Talk:Money as Debt

Bankers deletion bot?

Wow, that was fast. I never got a speedy deletion tag seconds after I created any article. What's with all the hate? This is a very interesting film about a VERY notable subject, ie: your MONEY.

It is also quite notable in many communties (also 1.6 million google hits), and have been viewed by almost one quarter MILLION people on youtube alone. This documentary is part of a growing culture of "awaken" individuals seeing the system for the first time.. one of the famous ones.

personally I find it funny that humanity has been asleep for so long regarding the very concept of Money that seems to be anywhere...:)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any "hate" involved. Don't assume that anyone you think is mistaken is acting out of malice. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is about web content. However, even a number of hits in the billions would be meaningless without third-party coverage. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just silly. billions of views IS third party participation. There's no need to abuse the beurocratic process of wikipedia, let's not forget what THIS platform is all about. anyway,I added some "citations". (took me 20 seconds in google).--Procrastinating@^talk2me 15:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia's notability criteria refer not to "third party participation" but to third party coverage, which is quite different.
2. At the time of the above post Diza had not, in fact, added any citations. However, six minutes later he/she did so, and yes, they did indeed look exactly as though they had been added in a hurry from Google: not one of them was from a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be absurd to delete this article. It says so little about so much. Improve, expand, reference, many things. But delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.6.91 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Sorry it took 6 minutes, it actually took the human-deletion-bots less than that from inception of a new article to tagging it for destruction. I'm all for creating knowledge, but it seems like the VAST majority of people (to my surprise, even the geeks at the wikipedia) are not just completely oblivious, but seems rather timid of finding out for them selves novel info about the mechanism of the system that has enslaved us. Knowledge is power, so More power to us! Thanks for all the good people who helped expand this article into a suitable nugget :)--Diza@^talk2me 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Reference Off Topic

"It was created within the growing Internet culture that has created films such as Zeitgeist, the Movie..."

Is this work in any way related to Zeitgeist? I think this particular comment is off topic and not related to "Money as Debt". I do agree that the article should be kept, but I'm unsure what this zeitgeist reference is about? Can we just remove this comment entirely? Retrogradeorbit (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"It was created within the growing Internet culture that has created films such as Zeitgeist, the Movie, and partly as a response to the global economic crisis of 2008."

Whow! They responded to the 2008 crisis six years before it happened! By time-warp? 79.217.227.179 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

haha. The second film was published at 2009. I've rectified the wording.--Namaste@^? 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Radical Teacher article

I removed the link to the Radical Teacher article. The whole article can apparently be found here. It's useless as a source or for further reading - it only contains one and half sentences about the film: With particular pleasure I included a captivating, provocative, and freely available animated history of money by Canadian artist and activist Paul Grignon (Money as Debt). ... most students wrote vague summaries of the first film by Grignon

Tommas Jefferson Quote

He had a genius quote, before he died bankrupt, and has his estate solf to pay of international personal debt

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

It is mentioned in the film, maong other things, I think It'll be great to incorporate it in the article somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.56.193 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Like the rest of the film, the quote is bullshit: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp Took one second on Google to find out. Chrisahn (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds more like Franklin to me in any case. :-) Yworo (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Misattributed Chrisahn (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mayer Amschel Rothschild quote

Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!

Attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 - 1812). No primary source for this is known and the earliest attribution to him known is 1935.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Money#Misattributed

Chrisahn (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Having the earliest source for this man 80 years ago, and more than a century after his death, is as auspicious as saying the Jesus did not say anything that has been attributed to him CENTURIES after his demise. This is a spin, and detracts from the issue at hand. The rotchild's wealth stems from the same paradigm, much like the rest of the super-eilte. Again, for centuries--Namaste@^? 12:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin quote

Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:

The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the revolutionary war.

sometimes cited as being from Franklin's autobiography, but this statement was never in any edition.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Misattributed

Chrisahn (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This could be discussed in the article, even! Saebvn (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be WP:OR? Or am I being too apprehensive? Chrisahn (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This "quote" and the Wilson "quote" (in particular the Wilson quote!) are often used by anti-Fed sites and find their way into various publications and books. Even when it's pointed out to them, heels get dug in, ears covered and an utter refusal to view any evidence to the contrary. See Talk:Federal Reserve Act for some outstanding examples. Should it be mentioned here? Probably not. I think we'd need a secodary source commenting about those quotes being used in Money as Debt and that the quotes are fabricated or falsely attributed. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the presumption that the exact quotation have evolved through the ages, the concept is not just historically correct but consistent with the author's original agenda. Besides, how can one attribute an exact phrasing for people that had been dead for centuries.. This kind of argument is auspicious at best --Namaste@^? 12:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson quote

Another bogus 'quote' used in the film:

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world, no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

The quotation is fabricated from out-of-context remarks Wilson made on separate occasions and two leading sentences that have no clear source.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Misattributed

Chrisahn (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia's own ambiguity on the source, is not a source of it's own.

