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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello all, It has become clear since I began to examine this page that a set of editors continue to dominate and work in tandem to assure no viable or even basic, neutral data, objectively noted, about the The Zeitgeist Movement is posted.
The patterns are: 1) All general content and gesture of the editorial is confirmed to a negative and/or highly ambiguous bias to the extend total confusion. 2) Any actual, official data on The Zeitgeist Movement, even for summation purposes is removed in favor of ambiguity to cloud any formal impression of The Zeitgeist Movement to a viewer. 3) Most of the 3rd party sources referenced are deliberately negative - even though more reputable articles are ignored. Event basic summation data which can be found in many articles, is ignored.
Whether one agrees with The Zeitgeist Movement is not the point. Sadly, the core edits clearly show their bias. "Earl Jr.", for example, frequently blogs on other wiki pages in obvious disgust of The Zeitgeist Movement. Others do their best to also continue what is a subtle attack on The Zeitgeist Movement's actions and intents JamesB17 ( talk) 00:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia Standard "Verifiability" is critical for a proposition to be considered true. Wikipedia states: "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." [1] Reliable means to: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [2]
It is here where this article is astray. For instance, the core "criticisms" noted are, by all comparative standards "Questionable", which Wikipedia defines as: "[S]ources...that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. [3]
Both the "Journal of Cont. Religion" articles and "M. Goldberg's" fall into this category clearly as they are heavy in bias ( conflict of interest) and, by comparative standards, entirely inaccurate and bizarre. These are deeply questionable and are "fish out of water" reactions" JamesB17 ( talk) 01:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no basis for the pov tag. Sources aren't chosen based on what a few random guys on the internet think is neutral; neutrality is determined by what the sources say. Tom Harrison Talk 12:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The article for TZM on Wikipedia is way to short and scarce of information in relation to the size of the movement. The facebook page has over 150,000 fans, there is an entire 300 page book about the movement, there are worldwide Zdays, Zeitgeist Media Festivals, public figures who address the movement,etc. The movement is something global and yet the Wikipedia page is minuscule. Whether one subscribes to the train of thought put forward by the movement or not, its dimension must be recognized and accordingly the page must contain more information about the movement. The entire point of Wikipedia is to provide information about a subject to those who seek it, not to place it in obscurity because there are certain individuals that do not share the ideas put forward by the subject in particular. So please let the editors do their job by placing more concise information about TZM, and a neutral standpoint in the Criticism section, which I do not understand why it has to be called 'Criticism' section, as the reactions provoked by the movement have been both positive and negative. -- PeachDinosaurShoe ( talk) 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Some editors are not allowing the ZDAY 2014 data. Note: Abby Martin, a listed reported on Wikipedia/ notable as well for being on RT ( also listed as notable) mentions this: http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/mcdonalds-drug-penalties-economy-710/ at the 21 min mark. Flowersforparis ( talk) 07:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I really don't know how all this works, but my impression is that AndyTheGrump and Earl King Jr. are a pair of bullies and the only thing Jr. is right about is that Flowersforparis is a sock puppet. I was considering donating money to Wikipedia because I trusted in its lack of bias, but I've changed my mind now. 83.34.103.253 ( talk) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)SalsaBelly
I agree, perhaps a sentence or two mentioning it, perhaps giving an overhead of the subjects talked about? Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 07:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Could either Ravensfire or AndyTheGrump explain why information from the movement's own website is not allowed? As I said before, Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE clearly states that own websites are okay for information about itself. If there is a problem with any other part of my edit, why remove the whole edit and not just the bits that are not good? Currently, this looks like a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV because only one side is allowed while there is a reliable source for counter-arguments.
What if I just added the info from the official website, leaving the conclusions up to the reader? Would that be okay? I cannot make any further edits before being blocked so I hope someone responds here on the talk page. -- Melarish ( talk) 18:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:Selfsource is meant for mundane or trivial things. Zeitgeist itself does not pass as a reliable source, and most reliable sources have a lot of criticism of the movement and its films.
