Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

A couple of points:

Firstly, 'movement group' seems tautological to me - a movement necessarily involves multiple people, making it a group.

And secondly, why is the fact that the name 'Zeitgeist Movement' is trademarked significant? As far as I'm aware, no secondary source has discussed this, and I can see no obvious legitimate reason to use a primary source in such a manner.

I'll refrain from commenting on the notability of the movement for now, beyond suggesting that it is certainly open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the movement name is trademarked means that Peter Joseph has the capability to control what is called the movement; whether he does control the movement, or whether it exists without being called that, are separate issues. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a trademark even does that - trademarks are generally only enforceable where a competing product or service is seen to be imitating the trademarked one. This would probably prevent unauthorised production of TZM tee-shirts, as explicitly mentioned in the 'Goods and Services', and likewise "On-line social networking services" which actually represented themselves as being TZM. Beyond that, a political movement (even one that denies being involved in politics...) would seem to be entirely outside the scope of trademark law. I suspect that the trademark was registered for entirely mundane reasons - to avoid rip-off tee-shirts or whatever - and accordingly has all the significance that secondary reliable sources have accorded it: which is to say none at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I presume some mechanism exists to stop me forming my own Amnesty, Republican Party, GreenPeace etc., whether that's trademark law I don't know, but suspect not. IF trademark only extends to selling merchandise 1) that's a strange thing for an anti-monopoly-capitalism group to take out … … 2) there is absolutely NO REASON for us to mention it unless spoken of by sources.Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the article title should just be The Zeitgeist Movement. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree.Pincrete (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. OnlyInYourMindT 08:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability

OK, I'll comment on the notability. Of the 20 references, at most 2 even help with the criteria in WP:GNG or WP:NFRINGE, and I don't think they help very much. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Which two help with notability? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In some instances I'm not competent to assess notability/RS, (eg VC reporter) as I'm not US, in some instances (Toronto), I think the source is almost certainly not RS for the claims. In general, I am sceptical about using 2010/11 sources for claims in the present tense when tZM didn't come into being till about 2009. How do we know that any of this is still true? … … also note in 'VC reporter', 'Ventura County Chapter of TZM boasts a membership of about 50, with approximately a dozen regulars attending biweekly meetings.'  ????? Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

We actually have closer to 30 sources. But why discuss this again? Isn't this what the split/keep-merged rfc was meant to decide? At last count, I think it was 14-7 in favor of split. OnlyInYourMindT 09:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OnlyInYourMind, I think it's 14-8, but we are awaiting admin closure and Guy has voted twice, so who knows. However it isn't the number of sources that makes me sceptical, it's the quality and age of them. By quality I don't simply mean whether the source is RS but also whether the source is meaningfully saying anything about what tZM IS.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The age of a source does not seem relevant. Topics do not lose notibility over time. As for the quality of the sources, isn't that partly the question the rfc is meant to answer? From the !votes, it seems we have our answer. OnlyInYourMindT 18:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OnlyInYourMind, you can't use a very old source to support a claim in the present tense eg if the last RS for an annual event is 2010/11, you can't use that to say 'it holds annual etc', only to support 'in 2010 it held'. This is especially true of an org. that was new-ish in 2010. That wouldn't influence notability, but it would influence article content. The RfC didn't attempt to assess these particular sources only the general split/merge question. Admin closure is meant to assess validity of arguments as well as number of votes, so the answer is not as 'cut and dried' as a simple majority. Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

List of sources for The Zeitgeist Movement

Versions of old removed article

• one
• two

POV?

