Just another heads up of the sites out there from the Zeitgeist fans that have mounted an aggressive editing campaign on the article [1]
I think this one is already posted somewhere on the talk page also [2] There are several others. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really. I do not see it. If that is true on the Burning man page then it has lacked oversight also, Burning Man has no problem with listing all the ticket prices, event dates, bus costs, parking fees, etc. That does not seem right policy wise and sounds like an advertising site. It sounds like that page Burning man needs a clean up.
Also it is not an information page for those that are interested because its purpose is to document what it is with a neutral stance or to go where the citations take us. It is not an arm for information per se it is an overview of a subject that should not be a promo or banner of their own information. If people want that they can explore their web pages. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you guys know that I noticed this talk page was getting a bit long so I've set up automatic archiving of threads that have gone 7 days without a response. If anyone disagrees or feels that the page shouldn't be automatically archived feel free to revert, or discuss it here first to get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 02:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
OnlyInYourMind, As a single purpose or nearly single purpose account most likely called here to edit for your group, its a good that you examine things and not let other people have to try and follow such a convoluted approach like you are talking about. There are basic guidelines. You can read them. As a single purpose editor whose first and last edits revolve around Zeitgeist material you have to be really cautious to not show bias and keep the pov down to neutral 05:16, 28 April 2015 Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) (→Discussion on 'Documentary style': adding my 2 cents, your first edit to Wikipedia [3] There is nothing wrong with being a 'single purpose' editor but as remarked its a fine line from advocacy to being here to build an encyclopedia. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Earl King Jr. and Tom harrison: You've both claimed "too long" when you removed the {{ expand section}} tags from the synopsis sections of the 2nd and 3rd films. [4] [5] [6] I quoted WP guidelines in my edit summary: Documentaries follow the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. [7] Current synopses are close to 100 words. Can you explain why we should not follow these wikipedia guidelines? Seeing as you removed the tags to expand, I assume you would also revert any actual work toward expanding these synopses. Is this correct? And if so, why? OnlyInYourMind( talk) 20:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The information regarding events was removed on grounds of promo and paid events.
The article stated: Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival. Z-Day is an educational forum held in March since 2009 with chapter events worldwide. The inaugural Z-Day in Manhattan had a sold out audience of about 900 and included lectures from Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco.
Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Earl King Jr.:What do people think? Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@ NeilN, MONGO, and Earl King Jr.: Sorry, you've each reverted claiming "promotional": [8], [9], and [10]. Can one of you please explain how this is promotional? I would love to be on the same page here, but to me this looks like neutrally characterizing a group's main events. Is there some way we can objectively identify that something is promotional, or are we doomed to disagree 3v3 on the grounds of our own subjectivity? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind( talk) 02:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Only In Your Mind I would say that you are editing the article tendentiously and that you are a single purpose editor most likely called here by Facebook or one of the other Zeitgeist sites and your edits on the article reflect non neutral presentation and promotion [11] You are claiming consensus now for your pov when there was none. Looking at your edit history your first edit was Zeitgeist related and you have a new account, so it is assumed you are one of the people called here. It is o.k. to be a single purpose account but you have to be neutral. The ground you are trying to cover now is not going to be traversed. Editing tendentiously is a problem for everyone if you continue doing that. It was overwhelming consensus that put the movement article into the film series. Please read the page history of the movement article and the history of disccusion on related articles. Now we are probably going to put the separate section of the Zeitgeist movement into the rest of the article because the consensus among the neutral editors is that it is fitting to do so. Non of the editors here is against Zeitgeist in particular. They do get annoyed though when people try to insert a pov and edit tendentiously. Sorry to focus on you instead of the material which is usually the talk page way but better to say this now as you are agressively insisting against consensus for changes that are basically pro Zeitgeist. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That is not a good idea as you have no consensus for that action but are doing it anyway. The content was not blanked so that is a false edit summary and is also a problem. The consensus is, was, that that information is not now needed because it needed paring down because the information from the stand alone article was put in the film article. There is no need for an information box on the movement for instance. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You have apparently not read arguments of why the information is pared down. Do not re-add against consensus. The movement is only marginally notable and advertising them on Wikipedia is not a good idea. preserving what is referred to as advert promo has no place here. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29.23Removal_of_referenced_material_on_grounds_of_promo_and_paid_events -- apparently there's a discussion going on there about this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Moderated discussion is again in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It would be useful not to discuss the article here, because such discussions may be ignored, being centralized at the noticeboard. If you are not one of the parties to the discussion and wish to be listed, you may be listed. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Any editors at this article who are not currently participating in dispute resolution are invited to participate. I would like to get any new ideas. At this point, it appears that there is little likelihood of compromise, so that the most likely way forward is a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not slow-motion edit-war this article. If you have issues about content, it would be best to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and discuss them, and second best to discuss them here rather than slow-motion edit-warring them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There has been quarreling about whether the Zeitgeist movies should be called documentary, or documentary-style. Is a third Request for Comments in order, either actually to resolve that issue, or at least to provide a dedicated portion of this talk page for quarreling? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please look at the banners at the top of this talk page. Please heed the advice to be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia. It is not an optional nice-to-have. Also, interestingly, in controversial areas, it works at least as well as incivility. Some contentious editors ignore civil commentary, but they also ignore uncivil commentary. Some contentious editors ignore uncivil commentary, but actually listen to reason. Be civil; it works. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the definition: Mad conspiracy theories are absolutely an aspect of reality. Conspiracy theories exist, conspiracy theorists/believers exist, and this documentary documents those things from the perspective of a believer. Just like Michael Moore.