Also view: WP:CSECTION. Criticism sections are to be avoided. Instead the analysis of third party viewpoints should be integrated into other sections. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal opinions aside though, mine is that the Zeitgeist movement is linked with its founders movie, the first one which is an assortment of N.w.O. Lizard gene conspiracy stuff, inside job of Mossad being involved, blowing up buidlings, secret financial groups, Bush family involved, etc. So, it seems like they themselves can say there is no connection to the 'Movement' but actually is there really a movement or is it mostly internet brainwashing? I know this is not a blog but it goes to show 'opinions' mine or others, even Peter Josephs are not to be trusted. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe a little bit of level headedness is needed here as people are not providing compelling argument for both sides. Just state why they're relevant, or do I need to remind everyone of something called Wikipedia:Relevance? Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 08:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
In the philosophy section it says:
The movement advocates the elimination of money and property
Private property is meant here (it's also the former term used at this place). However the movement only advocates for a certain extend of elimination of private property for the purpose of pooling products. For example if a person has some personal artwork, a coin-collection or anything alike it stays his private property (in contrast to for example a mine or a field). Things are cleared up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rBRnjV-xI Please somehow incorporate that distinction. -- Fixuture.member ( talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe a simple question should suffice, are there any reliable sources which clarify their positions that acceptable per Wikipedia Policy? Does everyone have to bite people's heads off here, I'm just saying. Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed this as I don't think it's a RS.
I'm thinking this isn't. I'm not sure though, and I'm not that familiar with them. Is it some blog, or some ideological magazine? I'm leaning towards removing it.
Too much reliance on WP:SELFSOURCE. I think as it stands, the self source policy is a bit vaguely worded. I will cite guidelines #5 however. Far too much of the article was reliant on those sources. Self sources should be used for mundane, trivial things, (eg. when Zeitgeist was formed). If you rely too much on them for writing the article, it gives them undue weight to their views, and how they would like to present themselves. We should rely upon the reliable secondary sources to dictate which are the most important aspects of the movement, and to rely upon their assessment of their views.
Which brings me here. WP discourages "Criticism" sections. I recommend removing the Tablet review entirely, then rephrasing the first paragraph which relies upon the NYT, Huffington Post, and Palm Beach Post, and moving it to the views section. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Even now, I checked, and 7 out of the 14 references in this article are Zeitgeist sources. That's far too much. These sources need to be replaced, or removed. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
From what I can recall per memory, I believe that all of those were sources that either a) describe what TZM is and b) responding to criticism via official organizational material and figureheads. I fail to see how any of such sources, which was agreed upon by everyone now disputing this (with the exception of the newcomers). Did something in Wikipedia's policies change that forbid such use of self-published material? Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 08:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
When discussing what the "Views" of the organization are, the current section contains both secondary and primary sources, both of which are appropriate. For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, [4] [5] in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library. [6] -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor an accurate description. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
User Harizotoh9 is complaining about too heavy use of self-sourcing. Now to make it clearer: what are you sourcing in a wiki-page on a book ? Most likely you're going to heavily source the book itself of course. (Example: Up from Dragons)
The same goes for this movement. In the part of the wiki-page ascribed to describing their core ideas you're going to have heavy use of "self-sourcing". The same is true for wiki-pages for all kinds of similar movements/perspectives such as Anarcho-Capitalism. Please go to that wiki-page and look up the references section and their associated text-sections. As you would expect most of them are of common representatives of anarcho-capitalist thought such as Murray N. Rothbard or Friedman.
I agree that TZM is a relatively new movement and still in very fluid/dynamic phase - however its main concepts should be described properly. And the best way for doing so is to refer to the book " The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" which was written by a variety of TZM members and serves (analogically speaking) as the movement's genetic code. Again, please first review other wiki-pages of similar type.
