![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
So one movie article has again been redirected Zeitgeist: Addendum to this article. The Zeitgeist Movement umbrella seems to cover it for sure. According to the Zeitgeist people information it is a part of the movement, a sequence at the end of Joseph's second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008), introduced the Zeitgeist Movement. The fans of the first two films became organized into the Zeitgeist Movement. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I remind people that any proposal to redirect the articles should be noted on the talk pages of the articles concerned, with a link to this discussion. I would have thought that this was obvious - bet evidently it isn't. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, but that predicate is not so. There is an active discussion on this page of that issue. If you care to go to those pages and put this section on the talk pages, but giving orders? No. The articles are probably going to be put into this article except maybe for the first movie. Mostly consensus is for that and other independent editors seem to go with that. I would caution you not to immediately make unrealistic demands as previously done, at the recent board. Already s.d.s. is doing exactly what he was doing before with baiting tactics. You never edit this article only make reverts which is your prerogative. If you are interested to do something yourself like going to those pages and telling people to come here, do so. Otherwise I remind you that you can not give orders to other editors and that the discussion of those article is being held here currently unless you change that instead of complaining. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit I made trying to bring neutrality to the article got reversed pretty quickly and I think it's totally unnecessary. If we look at the greenpeace page for instance it starts with the words 'Greenpeace is a' not 'Greenpeace describes itself as a' /info/en/?search=Greenpeace, a similar case for pirate party international, go check it out /info/en/?search=The_Pirate_Party. Secondly the first sentence states that it was created by Peter Joseph, the films were, the movement was not, I will however accept you keeping this in if you can cite it. I'm neutral on TZM, but I'm fed up of seeing this, quite frankly, sad behaviour on here. Be fair, IT IS a grass roots, sustainably advocacy movement.
This article on TZM is well referenced for the most part and have no qualms with it, but it should be neutral and state what IT IS and should also not contain that it was formed by someone it was not (prove it if you can, otherwise don't put it in). As for the edit I did which includes 'which focuses on science and technology rather than monetary and political interests' this is simply taken from the same wikipedia page on TZM but on a different language wikipedia so I believe it should be included to provide background to casual (none sad people with nothing better to do that constantly watch wikipedia pages being updated.)
I think this edit war can stop if it's brought in line in terms of formatting with other pages on wikipedia that talk about groups, but if you want edit wars, feel free to continue your sad little lives editing wikipedia pages to show a group of people in a negative light. You can't get time back and you're not getting any younger :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikalify ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2014
The other articles about the movies? In other words redirect those articles to this article. There does not seem to be much of a reason for keeping those separate movie articles. Some of the Zeitgeist members that edit here are still kicking about the first movie not being connected but that is a non issue as overwhelming sources, plus common sense says they are. It is bad form to bend to their will just because they form a presence here. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that the movie articles were redirected with no discussion on the relevant talk pages whatsoever, I have reverted. Any redirects will have to be justified vie WP:RS - i.e. evidence that sources discuss the movies in relation to TZM, rather than as independent material. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Consolidation is definitely in order. It might be better to merge the movie articles into one page to start with. Then, material about the movement can be included there as a section, and this article redirected there. Tom Harrison Talk 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The way to get started is to first merge the movies into one article. That should be relatively uncontroversial, if there's no consensus for more, then no more needs to be done. But there's no reason to have a different page for each movie. Tom Harrison Talk 10:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Many films are relevant to the movement's goals which advocate an Open Source social system without the market's concept of fair or equal exchange. Hell I could go to youtube select some TZM lectures without a including a film from the zeitgeist film series, burn it to a DVD, and it would give an accurate display the goals of TZM.
The goal by Anti-TZMers here is to merge "Zeitgeist the Movie" with TZM page, since the first film does not describe TZM's soultion and is more a personal film by Peter Joseph. It's an off-topic stratgegy. Spirit of the times ( talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Editors,
I just went through TZM Challenge and feel that its a section that must be added here. Here are some links that talk about that challenge:
[1] ,
[2]
Please share your views.
Thanks, Codenamefirefly ( talk) 05:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
O.k, the most popular idea seems to be to put the movie articles into the original movie. Zeitgeist the Movie. As far as it being contentious it does not seem to be except maybe by some of the Zeitgeist hangers on. As far as sandbox its probably a waste of time for people to discuss that being done and not doing it themselves. So someone, probably not me because I have done my fair share on these things, take some basic stuff from the movies and redirect then to the first movie. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 13:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with user: nagual design that this process be transparent. I highly suggest that anyone who is pushing for these changes create a sandbox for the proposed changes/new article so that a consensus can be arrived at in terms of what is to be included. There would be a lot of work to do here regarding content choice and the process should not be rushed. -- If someone doesn't know how to create a sandbox just look at the top of this page to the right of your username. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Part of the problem on the article is the power struggle between pro and con Zeitgeist people. If you look at the article history say from a year ago or two years ago you will see that. There are several editors here though that just want a neutral presentation of the group. Also people troll each other on the page especially recently. Its better if that stops now and just editing and discussion take place. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe it would be fair to make a clear distinction between the first movie and the actual cause of the movement. TZM has stated many times that the first movie, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, does not represent the real objectives and train of thought of the organization. Focusing on conspiracy theories is counter productive to a sane discussion of wether the proposal of the movement is feasable or not.