But the main point is that we don't get to decide. We have to put what the sources tell us. And every source that mentions a genre says "documentary". Only one source that I know of calls it a "pseudo-documentary". OnlyInYourMind T 00:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
In some cases, civility works better than invective or other invicility. It is true that it doesn't always work. I have not yet known of a content dispute that was finally resolved in one editor's favor because that editor resorted to greater incivility than the other editor. If multiple editors in a content dispute are stubborn, civility may not work, but incivility may not work either. In such a case, civil discourse at least has a neutral or zero effect on the editor. Incivility may have a neutral effect, in that it may accomplish nothing, but it may have the negative effect of resulting in a block. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It is time to stop the personal attacks. It is also time to stop the allegations of meat-puppetry, and to stop the allegations against Peter Joseph unless they are meet the strict standards of the biographies of living persons policy. Within a few days, the ArbCom will close the American Politics case, and will kick in discretionary sanctions, and disruptive and tendentious editors will be subject to topic-bans by a streamlined and draconian procedure, bypassing WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please check [14] Check Peter Joseph Wikipedia article. Not a lot of people watching that page. I think a source that is being returned might not be a reliable source. Some people pointing out that the interview could be faked if that is the right term [15]. It could also be that the person returning that link to the article is a part of the Zeitgeist editing block on Wikipedia because it is a relatively new account with the first edit being made to Zeitgeist material [16] It seems doubtful that the interview is a reliable source even if its for real as it is not a news item and the person purportedly doing the interview has no identity beyond the interview. Opinions on this related page? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we do not know who actually made the interview if that is what it actually is. No information on the interviewer is available. It does not seem like a reliable source it could have the baggage of having actually been produced by Peter Joseph. I don't know, but there is some speculation of that. For that reason and because it appears the person asking the questions may not be a real person at all maybe that information should not be used. Not sure it would even qualify as a primary source if it was staged. No actual information is available unless I am missing or could not find more about it in searching. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The statement that Eustace Mullins (in addition to Lyndon Larouche and Alex Jones) was a significant influence on the film made by a Tablet (magazine) writer, is this an allegation on the writer's part or an established verifiable fact? If there is no solid evidence to back this statement up and is simply an allegation, it should be qualified as such, considering Mullins was one of the most notorious antisemites and Holocaust deniers in American history. Same with LaRouche, though obviously he is nowhere in the same league as Mullins. If it is a verifiable fact, apart from the Tablet article, then of course there is no issue. Laval ( talk) 21:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The Goldberg piece has been one of the few notable citations and is reliable. The information from it is liberally used in the article because it has passed the sniff test here many times on the talk page. Though editors may think it is not fair to use it it actually is fair. If editors have some bias against the reliable source that should not spill over into claims here that it is not 'fair' or is biased. Mostly other reviews of the film express more or less the same thing as Goldberg. The film originally comes from extreme right wing sources, Alex Jones, Loose change, etc. our sources tell us it then became entangled with kind of a new age hippy movement aspect in the later films. Not sure how else to put it. I am just generalizing what the sources say. It became later a liberal cause celeb after starting as an extremist right wing perhaps conspiracy classic thinking content presentation. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its better the current people involved in the RFC's stop editing the article for a while (including myself unless there is some overwhelming reason, vandalism etc). A very large block of information has been added by one of the participants here and another editor is tweaking information that is still the subject of the request for comment. [18]. The Adendum information was a big volume of not sourced material. Comments? I reverted the large block of information without a source. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