-- Fixuture.member ( talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Andy, what are you talking about? Original research is not an issue here as we have a source, and the fact that it's a primary is still in no way a violation of OR as there is no analysis or interpretation of the source.
You stated, "it would be far too easy to cherry-pick isolated passages from the Bible to prove almost anything." Again, what are you talking about? No one is trying to prove anything. The material in the Views section is representing the views of that organization, nothing more. Nowhere does it say that those views are accurate. We are using these primaries in a way that primaries are meant to be used, without analysis or interpretation.
Regarding why this primary source is necessary for a "neutral representation", I will repost what I've already explained: For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, [4] [5] in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library. [7] -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor an accurate description. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The first movie is, despite popular belief of many critics and apparently editors of this wiki-page, NOT related to The Zeitgeist Movement. The Movement was founded in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum and members of the movement often criticise the first movie etc.
Critique of that movie should move to its wikipedia-page: Zeitgeist: The Movie Such as this section that keeps getting added:
-- Fixuture.member ( talk) 21:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess that is your opinion, but probably someone elses opinion would differ. Is it just an odd coincidence that Peter Joseph called the first movie Zeitgeist and the movement Zeitgeist or the the subject matter about plots and schemes by secretive groups is used? Do you have any outside source from reputable sources that dismiss the connection? There is too much of a logical disconnect. Its like saying the Simpsons t.v. show did not have anything to do with the Simpsons movie or the old Zorro T.v. show had nothing to do with Zorro the Movie. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
"Zeitgeist" is a very generic term referring to themes and beliefs present in society. Which is a very wide topic and also changes with time. Earlier, PJ was talking about religion and terrorism, then moved on to economics and sustainability. Why he kept the same name - probably because he didn't realise he would change his mind about his earlier work or predict just how misused it would be by people who fail to do their research. Regarding your Simpsons example: South Park used to be all about crude jokes, now it tends to discuss recent events and political issues. They still do crude jokes but the point is that even things with the same name can be very different in their early and late days (not to mention countless bands that completely changed genres).
Reliable source about the change already mentioned twice on this Talk page: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0 -- Melarish ( talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The criticism is not in question, however the disconnection between the first movie and the movement is explicit on the movement's website, and this has to appear in a subsection 'response to criticism'. I can see no better source than the movement's website for such de declaration. Not including this statement is providing only half the truth, thus a biased point of view. Ukuk ( talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Since its so hard to find outside information on this article subject maybe we could post some links here to see if they are good enough to use or not. How about this one?
Anyone have others they would like to post and discuss? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
More to follow. -- Fixuture.member ( talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The current article looks a lot like Wikipedia:Coatrack, meaning it is superficially true and properly sourced but takes the focus away from the actual topic. Especially relevant is this section: Wikipedia:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
The way this criticism section is structured, having a bunch of sources listed at the beginning, is both unusual for Wikipedia and I'd argue in violation of WP:NPOV. It should list each source and what their criticism is in order of WP:Weight. I've also tagged Tablet Magazine with a weight tag. Please demonstrate why it deserves inclusion as it is not well known. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 07:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I would say that the two major focal highlights in the Criticism Section are abjectly biased and present a notable ignorance of TZM's actual, day to day work after 5 years. While the baggage and controversy of the first film might be pointful in passing, to construct the entire section around "M. Goldberg" clear contempt and arguably tabloid like sensationalized and provably flawed accusations; along with the "Journal of Contemporary Religion's" extremely un-contextualized criticism (which was also mostly derived from its objection to Joseph's first film) creates a deeply misguided perspective of The Zeitgeist Movement. Isn't Wikipedia about showing the general public the basic info? Isn't it something of a requirement to have articles related that show a general, informed understanding of the Movement's activities? So, I support the dispute. Whoever is keeping these criticisms in place on this page clearly operates in opposition to TZM, not objectively. This isn't about support of TZM's work. It is about basic objective data regarding what it actually does and why. JamesB17 ( talk) 06:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, I would like to point out a contradiction within the article's propositions. It states in the History section: >>The Zeitgeist Movement's origin was a reaction to Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008).