Looking at this article, it's pretty much just the group describing itself. No criticisms, etc. like on the movie pages. The topper on this talk page make me wary too, considering there isn't any history of edit wars, etc. It's like the Zeitgeist people showed up, wrote a positive article about themselves then said, "Now, don't touch this, it's sensitive" and left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.123.11 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree even though I am a member of the movement and don't mind it being promoted. Reason: the more balanced the Wikipedia article is the less people have reason to criticize the movement elsewhere. It would be in the best interest of the movement if it didn't say that neutrality of the article is disputed on top of the page. It's interesting how some people want to keep this article clean of criticism. When I made a statement that the movement could be viewed promoting anarcho-communism and technocracy, someone quickly removed this. Maybe the word "promoting" was wrong. Do you think these could be at least in the "See also" section? --Astikain (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article has no criticism and not much actual information. The only external media citations are positive. --98.210.155.170 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much yes. More of a fansite. There is a concerted effort on their website to direct people here to maintain that aspect. skip sievert (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please include a link to the sections of The Zeitgeist Movement that directs members to alter Wikipedia articles to be favorable to it's views. That is a serious accusation that warrants proof, especially because you are responsible for removing numerous alterations. I do not say this to accuse you of alterior motives but because your removal of an alteration would imply a level of expertise in the field you are editing. I think that in order to appropriately document The Zeitgeist Movement a significant portion of the content of this page should include their world view. However, I do agree that it must be done in an impartial way. 216.121.129.215 (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)DexterMorgan103

How do you give facts about an organization of people without reflecting there beliefs. Its like saying a wikipedia article on Christianity can't site anything from the bible or contain any information about their belief system. I am not saying that The zeitgeist movement is a religion or in anyway considers itself one but I think I raise a valid point.05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) DexterMorgan103

The website is definately not a fansite, it is a social network where people who agree with the ideas of the venus project can communicate and work on project for the movement. It was created by Peter Joseph and is run by him, and the purpose is not to discuss the movement but to gather together followers to take action - and it is otherwise very unlike a fansite. In terms of the acrticle itself, although there is no criticsm it is purely factual and is not noticably positive - nor does not contain weasel words to bias it. -92.13.143.183 (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ... the very definition of a fansite 190.103.74.245 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To further my above point after scanning through the article on Christianity there is not mention of the numerous novels that criticize the portrayed facts of the Christian faith. Such as the Companion Guide To Zeitgeist, The Christ Conspiracy and Sons of God by Acharya S. I think there is an unfair double standard occuring, not one post has been presented as truth documents and I feel are being unjustly removed. 06:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)DexterMorgan103 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.129.215 (talk)

If you are comparing a modern movement (the Zeitgeist) to a faith a thousand years old (Christianity), it's fair to say they have more people to be dogmatic about criticism on their wikipedia article than you do. For a modern movement, criticism is healthy - if take a good dose of criticism we will come back strong because together the movement can hold it's weight. Let's see arguments and counter arguments in the article - this is the 21st century.--78.146.145.189 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The point of this page is to outline the purpose of the movement and where it came from. An encyclopedia has no right stating what people's opinions on a subject is. The beliefs are simple. A monetary system at this point has done nothing but left us competing with each other to live. This is simply a MOVEMENT to head towards a resource based economy. When someone's lying on their deathbed the question shouldn't be do they have insurance to pay for the meds that are in the cabinet across the hall from their room. The question should be do we have the medicine to help this person. That is the idea. Thats the goal. Everything else is just what other people feel they have to do to reach the goal of a resource based economy. What any person feels they have to do to reach this goal does not in any means define the movement. -mcspargeslarg 74.232.207.62 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't agree. The "movement" has some reasonably well defined (though, in my opinion, utterly silly) ideas about economics, and as with all economic theories there are proponents and detractors, and the views of both should be mentioned on the page. The problem, as far as I see it, is that there are few serious "criticisms" from reliable sources, because most reliable sources consider the ideas too crazy and obscure to even respond to. From the Zeitgeist movie page: References to Zeitgeist in the mainstream media are relatively few and mostly negative. I think that statement translates pretty well to the Zeitgeist movement at large, indeed if anything it is even less well known and seems to have even nuttier ideas than the movie. I agree with the people above, the page doesn't read like a neutral observer but more of a fan site. But unless criticism or commentary from reliable sources can be produced, I don't see how this can be fixed, other than removing some of the more trivial fan cruft type stuff. TastyCakes (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well that there should be a criticism portion in this article. It is a difficult subject to find 'official' references on because it is so counter-culture, and especially counter-media as to offend the basic structure of that media to which we seek reference. By offending and or questioning the media at such a level, the only retaliation they seem to even comprehend is silence.

I spent the entire year of 2009 traveling around the US showing the zeitgeist films, and the entire time I maintained a neutral stance on the specific points of the movement. this is documented on my non-commercial, non-affiliated website zeitgeistonwheels.com. I feel that I can offer some criticism points if there is some way that my own observations can be accepted as reference...