With a controversial subject such as this all information even in the lead should, can be sourced. There is a crossover in the article about presenters of Zeitgeist information as opposed to Neutral pov. It seems like a bad idea for instance to make a huge unsourced synopsis of orginal research by some Wikipedia editor. Where does it come from? An editor here wrote it? This subject should rely on sourced info. not a large block of information with no author. Disputed and controversial are the cornerstones of the article and special care has to be used for sourcing, that does not include Wikipedia editors written synopsis without citations from another source. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Its controversial on the talk page and in real life which is why most of the synopsis at this point which is new and unsourced can be removed. It is made up by someone who has watched the film apparently a Wikipedia editor??? and it is not sourced to anything. The article presents many sourced views so what is the point of saying why does not the article present many views? The views that are presented are overwhelmingly in a certain tone. Whether people as editors like that tone or not is not an issue. The movie has overwhelming shall we say 'bad' reviews among the press, so the movie article should reflect that. After all as Wikipedia workers volunteers we should just put our reliable sources in and make sure the article is readable. Because of the high controversy of the movie the whole thing all sections including the lead need to be sourced to something. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is neutral because it is made by a Wikipedia editor who might present it a certain way. Citations must be used on this controversial article. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Because you think the article could possibly be on the same level of a CIA false flag operation I disagree -- I do not think anyone would be overwhelmed by this article. The reviews cited are unanimously negative. A group of CIA Mockingbird editors could not do a better job. What else do you want, Earl? Grammar'sLittleHelper. Guidelines provide a rough idea but at this article where it is shown a big influx of editors come from the group itself we have to go to greater care. Guidelines are only that. They are not written in stone. I did not write this message that is a part of the article but it was written when the large influx of Zeitgeist supporters arrived on the scene [20] How many times now Sfarney| have you implied some conspiracy in the editing of the article? I lost count. Also the sources have said The reviews cited are unanimously negative We are obliged to recount what the sources say. Its not the job of Wikipedia editors to sort through until 'positive' sources are found. Number one there are not a lot of positive things in the media about the first movie. Virtually none of the critical writing about it is positive. The extreme right wing aspect of it is written about in reliable sources that we have. This is not a plot by the media or the Fed or Bankers, Trilateral commission etc. to suppress the movies theories about planting chips or the American Union etc. it is just reviews on the movie that are extant. Using the movies claims get sticky as one part says, the 'answer' is joining the Zeitgeist movement and promoting its ideas. The article then is an extension of recruiting for the Zeitgeist company. The synopsis is way to picky and long. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems a better synopsis of the movie because it is cited [22]
In three parts, Zeitgeist (which has no credits) attempts to show that 1) Christianity is rehashed pagan sun-worship and is used by the rich and powerful to control people, 2) the 9/11 tragedies were part of an elite conspiracy, and 3) ever since World War I, the ultra-rich have been secretly manufacturing wars and financial collapses to control the populace and to get richer and more powerful. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Talk about content not editors. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please respond to content and not comment on other editors. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
"The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph." This sort of seems out of place in the lede. Rest of lede describes article topic, the film series. There is no preceding statement in the lede that mentions a movement. Additionally, the fact that someone trademarked something seems awful trivial. If it is somehow important, I'd recommend moving it from the lede to the portion of the article that mentions the movement. 70.36.233.104 ( talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a good citation to use for describing the Peter Joseph movement [23] There is not a lot of information in the article now on the movement or its psychological underpinning. This is a second or third party talking or interpreting Zeitgeist material. Opinions for using this in the article? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
‘TZM’s advocated train of thought, on the other hand, sources advantages in human studies. It finds, for example, that social stratification, which is inherent to the capitalist/market model, to actually be a form of indirect violence against the vast majority as a result of the evolutionary psychology we humans naturally possess. It generates an unnecessary form of human suffering on many levels which is destabilizing and, by implication, technically unsustainable.’ (Their emphasis) So, unless all they are concerned about is that capitalism is ‘technically unsustainable’, they too want to overcome the ‘indirect violence’ and unnecessary suffering that its ‘social stratification’ imposes on the ‘vast majority’.