The objective of TZM is the same as The Venus Project Activist Movement which spawned after the TZM and TVP spilt. An Open Source society, without politics or supposedly equal exchange, the free market. Nowhere in the first zeitgeist film is that goal mentioned or laid out, it simply dismantles religion, says 9/11 is an inside job, and talks about bankers using the social structure to swindle more wealth into their hands. Only at the end does it say the one line "humans re-discovering their relationship to nature" ONE LINE. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 23:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
Is it okay when reliable sources lie intentionally/unintentionally? For example the quote where Peter Joseph says "moved away from" regarding the 9/11 attacks, he actually said (moreorless) "I've said enough regarding false-flag terrorism" which is different enough. Peter Joseph says this awhile back on a TZM radio show, of course only members would know that. But since an apparently "reliable source" says that's what PJ says, it must be true. My point is journalism is biased enough that you can select "reliable sources" so if a person wants they can paint a picture of a group in a negative way regardless of what's the reality or neutral.
Moving passed the "Zeitgeist: The Movie" false affiliation: The "Forest boy" reference is a blatantly lying, slanderous, biased, article yet for some reason is treated as a "reliable source", which seems needed to get the irrelevant "Political movement" label put on TZM. So sources which obviously lie are reliable? The answer would be Yes to people who hate TZM. taking the first quote of the forest boy article: "Robin Van Helsum, the Dutchman dubbed 'Forest Boy', who conned Berlin police into thinking he was a juvenile runaway, was inspired to travel to Germany by the teachings of the Zeitgeist movement that aims to destroy market capitalism." TZM started globally, not in Germany, and TZM does not have a physical location, Office, Phone Number, like Scientology, it's more like an educational hub. It started in the united states but is designed to be global, (since Peter Joseph set up the global website where he is). TZM doesn't plan on "destroying market capitalism", it views free or equal exchange as a fraud, a gaming strategy based on deception, like a wealth/gambling addiction which at the cost of someone's empathy, the market encourages a con-artistry. Again different since the quote seems to say "TZM want a violent political revolution". TZM doesn't plan on "teaching" since the hallmark of TZM actually is self directed learning, the truth is realised, not told. (unless reliable sources can prove brainwashing techniques are used to force people into becoming members of TZM) they put on lecture events (Z-DAY), but the content is realised by members to be true, So this article in a slanderous way says: "People who join TZM end up to be crazies, this Forest Boy article proves it". Lastly about me needing to publish credible sources before what I say has any value, that's an authoritarian attitude, some slanderous article can say: "every TZM member is a crazy forest boy" and get away with it since their a "reliable source" yet I get no say in the matter. okay then. So if you're saying sources that blatantly lie are "reliable" well the forest boy reference and the false affiliation to the first zeitgeist film should be kept. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
How is supporting blatant lies arrived at by consensus? The implication by the biased forest boy article is the typical trolling by TZM hate blogs, the idea that I'm a member of a cult, dangerous group, crazies etc. This wouldn't be outright slandering if it was actually supported by real evidence of cult behaviour, brainwashing techniques, separation from family, friends when they enter the cult etc. Sourcing biased articles is not true evidence. Supporting outright lies is anything but neutral. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 04:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Naturally if you check the Jared Lee Loughner TV piece it tries to link the zeitgeist movement to the apparent influence zeitgeist the movie had on him. This is what the "sources" say, when serious violence is actually caused by complex social stress, the idea that a movie will just brainwash someone to do violence is like an idea for a movie. So besides the exaggerations, there are people who think TZM are dangerous and do have an agenda to slander the group. There's a stream of hate/trolling youtube videos against the movement. And naturally, libertarians hate us since I don't advocate "self-ownership" since such philosophies ignore natural law. I've been called every negative label in the book, theosophist, Nazi, Communist, and the labels are designed to distract away from the message being conveyed by the movement. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 12:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Peter Joseph's Movies are not the movement, the TZM lectures can display what TZM promotes and there's now tonnes of lectures and 40min Q&A events etc, that are held to express what the movement is about. Addendum and Moving Forward yeah they display what the movement is about too, but that doesn't mean only those 2 films comprise what the movement is about. There's also "WILL WORK FOR FREE", an independent film by a TZM activist which covers technological unemployment. Does it have a third party article about it? Yes it does. The message being conveyed by TZM is simple, the free market, or any form of trade is violence. 'Natural Law' is not a vague term, that's like saying "gravity is vague, I think I can walk on the walls and disobey those laws". It's the legal system and the free market laws which are vague since they're made up pseudosciences, utopian concepts of perfect exchange. Instead of hot air opinions like TZM = the Flat Earth society as exaggerated before, look an article on TZM by a cult expert. The commentary on Jared Lee Loughner is obvious, "Zeitgeist: The Movie" or "TZM" impacts people and therefore makes them into violent crazies. This isn't said outright, it's implied with vagueness. Punishment or a negative social environmental brings out violence, and market competition is the greatest perpetrator of violence. There's no HQ because TZM isn't a cult, like critics want it to be, we host events, that's it. TZM Manipulated into existence? Really? Well I don't feel manipulated, as I said (or exaggerated) before, sources which prove TZM uses brainwashing techniques are used instead of slander. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC) |
