the movement as an example of a "conspirituality", a synthesis of New Age spirituality and conspiracy theory, asserting that Zeitgeist: The Movie claims that "organised religion is about social control and that 9/11 was an inside job."[19] The movement said that the article paints an "incorrect, misleading, offensive and defaming picture of the movement", and that the conspiracy narratives in the first movie are unrelated to the movement.[18] | The presence of the Zeitgeist Movement has been noted in various articles and papers. An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion described the Zeitgeist Movement as an example of a "conspirituality", which it defines as, "a rapidly growing web movement expressing an ideology fueled by political disillusionment and the popularity of alternative worldviews."[17] Despite comments suggesting that his films made "surreal claims", the videos and the movement have attracted people in the millions.[12][8] |
9 | In Tablet magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being "steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", and called the Zeitgeist movement "the world's first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity."[20] Zeitgeist said the accusations were "erroneous, pejorative, derogatory and intended to silence the movement's message", and that the movement does not blame international bankers, corporate leaders or politicians as individuals, but rather the global socioeconomic system that supports their values.[6] | In Tablet magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being "steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", and called the Zeitgeist movement "the world's first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity."[10] Zeitgeist said the accusations were "erroneous, pejorative, derogatory and intended to silence the movement's message", and that the movement does not blame international bankers, corporate leaders or politicians as individuals, but rather the global socioeconomic system that supports their values.[12] |
Consensus right now is that your edits are POV material the tone is non neutral Kmarinas86. The article attracts along with Technocracy articles, J. Fresco, Zeitgeist, Peter Joseph etc. loyalists of those groups that though well intentioned are so invested as members or hangers on that things start getting twisted from neutral presentation or bloated with minutia that reflects the groups ideas too much without critical thinking. Just a simple thing like making the lead information logo picture of the article too big becomes an issue. Why make that bigger than it needs to be for the article? Also the idea is not to grow the article, it is to present the facts and a neutral perspective on the subject. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
BETTER WORDING
In the summary of the 'Philosophy' of The Zeitgeist Movement it is stated 'a sustainability advocacy group based on the belief'. The word and term 'belief' has a specific meaning which is non-correlational with many anti-theistic aspects of the movement. A better (more appropriate for accurately conveying information) word may be 'idea' or 'concept' or 'practise' etc. 195.49.180.114 ( talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I had wrote several talk sections in the past on this page. They were all meaningful and to democratize this talk page. They were all erased by the Zeitgeist editors on this talk page.
However Wikipedia makes it history cannot be hidden:
If you read this then trace back to 2011 December. Notice all the criticism talk on the page? It is there for a reason. The reason is to show that there are many visions to one idea and many pages to a book, both negative and positive. However the talk section has been updated continuously and ideas and opinions removed. I consider this a blasphemy to the ideas of a free internet.
Zeitgeist should be criticized for its ideas. People have the right to know. If the idea is to establish a new system then that should go by finding a sponsorship, advertising, Facebook groups etc...
You cannot erase talk pages, they are meant for ideas to be spread. If you remove sections of a talk page then you're doing it wrong. And if the only valid reason is that it would be taking up too much space then I think that there should be a rule about that. Like removing data on every 1 Jan of the year. Unlike that, here we get the most precious criticisms removed so that Zeitgeist ideas get a positive connotation.
If you remove this i will start vandalizing the page for the sole purpose of it getting protected. You just can't and shouldn't and may not remove criticisms of Zeitgeist. When you're building an idea you want to get public support and it you get the readers angry then you're not on the bright path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.17.190 ( talk) 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussions about TZM - it is intended solely for discussions concerning article content. If you vandalise Wikipedia your edits will be deleted and you will be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
At two stages in the second paragraph it references 'belief'. Whilst the word has a common usage synchronous in some regards with idea, think, advocate etc. etc. in many regards, it is not appropriate. The movement itself is not belief-based nor does it advocate the utilisation of the belief mechanic. As an anti-religious member/advocator of The Zeitgeist Movement a discrepency is thus caused. Belief could be appropriated for other words which do not hold religious connotations. Could someone who knows what they're doing please do this as it would be much appreciated. 82.132.222.204 ( talk) 19:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The word belief has religious connotations since religions are belief-based systems (i.e. the utilisation of the belief mechanic), that is systems that consider the mechanic of belief to be a valid form of knowledge acquisition.