[11]<< If that is so, then why all the ongoing hype about Zeitgeist: The Movie as the central theme in the Criticisms section? It would be different if The Zeitgeist Movement began due to Zeitgeist: The Movie. But that is not the truth. Therefore, the very basis of having such criticisms are flawed as well. JamesB17 ( talk) 06:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This section features two poor quality, biased, "fish out of water" reports, un-paralleled in gesture/conclusion than anything out there online, that fall in the policy violence of :"Questionable Sources". How about we include the other fringe report that The Z Movement is "New World Order" or "Illuminate". Alex Jones has written and spoken extensively about this. I see he is not included. Goldberg and the Journal of C.R. are exactly the same. JamesB17 ( talk) 05:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I just rolled back three edits, but my finger slipped and I hit the return key rather than finishing my edit summary, which should have erad 'You can't just say stuff, you need sources'. [8]. Sorry about that. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
IMPORTANT NOTE: (I have been away from Wikipedia for awhile to pursue activism so I have not been involved with TZM since late 2012) Having taken the time to read through this thread and similar ones regarding content being added I can say I am sorely disappointed by both sides in this. However, I do have to say that I will be reporting a certain individual who has had a history of goating people via edit wars. That being said, there is no rule condemning the use of responses to criticism that is published or put forth by said organization. Examples on Wikipedia Include: The Michael Moore, Austrian Economics, and even organizational material is being used to describe certain types of activities regarding annual events, Amnesty International is one that comes immediately to mind. That being said, what I find equally very interesting when asked a simple question regarding source use, AndyTheGrumpy can't take the time to answer what is the copyrighted material and can we use the material without the copyrighted information, instead he simply decides to start reporting people as if to shut down the conversation, sorry, just an observation. I thought this whole debate was settled back in January 2012-June if I believe. Why is this debate even happening again? Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 07:54, 6 April 2014 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello all, It has become clear since I began to examine this page that a set of editors continue to dominate and work in tandem to assure no viable or even basic, neutral data, objectively noted, about the The Zeitgeist Movement is posted.
The patterns are: 1) All general content and gesture of the editorial is confirmed to a negative and/or highly ambiguous bias to the extend total confusion. 2) Any actual, official data on The Zeitgeist Movement, even for summation purposes is removed in favor of ambiguity to cloud any formal impression of The Zeitgeist Movement to a viewer. 3) Most of the 3rd party sources referenced are deliberately negative - even though more reputable articles are ignored. Event basic summation data which can be found in many articles, is ignored.
Whether one agrees with The Zeitgeist Movement is not the point. Sadly, the core edits clearly show their bias. "Earl Jr.", for example, frequently blogs on other wiki pages in obvious disgust of The Zeitgeist Movement. Others do their best to also continue what is a subtle attack on The Zeitgeist Movement's actions and intents JamesB17 ( talk) 00:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia Standard "Verifiability" is critical for a proposition to be considered true. Wikipedia states: "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." [1] Reliable means to: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [2]
It is here where this article is astray. For instance, the core "criticisms" noted are, by all comparative standards "Questionable", which Wikipedia defines as: "[S]ources...that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. [3]
Both the "Journal of Cont. Religion" articles and "M. Goldberg's" fall into this category clearly as they are heavy in bias ( conflict of interest) and, by comparative standards, entirely inaccurate and bizarre. These are deeply questionable and are "fish out of water" reactions" JamesB17 ( talk) 01:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no basis for the pov tag. Sources aren't chosen based on what a few random guys on the internet think is neutral; neutrality is determined by what the sources say. Tom Harrison Talk 12:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The article for TZM on Wikipedia is way to short and scarce of information in relation to the size of the movement. The facebook page has over 150,000 fans, there is an entire 300 page book about the movement, there are worldwide Zdays, Zeitgeist Media Festivals, public figures who address the movement,etc. The movement is something global and yet the Wikipedia page is minuscule. Whether one subscribes