It appears odd that the article in its current form takes only three sentences to describe the entire social movement. Adding what could be looked at as an inflammatory quote from Peter Joseph which adds nothing to the views of the movement takes up more article space than the three sentences mentioned earlier. As I am new to this sort of thing, how would more content be added? There is now a book "The Zeitgesit Movement", which looks really more like of a collection of essays, that could be an excellent source for more flesh on the bones, so to speak. Without more, the article fails to define the movement as well as it does the controversy which apparently surrounds it. A good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.27.25 ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2014
Some recent tagged aspects in the reception section of the article make it clear that the beginning of that section is not so good [17]. That area is the only area remaining from the original article from a year or more ago and it has never looked right. It is the laundry list of newspaper or internet news about Zeitgeist being this or that etc. It might be better just to remove that beginning part or edit the papers out or take actual quotes or summations from those sources rather than just listing them. Most of those citations are used multiple times in the article anyway so its doubtful that it would really lose anything if the beginning few sentences with that list of papers was removed or reedited a lot. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No doubt you would appreciate that but maybe you could have figured that out before adding the list of news groups that somehow have mentioned Zeitgeist things. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor expressed concern that a recent edit might not be neutral. This seems odd because in the previous edit he used the same article to make a quote [20] so had no problem with the article. He refers to Jew-baiting, that term as not being neutral, but the other editor did not coin the term Jew-baiting in regard to the first movie, the source that SomeDifferentStuff uses, uses the term. So to balance the article just a statement of the many bodies involved in the 'movement' is not really that descriptive while leaving out the critical perspective of the reliable source. The recent edit also gets at some other issues that are good to bring out now in the article for perspective. Again cited material. This is a reliable, well written source for perspective [21] One of only several in the article. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Its no wonder that your block record is so long and colorful. I wonder who will block you for what next. Ever consider your style to be ridiculously offensive? Your view of what they are does not count, right of left or left of right. You understand? The Ku Klux Klan is a legit group also. What better way to have a citation in the article than a group that probably embraced Zeitgeist initially as one of the own? So tone down the rhetoric. You could have fixed the article but you seldom edit just revert. A couple of words changes things. Wikipedia editing for angry sport? Stop. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
A movie a is not a movement, it's very simple what we advocate: we're against trading or the free market and favour of an open source society. Although the "reception" can call us names like "a cult" this is what the movement is about and promotes and should be displayed as such. Of course you want further misleading bullshit on this article since you want to confuse people as to what we're about. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 12:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This source seems bad for the article [24]. It is not really a news story from the Huffington Post, it is one of their contributors writing a fluff piece of what could be a topical filler for their paper, perhaps written for so many dollars per word for their in house writers. It is in the blog and forum category. After the article it says 59 people are discussing this article with 84 comments so that is really a blog/forum thing. It looks more like a Zeitgeist Forum post than anything. The article is better off without that citation. Opinions? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Andy. And if you really find the source that upsetting you can take it to RSN and get their thoughts. No reason to do that at this point. upsetting? No, just a poor source and if good sources are not around then the article needs to reflect that by trimming. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Realistically I'm trying to remove any neutrality regarding TZM and I desire strong negative publicity of them, but since there are no mainstream sources for TZM at all, the TZM article, the Moving Forward Article, the Peter Joseph article, should all be removed since I don't like TZM. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 06:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No to the blog. It's no different then WodPress or other blog sites as HuffPo does not actually endorse it. A WaPost blog written on the WaPost site by a WaPost editor is different than HuffPo's method of random contributors. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Calm down Andy. I have zero horse in this contest. I am not a right or left person. If someone mentions the John Birch Society in a legit article citation about this movie, I have no problem with that or the other antecedents of the movie. No point in white washing the movie into a song and dance about this and that according to the sources of their webpages and spokes people from the FAQ's material of the 'Movement', is there? Lets go where the sources lead us. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are you putting this information into this thread? Are you soliciting the many Zeitgeist supporters to go there and make negative comments? I think so. Bad idea. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The many zeitgeist supporters? Are you serious? There aren't many TZM supporters here, well 1 since I'm commenting.
I hate to see this article ruined by editors which seek sources which have a negative and therefore untruthful view of TZM, what we stand for is obvious, the recognition that the market system with its traditionalised notion of "fair trade" is a complete scam. Trading mathematically leads to inequality and therefore violence, and poor public health.