I have seen this quoted being "misattributed" on TV and other place numerous times. I do wonder what is considered a reliable source, for someone who's been dead for centuries. The essence of spirit is certainly embodied in these statements, regardless of how exactly they were originally said, which is disputed anyways. (by idealogically motivated authoritarians). Point being, it helps to elucidate the issue. If you got a better quote I dare you produce it. :) --Namaste@^? 15:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

For the Wilson quote, it's actually pretty easy to show it's a fabrication. There's a lot of information out there from Wilson's speeches, debates and of course his books. If you search for this quote, you find it in quotation pages and various anti-tax / anti-fed pages, but that's it. You don't find it in Wilson's writings. If you start to pull it apart, you find parts of it are actually Wilson's words (albiet from several different places put together), but the intro is pure fantasy. I think the Federal Reserve Act talk page has a good breakdown of how it's faked. The Wikiquote page has an excellent breakdown as well.

Many times quotes that are older are "assumed" to be correct when people see it quoted as from that person enough times. As you get to the centuries dead time-frame, if there's doubts about the quotation, it's probably best to say something like 'quote X which is attributed to person Y', or something like that. If there's enough question about the source, 'quote X which is sometimes attributed to person Y' with refs as needed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Wilson never said anything like the quote above, he created more of this problem than recognizing it. The film, however, is an excellent piece of work - notice the panic it caused on wikipedia as a reference. IE I didn't ehar/remember this qoute - maybe I saw a later corrected version - with or without the quote the research stands. Panic on fellow wikis ( actually nothing in it many/few didn't know already).159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC) A quick check of thwe wikipedia article on Wilson attributes the bulk of these quotes to Wilson in his The New Freedom. The first sentence has been added over time but most of the meaning survived. Page numbers etc are given - maybe Wilson had a stroke before the Fed was founded, maybe he didn't know he was establishing the same mess he thought he was curing - or maybe not, but he wrote the quote it appears.159.105.80.220 (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're both right and wrong. Wilson wrote parts of the quote, but never the entire quote. It's a manufactured quote. The book two parts of the bogus quote is from was written before the Fed was created, making it hard for the comments to be directed at the Fed as is often implied. Those two parts of the quote are also PAGES apart, in different chapters. When you see ellipses in a quote, you expect a phrase or sentance to be removed, not entire pages. And the first part is pure bunk.

So the answer is pretty simple - the quote was not written by Wilson. It was manufactured. Ravensfire (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men." This is from Chapter VIII of New Freedom - Gutenberg Project. The quotes that are a little off are at least close in ideas. His real quote is better than the paraphrased versions, I think.159.105.80.220 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I would like Grignon to have explained why his new system of money creation would be less capable of manipulation than the old or current systems. Without some darconian controls the entrepeunerial spirit seems to find ways around all good deeds. I think this is the thing I saw most missing in the film - I missed the quote problem ( I was too dizzy from the fractional money talk).159.105.80.220 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, about one quarter of the 'quote' is from New Freedom, according to Project Gutenberg. That's why Wikiquote says fabricated from out-of-context remarks. Chrisahn (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The real quote is drastically different and totally changes the meaning. Patently obvious, and nothing like the "paraphrased" version 89.247.94.156 (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

20 Minuten

User:Squiddy wants to remove the quote from 20 Minuten. That source is probably the most reputable of all the sources in the article (second only to Anthropology Today). It was one of two or three sources that helped establish notability in the latest deletion debate. Yes, the criticism is vague, but that's because Money as Debt is an irrelevant movie that no reasonable person writes about, because it presents a completely wrong idea of money, which anyone who reads and understands Fractional reserve banking and a few other articles easily realizes. It's not 20 Minuten who edit carelessly, it's Paul Grignon. Chrisahn (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If something is badly wrong, then it's easy to write precisely and accurately why that is so. I'm sorry if no-one has written what you want about this subject, but that's no reason to include this drivel.

The idea that you should add something, anything, from this source to establish notability is misguided - the first aim should be to provide useful information to the readers, not to put crap in front of them for some ulterior motive. Most of them won't give a damn about AFD debates.