There are other things in that article which could possibly be used also. Right now the explanation of their outlook in the 'movement' section is lacking basic info. hard to figure out, so maybe a source like this interpreting their ideas can work. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the Socialist Standard is a good source for the article and the writer is notable also. Pincrete would you care to attempt to integrate some information into the 'movement' area? Or anyone else? There is such a dearth of material in that section. Probably it points out just how insignificant this movement is from the lack of people writing about in the mainstream. Socialist Standard is about as mainstream as anything and it is an essay on the subject. The Huff post thing just had too much baggage as a blog. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
70.36.233.104, civility is required of 'Anon's as much as registered editors. 'No duh', calling someone 'Homeboy' etc. is uncivil and detracts from anything pertinent you might have to say. Pincrete ( talk) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@ JWilson092:; We are on a search for references about the Movement now. Please contribute to the list of RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 00:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks like saying someone is pissing on you or other name calling is not acceptable, saying another editor is whining or general derogatory behavior is not acceptable. You were warned about this many times now and you could be blocked from editing if you continue like that. You have been told, and I mean told not to use the talk page like an angst blog already and to comment on content and not other editors. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you are right about not expanding on the movement area. Yes the Huffington post blog is a non starter. Not a good citation so it is iffy why that is claimed as some kind of consensus that it is usable. The movement if one wants to call it that is probably not going to get its own article. The request for comments I think have failed to get a real consensus. The other previous RFC did have a real consensus and that was to put the movement article into the Film Series article. Because of the long drawn out aspects of the Requests for comment, they do not really give any direction. Next time around, If, there is a next time, I suggest the regular editors stay farther out from the debate and not comment on every nuance and just let other people have a say. I think we can toss out the Requests for comment. An editor also talked about separating out the movies for articles and the movement for a new article. Doubtful that is going to happen. Zeitgeist movement if it contains one paragraph that has some decent ref's might be about the length it should be then. So maybe lets forget about expanding it though I think the Socialist Standard essay is good and notable and can be used. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think its safe to say that Pincrete answered Andy's question about the significance and viability of using the Socialist Standard essay article and not using the Huff post piece.
Also disputing about a consensus on the RFC seems out of place. There is none. It will be removed from the page after a while as being inconclusive so we are back to talk page discussion on issues, unless people want to jump outside this box for another box [25]. Part of the argument now is that the article on the movement should have its own space as an article. No, I don't think so. It is just too insignificant. There are zero recent reliable sources about it. The old Newyork Times article is really the only one that sticks out as significant. Mostly awful criticism of the movie is about the only thing readily available, like the Goldberg piece. That can be mined for a lot of information but really the movement should stay with the film series as an afterthought to and spin-off. As a conspiracy cult movie it just has a very limited fringe appeal. If Facebook were notable then Zeitgeist would be a lot more notable. As it is its not except for the very zealous members that are mentioned in our reliable sources [26] My predication. Failed RFC's and just more discussion and hopefully arguments that are about content and not editors here with some resolution to issues. Thanks to some new people arriving here with something to say its going to make it easier. I hope. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Huffington Post has published several articles that mention the Zeitgiest Movement by notable professional writers. Let's review a few of them:
Travis Donovan himself is a former senior editor of the Huffington Post, and his article on the Zeitgeist movement is within a line-up of articles he has written about global ecological and economic problems, and emerging political movements, including:
... and a half dozen more, [34] each drawing hundreds of comments from readers. Donovan is notable in his own right and his former position with Huffington Post just adds shine. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 06:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, you cannot go to a RSN and then unilaterally reject its conclusions, some of Trevor Donovan's writing MAY BE legitimate opinion. Getting HuffPost accepted as a RS, would not anyway justify 'splitting', 'one swallow does not make a summer'. TO ME, relying so much on a single (blogged ?) article, simply advertises the lack of widespread coverage. Pincrete ( talk) 08:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
nb edit Conflict, inserted out of sequence Grammar'sLittleHelper, I believe that it was me (several days ago), who tried to gently point out that, IF people had gone to the RSN with specific text, they MIGHT have got a better answer. All RSNs are technically undecided, but there were NO endorsements of the use of HuffPost and an unequivocal refusal to give a 'carte blanche', (and quite a few unequivocal 'No's). The RSN asked several times for concrete text (they didn't get it), I, several times, have asked for concrete text (I haven't yet got it). All this 'heroic outrage', is as useful as a 'fart in a colander'. If you really want to improve the article, propose some text. Pincrete ( talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC) … … RSN here.