Will there be articles out there that have a destructive agenda to slander us because of a wealth addiction. Yes indeed. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Opinion (noun)
1. A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty "my opinion differs from yours"
2. A belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
I can say with certainty that opinions are scientific. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
How is TZM a political movement? They do not advocate change via the common political means and publicly condemn the electoral system. By their own self-description, they are a "social" movement and appear to fit that criteria more than anything. Bizarrely, the opening paragraph of the article even confirms this. Is reads: "The Zeitgeist Movement argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations but instead the scientific method should be employed to develop a society based on collaboration and a balance of technology and nature.[5]"
Therefore, they can't be political if this line is stated, in the traditional sense. The opening paragraph is self-contradictory. Why not change it so "Social" JamesB17 ( talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Pool collapsed due to WP:IDHT and WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Science which is the testing and discovery of how nature works, it's different from Politics. In science 1+1=2, in politics a large amount of people can vote to claim 1+1=5. I find the term "political science" to be contradictory, since you'll have a christian agenda being pushed through political means. Where's the evidence which establishes TZM as a political party campaigning for office? or is a lecture event or an art festival campaigning for votes? If TZM is in fact involved in politics there actually needs to be more reliable sources to establish this, not a biased article which claims what you want to be true. There needs to be more evidence, and I haven't seen it. otherwise yes you are misleading your readers intentionally. And no TZM is not redefining the English language, it actually takes note of the definitions of the words being used. Zeitgeist-Movement-Member ( talk) 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
how are they not political? In science 1+1=2, in politics a large amount of people can vote to claim 1+1=5. If I put on a big event, campaign successfully, gather votes for my 1+1=5 party, will that make me right? The reason why TZM advocates against the current culture of trading or property is because they're covert forms of violence, and therefore are in no way justifiable. There's nothing fair or equal about trading since it's about deceiving your opponent to get the better end of the trade, hence the unhealthy state of the rich towering over the poor is the direct result. Trading sure as hell isn't a science since it's disconnected from human and environmental health, all the monetary economists out there are con artists, plain and simple. Naturally people have gotten comfortable to these beliefs, and won't like science proving these most personal social values wrong. quote from Zeitgeist: Moving Forward: ""It's all in the genes": an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behaviour when that person is living in the freest and most prosperous nation on earth? It can't be the system! There must be a flaw in the wiring somewhere." Zeitgeist-Movement-Member ( talk) 01:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In science it's realised that 1+1=2, in politics you can vote and claim 1+1=5. That's a religious mob, not a calm realisation of the facts. No I don't want to introduce another type of politics, since all types of politics are insidious. I oppose politics since it's a religion, I don't "oppose current political ideas in favour of other political ideas". Science is not a "government", it's learning how to manage society through recognising natural laws. So a statement like "a science based (political) government" is a contradiction. The act of buying or selling is covert violence on 2 main levels: relative poverty: corrupt social values, wealth addiction, and absolute poverty: basic needs in danger/not met, so I don't enjoy those kinds of insults, I don't advocate bridges being bought or sold by me or others since it's covert violence. Zeitgeist-Movement-Member ( talk) 02:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
An insult is a display of something wrong with society. It needs correcting. A statement like "If you don't like 'insults', I suggest you stay out of politics" is itself an insult. Zeitgeist-Movement-Member ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
In the "forest boy" source 4 movement types are mentioned when talking about zeitgeist.
Radical Movement
Action Movement
Political Movement
Protest Movement
As a continuation of the article's slander against TZM, wiki editors settle on catorgising TZM as "political" when TZM in fact engages in zero political activism. (As wiki says "a political movement is a social group which operate together to obtain a political goal")
What are Political Goals? They'd be along the lines of gathering votes to get into office to therefore influence government policy. As a member of TZM I have no such goals.
Immediately after saying we're political the TZM wiki article says "TZM argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations" comically contradicting what was just previously stated which shows the "edit warring" which continues on this page.
This is only one source which is used to justify us as political, shouldn't there be more sources saying "TZM campaigning for office for changes to policy in government" No? Thought not, just say we're a satanic cult and be done with it. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 05:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping an editor here would step back from reverting cited valuable information for neutrality in the article. Before, the article said Joseph 'stepped back' from his conspiracy stuff, a supporter of Zeitgeist put that in the article. I modified the article to include a counterpoint by another journalist that says explicitly that Joseph had not moved away from his ideas and sourcing of the first Zeitgeist movie [33] the edit summary given by that editor is also confounding with zero viability concerning the edit. Weasel wording in the information? No balance to the statement from another source. It is very clear that Zeitgeist in general has never really 'moved away' from the first movie intellectually they are all connected. Please editor do not continue to remove information that is cited and notable and brings balance to the article, and please watch those inflammatory but most importantly not accurate of the edit information edit summaries. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A movie is not a movement.
The pursuit of the 9/11 topic has NOTHING to do with the solutions TZM advocates, which is to counter the destructive market system or the pursuit of property and trading, which is a utopian concept by definition since there's nothing fair or equal about trading.