Lastly, the chunk you've used is the negative bit of a mainly positive review, which raises POV issues. This whole piece is better deleted. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Kucinich and OpEdNews

There is no evidence to support that those words quoted were from Kucinich and not an advertisement for this movie. Furthermore, OpEdNews has come up a handful of times at the reliable sources noticeboard and are not considered reliable.[1][2]. Please stop adding this back. They're not a source for information, nor notability as a self-published source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

rebuttal:

See WP:RSOPINION. It is apparent that Dennis Kucinich authored the article at OpEdNews, does not publish the website himself, and that he has authored numerous articles published there. The article in question has his byline and you offer no proof here that the work there was a forgery written by someone else. Yes, OpEdNews is a website that has political leanings, but as WP:RS instructs "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.", and clarifies "the word "'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings

• the piece of work itself (the article, book);
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work

...and even with other instances where OpEdNews itself may have been disallowed for sourcing facts, I am not using the website to assert a fact, but rather to cite a published opinion of the writer. A clue might be seen in that it was used to source an opinion in the reception section. IE: In the contested OpEdNews source, Congressman Kucinich himself personally wrote about "Bailouts". The segment being contested is his intro to the article he wrote, where he himself calls Grignon's film, "a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system." As opinion is not offered as fact, do you have an issue with use of a Congressman's specific and published public opinion? Or would you wish the section re-written to make it clear that is is opinion, and not fact? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• An alternate offered under WP:RSOPINION:

  In an authored article in OpEdNews about the bailout, Congressman Dennis Kucinichintroduces his article by encouraging readers to watch Paul Grignon's Money as Debt and opining that the film was "a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system."

• Again, there is no evidence that he has actually offered any opinion on it and that it's not just a transcluded advertisement. Where's your evidence? Given the unreliable self-published nature and poor formatting of the site, there's really no way of knowing, so we should be careful and remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I saw a byline and an article. And here you contend without proof that the author did not write that content and question his authorship based upon the source's format and style. But as you finally got the OpEdNews article removed with your second AFD of it, worry over the congressman's opinion is rendered moot. Perhaps though, in light of later added sourcing, you might consider withdrawing here regardless. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• You see a byline and an article, but you cannot verify that the oddly-formatted, advertisement-sounding paragraph that exists only on this source and reprints of it are actually Kucinich's words. That's the problem here. If you can confirm those are his words, my protests disappear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have also not stood over the shoulder of Roger Ebert to personally confirm that he has written any of his words, so what? I see the problem here being now more in your "contention per supposition" and not through your own offering any proof that the bylined article is not that of the congressman. And it does appear that he has authored 83 articles over several years for that ill-judged OpEdNews. A counter-thought here is that IF the many articles there attributed to him were somehow not his, I would think a congressman might have the ability and resources to sue the publisher for impersonation and fraud. But again, and as your repeated efforts have had the OpEdNews article deleted and, as opinions by Kucinich about Grignon 's work are covered in so many non-rs, no... I do not think your protests about things OpEdNews-related will disappear. No matter. As it seems fated per consensus to be a landslide "keep", why not be happy about your victory over at OpEdNews and withdraw here to allow this latest AFD to close? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Again, if you can confirm those are his words and not a poorly-inserted advertisement, I'll have no further protest on the matter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• And again, you have done nothing except offer your unsupported supposition (IE: personal opinion) that this by-lined article is not his. If you are able to prove he did not author it (or any of the other 83 articles at that website), I will have no further comments on the issue. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Searched for the text itself, and found it attributed as a Dennis Kucinich post script in an October 1, 2008 response to a September 30, 2008 New York Times Newsblog article.[3] So no matter how it ended up heading his OpEdNews article, whether he added it himself or it arrived there by some vagaries of the fates, it seems this was a statement made by him and find-able in a source superior to that of OpEdNews. I feel better. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Are you really citing a comment on a news article as evidence? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I imagine it's getting a bit more difficult to disregard WP:RSOPINION. It being in the official newsblog of a reliable source is certainly a bit stronger as "evidence" than your absolutely unsubstantiated assertion that the congressman did not author anything under his byline. Congressman Kucinich also posted his article September 30, 2008 at the Democratic Underground website,[4] with the bit about Money as Debt as a post script... and either OpEdNews or Kucinich himself simply placed it at the beginning of his article the following day. I am quite doubtful that its use is the fraud you imply. But why don't we simply let this tennis match end? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Much like the comment on an article in the New York Times, you've provided no evidence that the user "chknltl" on Democratic Underground is, in fact, Dennis Kucinich. If you don't want to continue this further, fine by me, but your understanding of why these are bad sources are a concern. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, as the instances have existed long enough and public enough so that IF an investigation were necessary of who may have been impersonating a Congressman, it would have been done... so I think a Wikipedia editor repeatedly implying repeated cases of very public fraud, without absolutely no substance or foundation to that claim, is of a far greater concern. Bye. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• That the same bad source is repeated across comment fields throughout the internet is something we need to be wary of when building an encyclopedia. Please keep this in mind for the future. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you're declaring a fraud, offer some sort of proof. That your issue with OpEdNews or possible issue with Dennis Kucinich have caused you to repeatedly and without any such proof, cast aspersions upon a United States Congressman is not what we do here when building an encyclopedia. Please study WP:POV, WP:V,WP:NOR and re-study the meaning and intent of WP:RSOPINION. Please keep this in mind for the future. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• What I'm doing is telling you that a) the italicized piece is unverifiable as Kucinich's actual words, b) that the comment section of a New York Times post is not a reliable source to provide that proof, c) and neither is a web forum, which is what Democratic Underground is. Kucinich might have said it. Good for him if he did. We cannot verify it, per those very policies you claim to understand while offering forums and comment fields to back them up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• When there are two sides to an opinion (IE: the film is good vs. the film is bad) Wikipedia requires neutral BALANCE. Do you have any understanding of WP:RSOPINION, and a realistic expectation that a liberal democrat politician WILL be making comments in accepted-as-liberal sources such as Democratic Underground ? Or that the statement under his byline and attributed to him was accepted as his for 5 years of very public scrutiny with no one but you deciding to call it into question? Yes, under WP:BLP caution is paramount when offering controversial details of a person life... but the quotation under his byline was only a very terse film recommendation, not at all controversial, not something damaging to either himself or others, AND being such is acceptable even under WP:SELFPUB?. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misattribution of an endorsement for a politician, especially an endorsement of a film such as this, could very well be damaging. I don't dispute that the editorial at OEN is from him (or at least attributed correctly to him), my issue is the italicized advertisement at the beginning that could be an ad, or could be an endorsement, but we have no way of knowing. We know that the Democratic Underground link you provided is not from Kucinich, unless Kucinich is now some guy who claims to be from Washington. Do you understand the problem? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• The "problem" is underscored by your next-to-last sentences above... and not to make too much a point of it, but United States Congressmen all have offices assigned to them in Washington, DC. It is expected that a US Congressman would be expected as "some guy from Washington".