Just another heads up of the sites out there from the Zeitgeist fans that have mounted an aggressive editing campaign on the article [1]
I think this one is already posted somewhere on the talk page also [2] There are several others. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 10:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really. I do not see it. If that is true on the Burning man page then it has lacked oversight also, Burning Man has no problem with listing all the ticket prices, event dates, bus costs, parking fees, etc. That does not seem right policy wise and sounds like an advertising site. It sounds like that page Burning man needs a clean up.
Also it is not an information page for those that are interested because its purpose is to document what it is with a neutral stance or to go where the citations take us. It is not an arm for information per se it is an overview of a subject that should not be a promo or banner of their own information. If people want that they can explore their web pages. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you guys know that I noticed this talk page was getting a bit long so I've set up automatic archiving of threads that have gone 7 days without a response. If anyone disagrees or feels that the page shouldn't be automatically archived feel free to revert, or discuss it here first to get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 02:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
OnlyInYourMind, As a single purpose or nearly single purpose account most likely called here to edit for your group, its a good that you examine things and not let other people have to try and follow such a convoluted approach like you are talking about. There are basic guidelines. You can read them. As a single purpose editor whose first and last edits revolve around Zeitgeist material you have to be really cautious to not show bias and keep the pov down to neutral 05:16, 28 April 2015 Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) (→Discussion on 'Documentary style': adding my 2 cents, your first edit to Wikipedia [3] There is nothing wrong with being a 'single purpose' editor but as remarked its a fine line from advocacy to being here to build an encyclopedia. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Earl King Jr. and Tom harrison: You've both claimed "too long" when you removed the {{ expand section}} tags from the synopsis sections of the 2nd and 3rd films. [4] [5] [6] I quoted WP guidelines in my edit summary: Documentaries follow the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. [7] Current synopses are close to 100 words. Can you explain why we should not follow these wikipedia guidelines? Seeing as you removed the tags to expand, I assume you would also revert any actual work toward expanding these synopses. Is this correct? And if so, why? OnlyInYourMind( talk) 20:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The information regarding events was removed on grounds of promo and paid events.
The article stated: Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival. Z-Day is an educational forum held in March since 2009 with chapter events worldwide. The inaugural Z-Day in Manhattan had a sold out audience of about 900 and included lectures from Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco.
Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Earl King Jr.:What do people think? Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@ NeilN, MONGO, and Earl King Jr.: Sorry, you've each reverted claiming "promotional": [8], [9], and [10]. Can one of you please explain how this is promotional? I would love to be on the same page here, but to me this looks like neutrally characterizing a group's main events. Is there some way we can objectively identify that something is promotional, or are we doomed to disagree 3v3 on the grounds of our own subjectivity? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind( talk) 02:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Only In Your Mind I would say that you are editing the article tendentiously and that you are a single purpose editor most likely called here by Facebook or one of the other Zeitgeist sites and your edits on the article reflect non neutral presentation and promotion [11] You are claiming consensus now for your pov when there was none. Looking at your edit history your first edit was Zeitgeist related and you have a new account, so it is assumed you are one of the people called here. It is o.k. to be a single purpose account but you have to be neutral. The ground you are trying to cover now is not going to be traversed. Editing tendentiously is a problem for everyone if you continue doing that. It was overwhelming consensus that put the movement article into the film series. Please read the page history of the movement article and the history of disccusion on related articles. Now we are probably going to put the separate section of the Zeitgeist movement into the rest of the article because the consensus among the neutral editors is that it is fitting to do so. Non of the editors here is against Zeitgeist in particular. They do get annoyed though when people try to insert a pov and edit tendentiously. Sorry to focus on you instead of the material which is usually the talk page way but better to say this now as you are agressively insisting against consensus for changes that are basically pro Zeitgeist. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That is not a good idea as you have no consensus for that action but are doing it anyway. The content was not blanked so that is a false edit summary and is also a problem. The consensus is, was, that that information is not now needed because it needed paring down because the information from the stand alone article was put in the film article. There is no need for an information box on the movement for instance. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You have apparently not read arguments of why the information is pared down. Do not re-add against consensus. The movement is only marginally notable and advertising them on Wikipedia is not a good idea. preserving what is referred to as advert promo has no place here. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29.23Removal_of_referenced_material_on_grounds_of_promo_and_paid_events -- apparently there's a discussion going on there about this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 18:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Moderated discussion is again in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It would be useful not to discuss the article here, because such discussions may be ignored, being centralized at the noticeboard. If you are not one of the parties to the discussion and wish to be listed, you may be listed. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Any editors at this article who are not currently participating in dispute resolution are invited to participate. I would like to get any new ideas. At this point, it appears that there is little likelihood of compromise, so that the most likely way forward is a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not slow-motion edit-war this article. If you have issues about content, it would be best to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and discuss them, and second best to discuss them here rather than slow-motion edit-warring them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There has been quarreling about whether the Zeitgeist movies should be called documentary, or documentary-style. Is a third Request for Comments in order, either actually to resolve that issue, or at least to provide a dedicated portion of this talk page for quarreling? Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please look at the banners at the top of this talk page. Please heed the advice to be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia. It is not an optional nice-to-have. Also, interestingly, in controversial areas, it works at least as well as incivility. Some contentious editors ignore civil commentary, but they also ignore uncivil commentary. Some contentious editors ignore uncivil commentary, but actually listen to reason. Be civil; it works. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the definition: Mad conspiracy theories are absolutely an aspect of reality. Conspiracy theories exist, conspiracy theorists/believers exist, and this documentary documents those things from the perspective of a believer. Just like Michael Moore.