1. The grassroots model is poetic but as far as getting anything done or making any progress, it seems to be a hindrance. I have observed this in the Portland Oregon zeitgeist chapter, the Louisville Kentucky zeitgeist chapter, and in my own experience with the public when showing the film. People are excited to get involved, and promote the film, but at the local level there seems to be a wall blocking any action beyond that.

2. The Venus Project is a think tank type organization, they do not have the capacity, nor do they seem to want the capacity, to take action. This is from my own experience contacting Roxanne Meadows and conversing with her over a period of 6 months, showing up at their research facility in Florida offering free labor from myself and 3 other people, and then being turned away. Roxanne and Jacque both told me in person during a tour that the primary goal of the venus project right now (as of 6/13/10) was to produce a feature film targeting audiences that the documentaries missed. These films are really great, but again, the movement is preaching about action, and all that seems to be happening is talk.

I do not know if any of this could be useful, but I invite conversation about it here and at jeff@zeitgeistonwheels.com. I am for the movement, but feel that we need to keep our perspective if it is going to survive reality. 75.92.248.87 (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)jeff-zeitgeistonwheels

I've been making significant edits to improve the NPOV of this article. I agree that information on RBE and TVP should be kept to minimum in order to keep the focus of the article on TZM as it relates to it's history, organizational structure, activities, and criticisms.Professorpetey (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"after scanning through the article on Christianity there is not mention of the numerous novels that criticize the portrayed facts of the Christian faith. Such as the Companion Guide To Zeitgeist, The Christ Conspiracy and Sons of God by Acharya S."

This is because it is preferable to cite books that contain actual facts. Hadashi (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What the movement advocates?

Before anyone goes on deleting the advocacy part from the article, allow me to explain why it's important. Although the Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement are in very close cooperation at the moment, they are still two different organizations. It is misleading that the article had no reference to what the movement stands for, independent of the Venus Project. Thus, I see this as the most important section of the article and could even be augmented with alternative views, i.e. not only stating what Peter Joseph has said. Maybe the content relating to the Venus Project could actually be in its own article completely, so that this one would only mention it. What do you think? --Astikain (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No longer a redirect

I have edited and updated the page so it should no longer be a redirect.Smallman12q (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

GDFL Compatibility question

Hi, this article (especially its first edit)contains a copy from THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT - OBSERVATIONS AND RESPONSES Activist Orientation Guide(PDF). Is it OK with GFDL? --miya (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, check the site @ http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com and you should find "We allow/encourage respectful duplication of this information" stuck on most every page and this guide is meant to be shared! 24.251.140.193 (talk)

They have a limited copyright...which I'm not quite sure is fully compatible with GFDL. However, they do say We allow/encourage respectful duplication of this information. Still, if you're still concerned, feel free to send an OTRS requesting confirmation for the usage on wikipedia.Smallman12q (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Joseph stated on his radio show that he encourages uploading of information about the movement to wikipedia. Itachi007 (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the media releases.

In my opinion they should be removed, as Zeitgeist films are very critical about medias. And ye I made a little inquiry about Palm Beach Post. "Palm Beach Post" = "Cox Enterprises", chairman is James C. Kennedy, who is the 49th richest person in the United States. So, maybe as i am not easy to understand, all I wanted to say these media realeases are really easy to get attacked by Zeitgeist Movement. 91.127.87.237 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)pijemcolu,

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but Wikipedia opposes censorship. See WP:CENSORSHIP.Smallman12q (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Banning of Zeitgeist on Studivz

Recently Zeitgeist and Venus Project were banned from a social networking site in Germany that is rather large Studivz . The reason for the ban are anti-semetic tendencies expressed by TZGM [1] Would it be in the best interests of the article as to fairness to include that in a critical section?

This has something to do with something crazy about reptiles and lizard blood that many of the Zeitgeist people apparently believe that has infected some so called ruling class. Or something like that. Here is another reference to their recent ban Update: Studivz, German Community Site Shuts down Zeitgeist Movement groups., claiming "anti-semitism" is being promoted.