to the train of thought put forward by the movement or not, its dimension must be recognized and accordingly the page must contain more information about the movement. The entire point of Wikipedia is to provide information about a subject to those who seek it, not to place it in obscurity because there are certain individuals that do not share the ideas put forward by the subject in particular. So please let the editors do their job by placing more concise information about TZM, and a neutral standpoint in the Criticism section, which I do not understand why it has to be called 'Criticism' section, as the reactions provoked by the movement have been both positive and negative. -- PeachDinosaurShoe ( talk) 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Some editors are not allowing the ZDAY 2014 data. Note: Abby Martin, a listed reported on Wikipedia/ notable as well for being on RT ( also listed as notable) mentions this: http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/mcdonalds-drug-penalties-economy-710/ at the 21 min mark. Flowersforparis ( talk) 07:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I really don't know how all this works, but my impression is that AndyTheGrump and Earl King Jr. are a pair of bullies and the only thing Jr. is right about is that Flowersforparis is a sock puppet. I was considering donating money to Wikipedia because I trusted in its lack of bias, but I've changed my mind now. 83.34.103.253 ( talk) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)SalsaBelly
I agree, perhaps a sentence or two mentioning it, perhaps giving an overhead of the subjects talked about? Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 07:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Could either Ravensfire or AndyTheGrump explain why information from the movement's own website is not allowed? As I said before, Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE clearly states that own websites are okay for information about itself. If there is a problem with any other part of my edit, why remove the whole edit and not just the bits that are not good? Currently, this looks like a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV because only one side is allowed while there is a reliable source for counter-arguments.
What if I just added the info from the official website, leaving the conclusions up to the reader? Would that be okay? I cannot make any further edits before being blocked so I hope someone responds here on the talk page. -- Melarish ( talk) 18:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:Selfsource is meant for mundane or trivial things. Zeitgeist itself does not pass as a reliable source, and most reliable sources have a lot of criticism of the movement and its films.
Also view: WP:CSECTION. Criticism sections are to be avoided. Instead the analysis of third party viewpoints should be integrated into other sections. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal opinions aside though, mine is that the Zeitgeist movement is linked with its founders movie, the first one which is an assortment of N.w.O. Lizard gene conspiracy stuff, inside job of Mossad being involved, blowing up buidlings, secret financial groups, Bush family involved, etc. So, it seems like they themselves can say there is no connection to the 'Movement' but actually is there really a movement or is it mostly internet brainwashing? I know this is not a blog but it goes to show 'opinions' mine or others, even Peter Josephs are not to be trusted. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe a little bit of level headedness is needed here as people are not providing compelling argument for both sides. Just state why they're relevant, or do I need to remind everyone of something called Wikipedia:Relevance? Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 08:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
In the philosophy section it says:
The movement advocates the elimination of money and property
Private property is meant here (it's also the former term used at this place). However the movement only advocates for a certain extend of elimination of private property for the purpose of pooling products. For example if a person has some personal artwork, a coin-collection or anything alike it stays his private property (in contrast to for example a mine or a field). Things are cleared up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rBRnjV-xI Please somehow incorporate that distinction. -- Fixuture.member ( talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe a simple question should suffice, are there any reliable sources which clarify their positions that acceptable per Wikipedia Policy? Does everyone have to bite people's heads off here, I'm just saying. Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed this as I don't think it's a RS.
I'm thinking this isn't. I'm not sure though, and I'm not that familiar with them. Is it some blog, or some ideological magazine? I'm leaning towards removing it.
Too much reliance on WP:SELFSOURCE. I think as it stands, the self source policy is a bit vaguely worded. I will cite guidelines #5 however. Far too much of the article was reliant on those sources. Self sources should be used for mundane, trivial things, (eg. when Zeitgeist was formed). If you rely too much on them for writing the article, it gives them undue weight to their views, and how they would like to present themselves. We should rely upon the reliable secondary sources to dictate which are the most important aspects of the movement, and to rely upon their assessment of their views.