One can only have a biased, slanderous agenda to push an association between 9/11 debate, and the zeitgeist movement. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 13:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahhh I see, the media wouldn't have any bias towards slandering TZM and deliberately misrepresenting us, TZM must be at fault for an inability to communicate its objectives. Yeah Sure. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 23:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy your edits at The Zeitgeist Movement, including your comments in edit summaries, your comments on discussion pages, are clearly willfull disruption to make a point. I guess the point you are trying to make is not shared by the other editors in the main here that another editor is not editing neutrally. You are slow mo edit warring and editing tendentiously against consensus on the talk page. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
TZM is an evil cult The End, k I fixed the wiki page. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 10:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
So one movie article has again been redirected Zeitgeist: Addendum to this article. The Zeitgeist Movement umbrella seems to cover it for sure. According to the Zeitgeist people information it is a part of the movement, a sequence at the end of Joseph's second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008), introduced the Zeitgeist Movement. The fans of the first two films became organized into the Zeitgeist Movement. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I remind people that any proposal to redirect the articles should be noted on the talk pages of the articles concerned, with a link to this discussion. I would have thought that this was obvious - bet evidently it isn't. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, but that predicate is not so. There is an active discussion on this page of that issue. If you care to go to those pages and put this section on the talk pages, but giving orders? No. The articles are probably going to be put into this article except maybe for the first movie. Mostly consensus is for that and other independent editors seem to go with that. I would caution you not to immediately make unrealistic demands as previously done, at the recent board. Already s.d.s. is doing exactly what he was doing before with baiting tactics. You never edit this article only make reverts which is your prerogative. If you are interested to do something yourself like going to those pages and telling people to come here, do so. Otherwise I remind you that you can not give orders to other editors and that the discussion of those article is being held here currently unless you change that instead of complaining. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit I made trying to bring neutrality to the article got reversed pretty quickly and I think it's totally unnecessary. If we look at the greenpeace page for instance it starts with the words 'Greenpeace is a' not 'Greenpeace describes itself as a' /info/en/?search=Greenpeace, a similar case for pirate party international, go check it out /info/en/?search=The_Pirate_Party. Secondly the first sentence states that it was created by Peter Joseph, the films were, the movement was not, I will however accept you keeping this in if you can cite it. I'm neutral on TZM, but I'm fed up of seeing this, quite frankly, sad behaviour on here. Be fair, IT IS a grass roots, sustainably advocacy movement.
This article on TZM is well referenced for the most part and have no qualms with it, but it should be neutral and state what IT IS and should also not contain that it was formed by someone it was not (prove it if you can, otherwise don't put it in). As for the edit I did which includes 'which focuses on science and technology rather than monetary and political interests' this is simply taken from the same wikipedia page on TZM but on a different language wikipedia so I believe it should be included to provide background to casual (none sad people with nothing better to do that constantly watch wikipedia pages being updated.)
I think this edit war can stop if it's brought in line in terms of formatting with other pages on wikipedia that talk about groups, but if you want edit wars, feel free to continue your sad little lives editing wikipedia pages to show a group of people in a negative light. You can't get time back and you're not getting any younger :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikalify ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2014
The other articles about the movies? In other words redirect those articles to this article. There does not seem to be much of a reason for keeping those separate movie articles. Some of the Zeitgeist members that edit here are still kicking about the first movie not being connected but that is a non issue as overwhelming sources, plus common sense says they are. It is bad form to bend to their will just because they form a presence here. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that the movie articles were redirected with no discussion on the relevant talk pages whatsoever, I have reverted. Any redirects will have to be justified vie WP:RS - i.e. evidence that sources discuss the movies in relation to TZM, rather than as independent material. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Consolidation is definitely in order. It might be better to merge the movie articles into one page to start with. Then, material about the movement can be included there as a section, and this article redirected there. Tom Harrison Talk 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The way to get started is to first merge the movies into one article. That should be relatively uncontroversial, if there's no consensus for more, then no more needs to be done. But there's no reason to have a different page for each movie. Tom Harrison Talk 10:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Many films are relevant to the movement's goals which advocate an Open Source social system without the market's concept of fair or equal exchange. Hell I could go to youtube select some TZM lectures without a including a film from the zeitgeist film series, burn it to a DVD, and it would give an accurate display the goals of TZM.
The goal by Anti-TZMers here is to merge "Zeitgeist the Movie" with TZM page, since the first film does not describe TZM's soultion and is more a personal film by Peter Joseph. It's an off-topic stratgegy. Spirit of the times ( talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Editors,
I just went through TZM Challenge and feel that its a section that must be added here. Here are some links that talk about that challenge:
[1] ,
[2]
Please share your views.
Thanks, Codenamefirefly ( talk) 05:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
O.k, the most popular idea seems to be to put the movie articles into the original movie. Zeitgeist the Movie. As far as it being contentious it does not seem to be except maybe by some of the Zeitgeist hangers on. As far as sandbox its probably a waste of time for people to discuss that being done and not doing it themselves. So someone, probably not me because I have done my fair share on these things, take some basic stuff from the movies and redirect then to the first movie. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 13:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with user: nagual design that this process be transparent. I highly suggest that anyone who is pushing for these changes create a sandbox for the proposed changes/new article so that a consensus can be arrived at in terms of what is to be included. There would be a lot of work to do here regarding content choice and the process should not be rushed. -- If someone doesn't know how to create a sandbox just look at the top of this page to the right of your username. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 11:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Part of the problem on the article is the power struggle between pro and con Zeitgeist people. If you look at the article history say from a year ago or two years ago you will see that. There are several editors here though that just want a neutral presentation of the group. Also people troll each other on the page especially recently. Its better if that stops now and just editing and discussion take place. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe it would be fair to make a clear distinction between the first movie and the actual cause of the movement. TZM has stated many times that the first movie, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, does not represent the real objectives and train of thought of the organization. Focusing on conspiracy theories is counter productive to a sane discussion of wether the proposal of the movement is feasable or not.