I would imagine that would have made news in Germany or somewhere. The service is largely comparable to other social networking sites. Studivz claims to be one of the biggest social networks in Europe, with reportedly about ten million members as of April 2008, Here is the other link I meant to give before [2]. This is apparently from the German social site to the Zeitgeist people The idea of gray eminences, elites or secret societies that control politics from behind the curtain is not new. The ZG movies extend these ideas to the economic system. And here the circle of the history of conspiracy theories closes: latent antisemitism, which shines through many of the formulated theories. Would their site would be a good source... that is the Zeitgeist site itself to make this information known in the media section? Is the Zeitgeist movement site a reliable source in other words... I suppose it is because it is used through out the article currently.

I think the reference to the grey eminences... is the thing about reptile or lizard blood aliens influencing mainstream politics... according to the conspiracy theory is what got them banned as some conspiracy groups link those ideas with certain groups of people sometimes connected with certain religions and so called illuminis conspiracy stuff. I think. Comments? - skip sievert (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? Lizard blood? Cool Hand Luke 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it sounds strange but is some brand of conspiracy stuff that actually mentions a lot of the basis of this reptilian construct. It has something to do with Reptilians and the Sumer people and slavery and mining for gold and is connected to a pseudo science based theory of the so called new world order [3] you can find a million connectors about it on the internet though. Here is a parody of it [4] Again oddly there are multiple groups that link this stuff to Zeitgeist. skip sievert (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I would say its worth mentioning, if not in a criticsm section then definately as an event, because Studivs is quite a large website and this reflects a (somewhat unreasonable) rejection of the movement. -92.13.143.183 (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist movement in no published work printed or video has ever stated that they believe there is an elite class of reptiles controlling the world. I believe you are referring to British media reporter David Icke. 216.121.129.215 (talk) 05:49,8 August 2009 (UTC)DexterMorgan103

The reason they were banned is their association with the two films, in particular the first one, which includes the idea of a one world government/new world order-type plot. As stated in the article these theories often become muddled with anti-Zionist conspiracy theories about Jewish world domination. In Germany this is a very touchy subject and the owners of StudiVZ were likely trying to avoid any complaints, even though they obviously knew little about the group. Itachi007 (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this misguided information about the German social network StudiVZ - as I happen to live in Germany: "Zeitgeist" has been banned from this social network, however, it comes down to one single person, Anja Kammer from Berlin, who has initiated this group on StudiVZ, but had nothing to do with the actual movement. Due to the fact that the Zeitgeist Movement is an open-source-network, meaning all logos, presentations, pic's etc are open for everyone to use, adapt and distribute, it's really difficult to "control" people when it comes to misusage. Additionally I'd like to mention that the group "Zeitgeist" on StudiVZ has been created straight after the first movie came out. Whereas "Zeitgeist Movement" has started after the second movie. On top of this: The word "Zeitgeist" is a very commonly used German word, hence is not only the name of the movement. If you google Zeitgeist on German plattforms you'll find heaps of other relevant examples. Please do more research on this. Patricia2011 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed Articles

"A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all."

The above quote is a citation from The Venus Project website written by Jacque Fresco. The resource based economy mentioned above is the central idea of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement. This ideal has been criticized by individuals in the media, such as Alex Jones in his October 15 2008 interview with one of The Zeitgeist movement founders Peter Joesph, as being similar to the ideas of Technocracy. The envisioned governance of the resource based economy would be largely controlled by a computer controlled system similar to the proposed ideals of Technocracy(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement).

The above article was created by me and was removed several times, I believe it is an important article to include. If we could edit it together and come up with a final copy we can agree upon. The latest removal was due to incorrect format. Can someone teach me how to cite properly?

I think the main problem is not simply the formatting or presentation of this section, but simply that it shouldn't be here. This information belongs, and is present, on The Venus Project article, which is linked to from this page. This section has little to do with the Zeitgeist Movement itself, and more to do with the organizations it is associated with. -Itachi007 (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That sums it up pretty well user Itachi. skip sievert (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that the fundamental reason for the existence of The Zeitgeist Movement is not important to note on an article about The Zeitgeist Movement? 216.121.129.215 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)DexterMorgan103

Alright, since I didn't receive a response to that let me ask this question. What information do you feel to be relevant to this article. As well since you seem to be keeping a close eye on this article, why have the majority of your "contributions" been removal of information and not in expanding the information?04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)DexterMorgan103 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.129.215 (talk)

We are expanding what is relevant and removing what isn't. There is no point in repeating the same information twice on two articles linked closely to each other. As I said, the resource-based economy is not TZGM's primary concern - that interest is The Venus Project's. The Zeitgeist Movement is an activist network promoting The Venus Project's ideas. It's article should include information about activism and not information about The Venus Project itself. If all the information was on all the articles then there would be no point in having seperate pages at all.