But the main point is that we don't get to decide. We have to put what the sources tell us. And every source that mentions a genre says "documentary". Only one source that I know of calls it a "pseudo-documentary". OnlyInYourMind T 00:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
In some cases, civility works better than invective or other invicility. It is true that it doesn't always work. I have not yet known of a content dispute that was finally resolved in one editor's favor because that editor resorted to greater incivility than the other editor. If multiple editors in a content dispute are stubborn, civility may not work, but incivility may not work either. In such a case, civil discourse at least has a neutral or zero effect on the editor. Incivility may have a neutral effect, in that it may accomplish nothing, but it may have the negative effect of resulting in a block. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It is time to stop the personal attacks. It is also time to stop the allegations of meat-puppetry, and to stop the allegations against Peter Joseph unless they are meet the strict standards of the biographies of living persons policy. Within a few days, the ArbCom will close the American Politics case, and will kick in discretionary sanctions, and disruptive and tendentious editors will be subject to topic-bans by a streamlined and draconian procedure, bypassing WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please check [14] Check Peter Joseph Wikipedia article. Not a lot of people watching that page. I think a source that is being returned might not be a reliable source. Some people pointing out that the interview could be faked if that is the right term [15]. It could also be that the person returning that link to the article is a part of the Zeitgeist editing block on Wikipedia because it is a relatively new account with the first edit being made to Zeitgeist material [16] It seems doubtful that the interview is a reliable source even if its for real as it is not a news item and the person purportedly doing the interview has no identity beyond the interview. Opinions on this related page? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we do not know who actually made the interview if that is what it actually is. No information on the interviewer is available. It does not seem like a reliable source it could have the baggage of having actually been produced by Peter Joseph. I don't know, but there is some speculation of that. For that reason and because it appears the person asking the questions may not be a real person at all maybe that information should not be used. Not sure it would even qualify as a primary source if it was staged. No actual information is available unless I am missing or could not find more about it in searching. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 11:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The statement that Eustace Mullins (in addition to Lyndon Larouche and Alex Jones) was a significant influence on the film made by a Tablet (magazine) writer, is this an allegation on the writer's part or an established verifiable fact? If there is no solid evidence to back this statement up and is simply an allegation, it should be qualified as such, considering Mullins was one of the most notorious antisemites and Holocaust deniers in American history. Same with LaRouche, though obviously he is nowhere in the same league as Mullins. If it is a verifiable fact, apart from the Tablet article, then of course there is no issue. Laval ( talk) 21:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The Goldberg piece has been one of the few notable citations and is reliable. The information from it is liberally used in the article because it has passed the sniff test here many times on the talk page. Though editors may think it is not fair to use it it actually is fair. If editors have some bias against the reliable source that should not spill over into claims here that it is not 'fair' or is biased. Mostly other reviews of the film express more or less the same thing as Goldberg. The film originally comes from extreme right wing sources, Alex Jones, Loose change, etc. our sources tell us it then became entangled with kind of a new age hippy movement aspect in the later films. Not sure how else to put it. I am just generalizing what the sources say. It became later a liberal cause celeb after starting as an extremist right wing perhaps conspiracy classic thinking content presentation. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its better the current people involved in the RFC's stop editing the article for a while (including myself unless there is some overwhelming reason, vandalism etc). A very large block of information has been added by one of the participants here and another editor is tweaking information that is still the subject of the request for comment. [18]. The Adendum information was a big volume of not sourced material. Comments? I reverted the large block of information without a source. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