The objective of TZM is the same as The Venus Project Activist Movement which spawned after the TZM and TVP spilt. An Open Source society, without politics or supposedly equal exchange, the free market. Nowhere in the first zeitgeist film is that goal mentioned or laid out, it simply dismantles religion, says 9/11 is an inside job, and talks about bankers using the social structure to swindle more wealth into their hands. Only at the end does it say the one line "humans re-discovering their relationship to nature" ONE LINE. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 23:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
Is it okay when reliable sources lie intentionally/unintentionally? For example the quote where Peter Joseph says "moved away from" regarding the 9/11 attacks, he actually said (moreorless) "I've said enough regarding false-flag terrorism" which is different enough. Peter Joseph says this awhile back on a TZM radio show, of course only members would know that. But since an apparently "reliable source" says that's what PJ says, it must be true. My point is journalism is biased enough that you can select "reliable sources" so if a person wants they can paint a picture of a group in a negative way regardless of what's the reality or neutral.
Moving passed the "Zeitgeist: The Movie" false affiliation: The "Forest boy" reference is a blatantly lying, slanderous, biased, article yet for some reason is treated as a "reliable source", which seems needed to get the irrelevant "Political movement" label put on TZM. So sources which obviously lie are reliable? The answer would be Yes to people who hate TZM. taking the first quote of the forest boy article: "Robin Van Helsum, the Dutchman dubbed 'Forest Boy', who conned Berlin police into thinking he was a juvenile runaway, was inspired to travel to Germany by the teachings of the Zeitgeist movement that aims to destroy market capitalism." TZM started globally, not in Germany, and TZM does not have a physical location, Office, Phone Number, like Scientology, it's more like an educational hub. It started in the united states but is designed to be global, (since Peter Joseph set up the global website where he is). TZM doesn't plan on "destroying market capitalism", it views free or equal exchange as a fraud, a gaming strategy based on deception, like a wealth/gambling addiction which at the cost of someone's empathy, the market encourages a con-artistry. Again different since the quote seems to say "TZM want a violent political revolution". TZM doesn't plan on "teaching" since the hallmark of TZM actually is self directed learning, the truth is realised, not told. (unless reliable sources can prove brainwashing techniques are used to force people into becoming members of TZM) they put on lecture events (Z-DAY), but the content is realised by members to be true, So this article in a slanderous way says: "People who join TZM end up to be crazies, this Forest Boy article proves it". Lastly about me needing to publish credible sources before what I say has any value, that's an authoritarian attitude, some slanderous article can say: "every TZM member is a crazy forest boy" and get away with it since their a "reliable source" yet I get no say in the matter. okay then. So if you're saying sources that blatantly lie are "reliable" well the forest boy reference and the false affiliation to the first zeitgeist film should be kept. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
How is supporting blatant lies arrived at by consensus? The implication by the biased forest boy article is the typical trolling by TZM hate blogs, the idea that I'm a member of a cult, dangerous group, crazies etc. This wouldn't be outright slandering if it was actually supported by real evidence of cult behaviour, brainwashing techniques, separation from family, friends when they enter the cult etc. Sourcing biased articles is not true evidence. Supporting outright lies is anything but neutral. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 04:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Naturally if you check the Jared Lee Loughner TV piece it tries to link the zeitgeist movement to the apparent influence zeitgeist the movie had on him. This is what the "sources" say, when serious violence is actually caused by complex social stress, the idea that a movie will just brainwash someone to do violence is like an idea for a movie. So besides the exaggerations, there are people who think TZM are dangerous and do have an agenda to slander the group. There's a stream of hate/trolling youtube videos against the movement. And naturally, libertarians hate us since I don't advocate "self-ownership" since such philosophies ignore natural law. I've been called every negative label in the book, theosophist, Nazi, Communist, and the labels are designed to distract away from the message being conveyed by the movement. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 12:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Peter Joseph's Movies are not the movement, the TZM lectures can display what TZM promotes and there's now tonnes of lectures and 40min Q&A events etc, that are held to express what the movement is about. Addendum and Moving Forward yeah they display what the movement is about too, but that doesn't mean only those 2 films comprise what the movement is about. There's also "WILL WORK FOR FREE", an independent film by a TZM activist which covers technological unemployment. Does it have a third party article about it? Yes it does. The message being conveyed by TZM is simple, the free market, or any form of trade is violence. 'Natural Law' is not a vague term, that's like saying "gravity is vague, I think I can walk on the walls and disobey those laws". It's the legal system and the free market laws which are vague since they're made up pseudosciences, utopian concepts of perfect exchange. Instead of hot air opinions like TZM = the Flat Earth society as exaggerated before, look an article on TZM by a cult expert. The commentary on Jared Lee Loughner is obvious, "Zeitgeist: The Movie" or "TZM" impacts people and therefore makes them into violent crazies. This isn't said outright, it's implied with vagueness. Punishment or a negative social environmental brings out violence, and market competition is the greatest perpetrator of violence. There's no HQ because TZM isn't a cult, like critics want it to be, we host events, that's it. TZM Manipulated into existence? Really? Well I don't feel manipulated, as I said (or exaggerated) before, sources which prove TZM uses brainwashing techniques are used instead of slander. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC) |