I hereby refer you to an article written on the subject of beliefs:
'The meaning of belief
To establish a common ground for the general concept of belief, I hold to the common usage of the term from the American Heritage dictionary:
Belief: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing; faith. 2. Mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as true; especially, a particular tenet, or a body of tenets, accepted by a group of persons.
Believe: 1 To accept as true or real. 2. To credit with veracity; have confidence in; trust.
In its simplest form, belief occurs as a mental act, a thinking process in the brain that requires two things: a feeling and a logical statement. To "believe" requires a conscious feeling of truth. To communicate what this feeling refers to requires some form of logical structure such as spoken or written language. Thus a belief requires a thought and a conscious feeling of "truth" which, according to neurological brain research, stems from the limbic part of the brain (discussed in the mechanism of belief, below). Thus, belief occurs as a thought with a feeling or emotion "attached." In other words: Belief= emotion + logic. Because belief requires emotion, it also represents a psychological state, not simply a mechanical thinking state.
In all cases, I refer to beliefs as occurring in an aware state of consciousness. Beliefs here do not refer to subconscious thoughts, or any mental activity occurring below the threshold of consciousness. Nor do beliefs apply to sleeping and dream states, or to unconscious habits, or instincts. When a person owns a belief, s/he consciously accepts their own belief. The degree of feeling to which one accepts their own beliefs, as valid, can vary from mild acceptance to certain absoluteness. Thus it would prove meaningless to say that a person has beliefs without them knowing it or for them to deny their own beliefs. Obviously, a person who does not believe in something, does not believe in that something; a person who believes in something, does believe in that something. Belief requires conscious acceptance.'
From the source http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm
Furthermore Wikipedia should be tending towards a more accurate portrayal of subject matters within its circumference, a simple change of wording helps illuminate a more accurate picture of the subject matter less afflicted with misappropriated wording, since it's representing a line of thinking, expressed through a movement, it should do it's best to clarify the intents of the movement without misportraying it to non-theists, anti-theists and otherwise non-anti-religious persons.
'How belief confuses arguments
In the mildest form of belief, that of acceptance without absoluteness, a speaker or writer could simply replace belief words with more discriptive words to avoid confusion.
Note that in most instances, one can replace the word "believe" with the word "think". For example:
"I believe it will rain tonight."
can transpose into:
"I think it will rain tonight." '
In addition The Zeitgeist Movement is not a sentient entity, it cannot think for itself and thus cannot fall prey to owning or accepting beliefs, only members of it can, adding a further inaccuracy to the use of the term. As not all members of the movement utilise beliefs, nor does the movement itself profess or advocate the utilsation of said mechanic it is inaccurate. A simple change of wording for gaining extra clarity cannot be a bad thing surely? 109.144.188.234 ( talk) 15:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello WikiFellows.
There is so much data not mentioned on this page about what TZM is and does that it is just strange. If this page is to fit the characteristics of a Group Biography, as per wikipedias standards, why do we not give it a comprehendible format that actually gives the reader a basic understanding of the interests and pursuits of TZM? Below is a re-write I have created which I would like to propose as a well needed update. Please review by section. I have take great time with this so please give it some thought. I have taken great care keep this concise and objective. I have only taken the official materials of TZM and added it, along with a balanced "response and criticism" section. Please note the sources.
THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT
The Zeitgeist Movement is a self-described Global Sustainability Advocacy Organization which conducts community based activism and awareness actions through a network of Global/Regional Chapters, Project Teams, Annual Events, & Media Work. [1] It currently has Chapters in over 50 countries [2] and seeks economic and social reform on the global scale, in the form of a new social system. [3]
1 Philosophy
2 History
2.1 Origins 2.2 Venus Project Split
3 Organization and Activism
3.1 Chapters 3.2 Zeitgeist Day 3.3 Zeitgeist Media Festival 3.4 Podcast
4 Media Coverage and Criticism
4.1 Positive Reactions 4.2 Criticism: Philosophy
5 External Links
-
1: Philosophy
According to Movement's official Orientation Guide, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to transition the global social system and economic approach to a “Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy”, defined as: “An adaptive socioeconomic system actively derived from direct physical reference to the governing scientific laws of nature.” [4] It views the Market Economy as “unsustainable” [5] existing as inferior in its efficiency, compared to a direct “technical” approach, which could enable a world without the need of money to meet basic human needs, solving many global problems, such as poverty. [6] The Zeitgeist Movement also sees the current socioeconomic approach to be an unnecessarily negative factor on public health. [7]
2: History
2.1 Origins
The Zeitgeist Movement was founded by filmmaker Peter Joseph in association with The Venus Project, featuring a call for social reformation in his documentary film Zeitgeist: Addendum. After the release of the film in 2008, the internet network and chapter structure slowly emerged. The first major event of The Zeitgeist Movement occurred to a sold out audience of 900 in New York City, months after the release of Zeitgeist Addendum. The New York Times described the event as “The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life.” [8]
2.2 The Venus Project Split
The Zeitgeist Movement in its original form was in partnership with a organization headed by engineer Jacque Fresco called “The Venus Project”. However, in 2011 disagreement over future direction occurred which caused the two organizations to disband, with The Venus Project breaking its association. [9]
3: Organization and Activism
3.1 Chapters
The Zeitgeist Movement is a self-proclaimed leaderless movement [10] operating in a network of Chapters. While maintaining a large online presence as well, a system of coordinators, teams and projects work to connect the Movement globally through mainly concerted events. [11]
3.2 Zeitgeist Day
The core public expression of The Zeitgeist Movement is it annual Zeitgeist Day or “Zday” global gathering. This annually includes one “main event” and parallel regional events.