Which brings me here. WP discourages "Criticism" sections. I recommend removing the Tablet review entirely, then rephrasing the first paragraph which relies upon the NYT, Huffington Post, and Palm Beach Post, and moving it to the views section. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Even now, I checked, and 7 out of the 14 references in this article are Zeitgeist sources. That's far too much. These sources need to be replaced, or removed. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
From what I can recall per memory, I believe that all of those were sources that either a) describe what TZM is and b) responding to criticism via official organizational material and figureheads. I fail to see how any of such sources, which was agreed upon by everyone now disputing this (with the exception of the newcomers). Did something in Wikipedia's policies change that forbid such use of self-published material? Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 08:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
When discussing what the "Views" of the organization are, the current section contains both secondary and primary sources, both of which are appropriate. For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, [4] [5] in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library. [6] -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor an accurate description. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
User Harizotoh9 is complaining about too heavy use of self-sourcing. Now to make it clearer: what are you sourcing in a wiki-page on a book ? Most likely you're going to heavily source the book itself of course. (Example: Up from Dragons)
The same goes for this movement. In the part of the wiki-page ascribed to describing their core ideas you're going to have heavy use of "self-sourcing". The same is true for wiki-pages for all kinds of similar movements/perspectives such as Anarcho-Capitalism. Please go to that wiki-page and look up the references section and their associated text-sections. As you would expect most of them are of common representatives of anarcho-capitalist thought such as Murray N. Rothbard or Friedman.
I agree that TZM is a relatively new movement and still in very fluid/dynamic phase - however its main concepts should be described properly. And the best way for doing so is to refer to the book " The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" which was written by a variety of TZM members and serves (analogically speaking) as the movement's genetic code. Again, please first review other wiki-pages of similar type.
-- Fixuture.member ( talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Andy, what are you talking about? Original research is not an issue here as we have a source, and the fact that it's a primary is still in no way a violation of OR as there is no analysis or interpretation of the source.
You stated, "it would be far too easy to cherry-pick isolated passages from the Bible to prove almost anything." Again, what are you talking about? No one is trying to prove anything. The material in the Views section is representing the views of that organization, nothing more. Nowhere does it say that those views are accurate. We are using these primaries in a way that primaries are meant to be used, without analysis or interpretation.
Regarding why this primary source is necessary for a "neutral representation", I will repost what I've already explained: For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, [4] [5] in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library. [7] -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor an accurate description. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The first movie is, despite popular belief of many critics and apparently editors of this wiki-page, NOT related to The Zeitgeist Movement. The Movement was founded in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum and members of the movement often criticise the first movie etc.
Critique of that movie should move to its wikipedia-page: Zeitgeist: The Movie Such as this section that keeps getting added:
-- Fixuture.member ( talk) 21:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess that is your opinion, but probably someone elses opinion would differ. Is it just an odd coincidence that Peter Joseph called the first movie Zeitgeist and the movement Zeitgeist or the the subject matter about plots and schemes by secretive groups is used? Do you have any outside source from reputable sources that dismiss the connection? There is too much of a logical disconnect. Its like saying the Simpsons t.v. show did not have anything to do with the Simpsons movie or the old Zorro T.v. show had nothing to do with Zorro the Movie. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
"Zeitgeist" is a very generic term referring to themes and beliefs present in society. Which is a very wide topic and also changes with time. Earlier, PJ was talking about religion and terrorism, then moved on to economics and sustainability. Why he kept the same name - probably because he didn't realise he would change his mind about his earlier work or predict just how misused it would be by people who fail to do their research. Regarding your Simpsons example: South Park used to be all about crude jokes, now it tends to discuss recent events and political issues. They still do crude jokes but the point is that even things with the same name can be very different in their early and late days (not to mention countless bands that completely changed genres).