With a controversial subject such as this all information even in the lead should, can be sourced. There is a crossover in the article about presenters of Zeitgeist information as opposed to Neutral pov. It seems like a bad idea for instance to make a huge unsourced synopsis of orginal research by some Wikipedia editor. Where does it come from? An editor here wrote it? This subject should rely on sourced info. not a large block of information with no author. Disputed and controversial are the cornerstones of the article and special care has to be used for sourcing, that does not include Wikipedia editors written synopsis without citations from another source. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Its controversial on the talk page and in real life which is why most of the synopsis at this point which is new and unsourced can be removed. It is made up by someone who has watched the film apparently a Wikipedia editor??? and it is not sourced to anything. The article presents many sourced views so what is the point of saying why does not the article present many views? The views that are presented are overwhelmingly in a certain tone. Whether people as editors like that tone or not is not an issue. The movie has overwhelming shall we say 'bad' reviews among the press, so the movie article should reflect that. After all as Wikipedia workers volunteers we should just put our reliable sources in and make sure the article is readable. Because of the high controversy of the movie the whole thing all sections including the lead need to be sourced to something. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that it is neutral because it is made by a Wikipedia editor who might present it a certain way. Citations must be used on this controversial article. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Because you think the article could possibly be on the same level of a CIA false flag operation I disagree -- I do not think anyone would be overwhelmed by this article. The reviews cited are unanimously negative. A group of CIA Mockingbird editors could not do a better job. What else do you want, Earl? Grammar'sLittleHelper. Guidelines provide a rough idea but at this article where it is shown a big influx of editors come from the group itself we have to go to greater care. Guidelines are only that. They are not written in stone. I did not write this message that is a part of the article but it was written when the large influx of Zeitgeist supporters arrived on the scene [20] How many times now Sfarney| have you implied some conspiracy in the editing of the article? I lost count. Also the sources have said The reviews cited are unanimously negative We are obliged to recount what the sources say. Its not the job of Wikipedia editors to sort through until 'positive' sources are found. Number one there are not a lot of positive things in the media about the first movie. Virtually none of the critical writing about it is positive. The extreme right wing aspect of it is written about in reliable sources that we have. This is not a plot by the media or the Fed or Bankers, Trilateral commission etc. to suppress the movies theories about planting chips or the American Union etc. it is just reviews on the movie that are extant. Using the movies claims get sticky as one part says, the 'answer' is joining the Zeitgeist movement and promoting its ideas. The article then is an extension of recruiting for the Zeitgeist company. The synopsis is way to picky and long. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems a better synopsis of the movie because it is cited [22]
In three parts, Zeitgeist (which has no credits) attempts to show that 1) Christianity is rehashed pagan sun-worship and is used by the rich and powerful to control people, 2) the 9/11 tragedies were part of an elite conspiracy, and 3) ever since World War I, the ultra-rich have been secretly manufacturing wars and financial collapses to control the populace and to get richer and more powerful. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Talk about content not editors. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please respond to content and not comment on other editors. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
"The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph." This sort of seems out of place in the lede. Rest of lede describes article topic, the film series. There is no preceding statement in the lede that mentions a movement. Additionally, the fact that someone trademarked something seems awful trivial. If it is somehow important, I'd recommend moving it from the lede to the portion of the article that mentions the movement. 70.36.233.104 ( talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a good citation to use for describing the Peter Joseph movement [23] There is not a lot of information in the article now on the movement or its psychological underpinning. This is a second or third party talking or interpreting Zeitgeist material. Opinions for using this in the article? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
‘TZM’s advocated train of thought, on the other hand, sources advantages in human studies. It finds, for example, that social stratification, which is inherent to the capitalist/market model, to actually be a form of indirect violence against the vast majority as a result of the evolutionary psychology we humans naturally possess. It generates an unnecessary form of human suffering on many levels which is destabilizing and, by implication, technically unsustainable.’ (Their emphasis) So, unless all they are concerned about is that capitalism is ‘technically unsustainable’, they too want to overcome the ‘indirect violence’ and unnecessary suffering that its ‘social stratification’ imposes on the ‘vast majority’.