It appears odd that the article in its current form takes only three sentences to describe the entire social movement. Adding what could be looked at as an inflammatory quote from Peter Joseph which adds nothing to the views of the movement takes up more article space than the three sentences mentioned earlier. As I am new to this sort of thing, how would more content be added? There is now a book "The Zeitgesit Movement", which looks really more like of a collection of essays, that could be an excellent source for more flesh on the bones, so to speak. Without more, the article fails to define the movement as well as it does the controversy which apparently surrounds it. A good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.27.25 ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2014
Some recent tagged aspects in the reception section of the article make it clear that the beginning of that section is not so good [17]. That area is the only area remaining from the original article from a year or more ago and it has never looked right. It is the laundry list of newspaper or internet news about Zeitgeist being this or that etc. It might be better just to remove that beginning part or edit the papers out or take actual quotes or summations from those sources rather than just listing them. Most of those citations are used multiple times in the article anyway so its doubtful that it would really lose anything if the beginning few sentences with that list of papers was removed or reedited a lot. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No doubt you would appreciate that but maybe you could have figured that out before adding the list of news groups that somehow have mentioned Zeitgeist things. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
An editor expressed concern that a recent edit might not be neutral. This seems odd because in the previous edit he used the same article to make a quote [20] so had no problem with the article. He refers to Jew-baiting, that term as not being neutral, but the other editor did not coin the term Jew-baiting in regard to the first movie, the source that SomeDifferentStuff uses, uses the term. So to balance the article just a statement of the many bodies involved in the 'movement' is not really that descriptive while leaving out the critical perspective of the reliable source. The recent edit also gets at some other issues that are good to bring out now in the article for perspective. Again cited material. This is a reliable, well written source for perspective [21] One of only several in the article. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Its no wonder that your block record is so long and colorful. I wonder who will block you for what next. Ever consider your style to be ridiculously offensive? Your view of what they are does not count, right of left or left of right. You understand? The Ku Klux Klan is a legit group also. What better way to have a citation in the article than a group that probably embraced Zeitgeist initially as one of the own? So tone down the rhetoric. You could have fixed the article but you seldom edit just revert. A couple of words changes things. Wikipedia editing for angry sport? Stop. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
A movie a is not a movement, it's very simple what we advocate: we're against trading or the free market and favour of an open source society. Although the "reception" can call us names like "a cult" this is what the movement is about and promotes and should be displayed as such. Of course you want further misleading bullshit on this article since you want to confuse people as to what we're about. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 12:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
This source seems bad for the article [24]. It is not really a news story from the Huffington Post, it is one of their contributors writing a fluff piece of what could be a topical filler for their paper, perhaps written for so many dollars per word for their in house writers. It is in the blog and forum category. After the article it says 59 people are discussing this article with 84 comments so that is really a blog/forum thing. It looks more like a Zeitgeist Forum post than anything. The article is better off without that citation. Opinions? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Andy. And if you really find the source that upsetting you can take it to RSN and get their thoughts. No reason to do that at this point. upsetting? No, just a poor source and if good sources are not around then the article needs to reflect that by trimming. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Realistically I'm trying to remove any neutrality regarding TZM and I desire strong negative publicity of them, but since there are no mainstream sources for TZM at all, the TZM article, the Moving Forward Article, the Peter Joseph article, should all be removed since I don't like TZM. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 06:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No to the blog. It's no different then WodPress or other blog sites as HuffPo does not actually endorse it. A WaPost blog written on the WaPost site by a WaPost editor is different than HuffPo's method of random contributors. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Calm down Andy. I have zero horse in this contest. I am not a right or left person. If someone mentions the John Birch Society in a legit article citation about this movie, I have no problem with that or the other antecedents of the movie. No point in white washing the movie into a song and dance about this and that according to the sources of their webpages and spokes people from the FAQ's material of the 'Movement', is there? Lets go where the sources lead us. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are you putting this information into this thread? Are you soliciting the many Zeitgeist supporters to go there and make negative comments? I think so. Bad idea. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The many zeitgeist supporters? Are you serious? There aren't many TZM supporters here, well 1 since I'm commenting.
I hate to see this article ruined by editors which seek sources which have a negative and therefore untruthful view of TZM, what we stand for is obvious, the recognition that the market system with its traditionalised notion of "fair trade" is a complete scam. Trading mathematically leads to inequality and therefore violence, and poor public health.