[12] In 2009, the main event was in New York City
[13], along with the event in 2010.
[14] In 2011, the main event occurred in London
[15] Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)., 2012 in Vancouver
[16] and 2013 in Los Angeles.
[17]
[18] Hundreds of parallel events have also occurred each year in up to 60 countries.
[19]
[20] Notable attendees have been musician
Brandon Boyd from the group Incubus
[21] and Actress Michelle Rodriguez.
[22]
3.3 Zeitgeist Media Festival
Started in 2011, The Zeitgeist Media Festival is an annual socially conscious arts festival which conducts a Main Event each year in Hollywood California. [23] In 2011, the event was at the Music Box with a notable line up including Billy Gibbons and Natacha Atlas [24]. In 2012, the event was held at Club Avalon [25], including notable actor Rutger Hauer [26], best selling author Marianne Williamson [27] and others. The 2013 event will also be held at Avalon on Aug 4th. [28] As with Zeitgeist Day, many parallel international events also occur during the same weekend, in global unity. [29] [30]
3.4 Weekly Podcast
Notable figures and coordinators of The Zeitgeist Movement participate in a weekly podcast rotation via BlogtalkRadio. [31] This podcast serves as a core information base for global members.
4 Media Coverage and Criticism
4.1: Media Coverage
The Zeitgeist Movement has received notable international media coverage, including the New York Times [32], Huffington Post, [33] Globes, [34] The Marker [35] Russia Today [36] [37] [38] [39] Hollywood Today [40] and The Young Turks [41]. Reactions to The Zeitgeist Movement have been mixed and often controversial due to its association to the founder Peter Joseph and his critically acclaimed Zeitgeist Film Series [42], which is described as unrelated to The Zeitgeist Movement in terms of its tenets and goals, merely existing as an inspiration. [43] [44]
4:2 Criticism
Direct criticism of The Movement's officially published materials have ranged from claims of utopianism, to transition problems to a loss of work incentives. [45] However, the vast majority of extreme criticism towards The Zeitgeist Movement regards the personal expression of Peter Joseph in his first documentary film called “Zeitgeist: The Movie”. Tablet Magazine [46], the Journal of Contemporary Religion [47] and other outlets have targeted so-called “conspiracy” themes in their objections to The Zeitgeist Movement itself. However, none of The Zeitgeist Movement’s official materials since its inception, have made any recommendation of such “conspiracy” themes [48] and Peter Joseph, the founder and core spokesman, has commented numerous times on the false conflation of his personal work and The Movement, which he deems as either deliberately malicious by biased reporters or simply poor research. [49]
5 External Links
External Links: Main http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com Global Chapters http://www.tzmchapters.net Official Blog http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com Official Forum http://www.thezeitgeistmovementforum.org Zeitgeist Media Project: http://zeitgeistmediaproject.com ZeitNews Technology: http://www.zeitnews.org Zeitgeist Day Global: http://zdayglobal.org Zeitgeist Media Festival: http://zeitgeistmediafestival.org Global Redesign Institute: http://www.globalredesigninstitute.org TZM Social Network: http://tzmnetwork.com TZM Global on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/tzmglobal TZM Global on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tzmglobal TZM Global Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TZMOfficialChannel
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB17 ( talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 July 2013