Reliable source about the change already mentioned twice on this Talk page: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0 -- Melarish ( talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The criticism is not in question, however the disconnection between the first movie and the movement is explicit on the movement's website, and this has to appear in a subsection 'response to criticism'. I can see no better source than the movement's website for such de declaration. Not including this statement is providing only half the truth, thus a biased point of view. Ukuk ( talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Since its so hard to find outside information on this article subject maybe we could post some links here to see if they are good enough to use or not. How about this one?
Anyone have others they would like to post and discuss? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
More to follow. -- Fixuture.member ( talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The current article looks a lot like Wikipedia:Coatrack, meaning it is superficially true and properly sourced but takes the focus away from the actual topic. Especially relevant is this section: Wikipedia:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22
Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
The way this criticism section is structured, having a bunch of sources listed at the beginning, is both unusual for Wikipedia and I'd argue in violation of WP:NPOV. It should list each source and what their criticism is in order of WP:Weight. I've also tagged Tablet Magazine with a weight tag. Please demonstrate why it deserves inclusion as it is not well known. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 07:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I would say that the two major focal highlights in the Criticism Section are abjectly biased and present a notable ignorance of TZM's actual, day to day work after 5 years. While the baggage and controversy of the first film might be pointful in passing, to construct the entire section around "M. Goldberg" clear contempt and arguably tabloid like sensationalized and provably flawed accusations; along with the "Journal of Contemporary Religion's" extremely un-contextualized criticism (which was also mostly derived from its objection to Joseph's first film) creates a deeply misguided perspective of The Zeitgeist Movement. Isn't Wikipedia about showing the general public the basic info? Isn't it something of a requirement to have articles related that show a general, informed understanding of the Movement's activities? So, I support the dispute. Whoever is keeping these criticisms in place on this page clearly operates in opposition to TZM, not objectively. This isn't about support of TZM's work. It is about basic objective data regarding what it actually does and why. JamesB17 ( talk) 06:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, I would like to point out a contradiction within the article's propositions. It states in the History section: >>The Zeitgeist Movement's origin was a reaction to Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008).[11]<< If that is so, then why all the ongoing hype about Zeitgeist: The Movie as the central theme in the Criticisms section? It would be different if The Zeitgeist Movement began due to Zeitgeist: The Movie. But that is not the truth. Therefore, the very basis of having such criticisms are flawed as well. JamesB17 ( talk) 06:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This section features two poor quality, biased, "fish out of water" reports, un-paralleled in gesture/conclusion than anything out there online, that fall in the policy violence of :"Questionable Sources". How about we include the other fringe report that The Z Movement is "New World Order" or "Illuminate". Alex Jones has written and spoken extensively about this. I see he is not included. Goldberg and the Journal of C.R. are exactly the same. JamesB17 ( talk) 05:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I just rolled back three edits, but my finger slipped and I hit the return key rather than finishing my edit summary, which should have erad 'You can't just say stuff, you need sources'. [8]. Sorry about that. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
IMPORTANT NOTE: (I have been away from Wikipedia for awhile to pursue activism so I have not been involved with TZM since late 2012) Having taken the time to read through this thread and similar ones regarding content being added I can say I am sorely disappointed by both sides in this. However, I do have to say that I will be reporting a certain individual who has had a history of goating people via edit wars. That being said, there is no rule condemning the use of responses to criticism that is published or put forth by said organization. Examples on Wikipedia Include: The Michael Moore, Austrian Economics, and even organizational material is being used to describe certain types of activities regarding annual events, Amnesty International is one that comes immediately to mind. That being said, what I find equally very interesting when asked a simple question regarding source use, AndyTheGrumpy can't take the time to answer what is the copyrighted material and can we use the material without the copyrighted information, instead he simply decides to start reporting people as if to shut down the conversation, sorry, just an observation. I thought this whole debate was settled back in January 2012-June if I believe. Why is this debate even happening again? Reason and Logic shall always prevail ( talk) 07:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)