Will there be articles out there that have a destructive agenda to slander us because of a wealth addiction. Yes indeed. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 12:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Opinion (noun)
1. A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty "my opinion differs from yours"
2. A belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
I can say with certainty that opinions are scientific. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
How is TZM a political movement? They do not advocate change via the common political means and publicly condemn the electoral system. By their own self-description, they are a "social" movement and appear to fit that criteria more than anything. Bizarrely, the opening paragraph of the article even confirms this. Is reads: "The Zeitgeist Movement argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations but instead the scientific method should be employed to develop a society based on collaboration and a balance of technology and nature.[5]"
Therefore, they can't be political if this line is stated, in the traditional sense. The opening paragraph is self-contradictory. Why not change it so "Social" JamesB17 ( talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Pool collapsed due to WP:IDHT and WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Science which is the testing and discovery of how nature works, it's different from Politics. In science 1+1=2, in politics a large amount of people can vote to claim 1+1=5. I find the term "political science" to be contradictory, since you'll have a christian agenda being pushed through political means. Where's the evidence which establishes TZM as a political party campaigning for office? or is a lecture event or an art festival campaigning for votes? If TZM is in fact involved in politics there actually needs to be more reliable sources to establish this, not a biased article which claims what you want to be true. There needs to be more evidence, and I haven't seen it. otherwise yes you are misleading your readers intentionally. And no TZM is not redefining the English language, it actually takes note of the definitions of the words being used. Zeitgeist-Movement-Member ( talk) 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
how are they not political? In science 1+1=2, in politics a large amount of people can vote to claim 1+1=5. If I put on a big event, campaign successfully, gather votes for my 1+1=5 party, will that make me right? The reason why TZM advocates against the current culture of trading or property is because they're covert forms of violence, and therefore are in no way justifiable. There's nothing fair or equal about trading since it's about deceiving your opponent to get the better end of the trade, hence the unhealthy state of the rich towering over the poor is the direct result. Trading sure as hell isn't a science since it's disconnected from human and environmental health, all the monetary economists out there are con artists, plain and simple. Naturally people have gotten comfortable to these beliefs, and won't like science proving these most personal social values wrong. quote from Zeitgeist: Moving Forward: ""It's all in the genes": an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behaviour when that person is living in the freest and most prosperous nation on earth? It can't be the system! There must be a flaw in the wiring somewhere." Zeitgeist-Movement-Member ( talk) 01:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In science it's realised that 1+1=2, in politics you can vote and claim 1+1=5. That's a religious mob, not a calm realisation of the facts. No I don't want to introduce another type of politics, since all types of politics are insidious. I oppose politics since it's a religion, I don't "oppose current political ideas in favour of other political ideas". Science is not a "government", it's learning how to manage society through recognising natural laws. So a statement like "a science based (political) government" is a contradiction. The act of buying or selling is covert violence on 2 main levels: relative poverty: corrupt social values, wealth addiction, and absolute poverty: basic needs in danger/not met, so I don't enjoy those kinds of insults, I don't advocate bridges being bought or sold by me or others since it's covert violence. Zeitgeist-Movement-Member ( talk) 02:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
An insult is a display of something wrong with society. It needs correcting. A statement like "If you don't like 'insults', I suggest you stay out of politics" is itself an insult. Zeitgeist-Movement-Member ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC) |
In the "forest boy" source 4 movement types are mentioned when talking about zeitgeist.
Radical Movement
Action Movement
Political Movement
Protest Movement
As a continuation of the article's slander against TZM, wiki editors settle on catorgising TZM as "political" when TZM in fact engages in zero political activism. (As wiki says "a political movement is a social group which operate together to obtain a political goal")
What are Political Goals? They'd be along the lines of gathering votes to get into office to therefore influence government policy. As a member of TZM I have no such goals.
Immediately after saying we're political the TZM wiki article says "TZM argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations" comically contradicting what was just previously stated which shows the "edit warring" which continues on this page.
This is only one source which is used to justify us as political, shouldn't there be more sources saying "TZM campaigning for office for changes to policy in government" No? Thought not, just say we're a satanic cult and be done with it. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 05:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping an editor here would step back from reverting cited valuable information for neutrality in the article. Before, the article said Joseph 'stepped back' from his conspiracy stuff, a supporter of Zeitgeist put that in the article. I modified the article to include a counterpoint by another journalist that says explicitly that Joseph had not moved away from his ideas and sourcing of the first Zeitgeist movie [33] the edit summary given by that editor is also confounding with zero viability concerning the edit. Weasel wording in the information? No balance to the statement from another source. It is very clear that Zeitgeist in general has never really 'moved away' from the first movie intellectually they are all connected. Please editor do not continue to remove information that is cited and notable and brings balance to the article, and please watch those inflammatory but most importantly not accurate of the edit information edit summaries. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A movie is not a movement.
The pursuit of the 9/11 topic has NOTHING to do with the solutions TZM advocates, which is to counter the destructive market system or the pursuit of property and trading, which is a utopian concept by definition since there's nothing fair or equal about trading.
One can only have a biased, slanderous agenda to push an association between 9/11 debate, and the zeitgeist movement. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 13:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahhh I see, the media wouldn't have any bias towards slandering TZM and deliberately misrepresenting us, TZM must be at fault for an inability to communicate its objectives. Yeah Sure. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 23:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Andy your edits at The Zeitgeist Movement, including your comments in edit summaries, your comments on discussion pages, are clearly willfull disruption to make a point. I guess the point you are trying to make is not shared by the other editors in the main here that another editor is not editing neutrally. You are slow mo edit warring and editing tendentiously against consensus on the talk page. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
TZM is an evil cult The End, k I fixed the wiki page. Aeon-characteristic ( talk) 10:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)