There are other things in that article which could possibly be used also. Right now the explanation of their outlook in the 'movement' section is lacking basic info. hard to figure out, so maybe a source like this interpreting their ideas can work. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the Socialist Standard is a good source for the article and the writer is notable also. Pincrete would you care to attempt to integrate some information into the 'movement' area? Or anyone else? There is such a dearth of material in that section. Probably it points out just how insignificant this movement is from the lack of people writing about in the mainstream. Socialist Standard is about as mainstream as anything and it is an essay on the subject. The Huff post thing just had too much baggage as a blog. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
70.36.233.104, civility is required of 'Anon's as much as registered editors. 'No duh', calling someone 'Homeboy' etc. is uncivil and detracts from anything pertinent you might have to say. Pincrete ( talk) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@ JWilson092:; We are on a search for references about the Movement now. Please contribute to the list of RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 00:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks like saying someone is pissing on you or other name calling is not acceptable, saying another editor is whining or general derogatory behavior is not acceptable. You were warned about this many times now and you could be blocked from editing if you continue like that. You have been told, and I mean told not to use the talk page like an angst blog already and to comment on content and not other editors. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you are right about not expanding on the movement area. Yes the Huffington post blog is a non starter. Not a good citation so it is iffy why that is claimed as some kind of consensus that it is usable. The movement if one wants to call it that is probably not going to get its own article. The request for comments I think have failed to get a real consensus. The other previous RFC did have a real consensus and that was to put the movement article into the Film Series article. Because of the long drawn out aspects of the Requests for comment, they do not really give any direction. Next time around, If, there is a next time, I suggest the regular editors stay farther out from the debate and not comment on every nuance and just let other people have a say. I think we can toss out the Requests for comment. An editor also talked about separating out the movies for articles and the movement for a new article. Doubtful that is going to happen. Zeitgeist movement if it contains one paragraph that has some decent ref's might be about the length it should be then. So maybe lets forget about expanding it though I think the Socialist Standard essay is good and notable and can be used. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think its safe to say that Pincrete answered Andy's question about the significance and viability of using the Socialist Standard essay article and not using the Huff post piece.
Also disputing about a consensus on the RFC seems out of place. There is none. It will be removed from the page after a while as being inconclusive so we are back to talk page discussion on issues, unless people want to jump outside this box for another box [25]. Part of the argument now is that the article on the movement should have its own space as an article. No, I don't think so. It is just too insignificant. There are zero recent reliable sources about it. The old Newyork Times article is really the only one that sticks out as significant. Mostly awful criticism of the movie is about the only thing readily available, like the Goldberg piece. That can be mined for a lot of information but really the movement should stay with the film series as an afterthought to and spin-off. As a conspiracy cult movie it just has a very limited fringe appeal. If Facebook were notable then Zeitgeist would be a lot more notable. As it is its not except for the very zealous members that are mentioned in our reliable sources [26] My predication. Failed RFC's and just more discussion and hopefully arguments that are about content and not editors here with some resolution to issues. Thanks to some new people arriving here with something to say its going to make it easier. I hope. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Huffington Post has published several articles that mention the Zeitgiest Movement by notable professional writers. Let's review a few of them:
Travis Donovan himself is a former senior editor of the Huffington Post, and his article on the Zeitgeist movement is within a line-up of articles he has written about global ecological and economic problems, and emerging political movements, including:
... and a half dozen more, [34] each drawing hundreds of comments from readers. Donovan is notable in his own right and his former position with Huffington Post just adds shine. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 06:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Grammar'sLittleHelper, you cannot go to a RSN and then unilaterally reject its conclusions, some of Trevor Donovan's writing MAY BE legitimate opinion. Getting HuffPost accepted as a RS, would not anyway justify 'splitting', 'one swallow does not make a summer'. TO ME, relying so much on a single (blogged ?) article, simply advertises the lack of widespread coverage. Pincrete ( talk) 08:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
nb edit Conflict, inserted out of sequence Grammar'sLittleHelper, I believe that it was me (several days ago), who tried to gently point out that, IF people had gone to the RSN with specific text, they MIGHT have got a better answer. All RSNs are technically undecided, but there were NO endorsements of the use of HuffPost and an unequivocal refusal to give a 'carte blanche', (and quite a few unequivocal 'No's). The RSN asked several times for concrete text (they didn't get it), I, several times, have asked for concrete text (I haven't yet got it). All this 'heroic outrage', is as useful as a 'fart in a colander'. If you really want to improve the article, propose some text. Pincrete ( talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC) … … RSN here.