And sorry, but it is too much a stretch of credulity and common sense for anyone to believe that the very public words of a very public Washington figure, as published in multiple public forums, would stand unchallenged by anyone, including the congressman himself, for five years. It most specially stretches common sense and credulity to believe that in our very litigious society, no one over a five year period came forward in the courts or media to claim any personal affront or financial damage over the few simple and neutral observational words written by the congressman about a minor animated film. Indeed, his words "This is a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system. Let me know what you think" come across less an endorsement and more as wishy-washey waffling (sorry Kucinich).

So... where's the asserted harm or damage to any person as you now contend by your speculative "could very well be"?? I searched for that "sentence" itself in conjunction with his name and found absolutely no one anywhere ever complaining about it, nor any suggestion that anyone anywhere was harmed even indirectly... except of course your unfounded supposition posted here. However, searches offered indicators that those same words were also posted by him on his personal websitebut I do not want to make a political contribution and be placed his mailing list only to gain access.

Counter-inquiries become... just what damage to a person do you conjecture without sources "could very well be" done five years after the words were published and unchallenged? And, as you seem to grant the October 1, 2008 article at OEN is that of Kucinich, how is it that your contrarily assert that someone-in-Washington but not-Kucinich was able to post those same and identical Kucinich words elsewhereon September 30, 2008 24 hours before Kucinich did atOEN? lest we devolve into unfounded accusations of plagiarism, common sense would seem to point to an official Kucinich staffer acting at the congressman's behest. Point here being that as timeline indicates the congressman's remarkswere published at Democratic Underground on September 30,2008 , the day BEFORE his words words were published OEN, the format as style used byOEN become irrelevant. And, as the words there were a neutral and non-advert post scriptimmediately following his sign-off and professional contact information, your inserting your own interpretation upon what are obviously the words of the congressman does this entire project an injustice.

Read WP:PILLARS. We DO NOT use unsourced personal opinion of what is written elsewhere. And seriously... it makes no sense that the very public attribution of those words to the congressman at multiple public sites would have sat uncontested... simply waiting for you to insert your personal opinion in an attempt to quash it 5 years later. Wikipedia is not built upon empty conjecture. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

When you think I mean Washington DC tells me you're not reading your sources very well. Forums are not good for attribution. This isn't even up for debate, but if you want to take it up at WP:RS, no one can stop you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As you were successful in attempt to get the article on OpEdNews deleted, I already posted a request there that my current inquiry at WP:RSN be closed as moot. And please read WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOCIALMEDIA to better understand that not all blogs or forums are forbidden as citations.

What kept me on this page was your postulation about some hypothetical yet non-existent damage to a hypothetical non-existent person by those very neutral words... a postulation which is proving to be unsourcable crytal balling. After five years of them being publicly posted and attributed to a public figure there is absolutely no evidence from anyone anywhere that there was, is, or will be damage based upon those very few neutral words attributed to the congressman. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)