In terms of a contribution, removing irrelevant information is just as helpful as adding releveant information, because doing both improves the article. If you really want to put that information on Wikipedia then I suggest looking through The Venus Project article and reading its section on the resource-based economy. If you find anything your passage has that the article doesnt then feel free to add it, but you must be able to source where it came from. For example, the quote from Jacque Fresco you use needs to have a reference so we can prove he said it. Simply find the link to the text, video, sound or image and paste the url between <ref></ref> html tags. -Itachi007 (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats right and a good answer to the question. There is something called a 'Wikipedia:Manual of Style' also, and that may be a good starting place for a new contributor to find out more basic information. skip sievert (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

disruptive deletions by User:Itachi007

The encyclopedia article about the Zeitgeist movement should describe that what the Zeitgeist movement is about. User:Itachi007 keeps removing this information[5][6] As he previously added a link to a blogger blog associating the Zeitgeist movement with a cult[7] I think we may conclude there is some agenda here.

The article is about the Zeitgeist Movement, this is what it should describe. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits are in no way disruptive. If you closely, you'll see that I've discussed this before several times. The information about a resource-based economy is not relevant to this page because that is not what TZGM is about. The Venus Project, an affiliate of TZGM, already has this information on its page. I am a supporter of TZGM and The Venus Project but Wikipedia articles need to have relevant information on them. TZGM is the activist wing of The Venus Project, it is much less concerned with the function of a resource-based economy and much more about conveying its message. This article needs to be about the activism, because the information about a resource-based economy doesn't belong here. Please don't mark edits as diruptive just because you don't know the intent by which they were made. Look on my talk page and you'll see I've already been through this. If you want to improve the information about a resource-based economy on Wikipedia than please make your edits on The Venus Project article. --Itachi007 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I did not add that source, I merely stopped it from being deleted. As far as I could see at the time it was reliable and in no way an association to a "cult." Although I admit I was mistaken about the reliability of the site, there is no "agenda" behind my edits. I am simply trying to improve the article because I agree with the organization it is about. --Itachi007 (talk)

I must say, with no prejudice intended, I find this distinction somewhat bizarre. If there is a defined "project", an "ideology", a "mindset" or a "plan" for the future (the Venus Project could with some argument be called any of these), and there is a defined "movement", which is a group of people seeking to put the "project" into practice, it's very strange and surprising that a Wikipedia page on this movement should contain no information at all about the project itself. I am trying to think of analogies - should a page on a Marxist group contain no information on Marxism? Should a page on an Anti-Racist group contain no information on Anti-Racism? I suspect the answer is that "it depends how big and well-known the project is" which makes the distinction a political choice in itself... how interesting.158.143.136.144 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If the Movement's goal is to make people aware of what the Venus Project is, and the main view of the Venus Project is the new economic system, it is very relevant and should be at least briefly noted on the Movement page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.81.132 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"I am trying to think of analogies - should a page on a Marxist group contain no information on Marxism? Should a page on an Anti-Racist group contain no information on Anti-Racism?" - The answer is, no, they should not. These articles should contain a link to Marxism and Anti-racism, respectively. The article about the group should define the group's activities. A link to the article about the group's philosophy is sufficient. 97.104.81.236 (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable source for number of events?

The mention of 1700 events isn't backed by the cited source - is there another verifiable source for it?158.143.136.144 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For 2009 events view the Wiki. For 2010 events see ZDay2010.org --Astikain (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert "unencyclopedic nonsense"

I made a very large change in these two edits: [8]

First, I would like to apologize for my comment "A lot of unencyclopedic nonsense has been added to the article." It was ill-considered and perhaps hurtful to other editors who work on this article in good faith. I am sorry.

Among the changes to the article are:

1. Restoring the POV tag—I don't think that the article has fully resolve its POV problems.
2. Reinstating the paragraph that begins "The Zeitgeist Movement is named after the documentary films"—I think this is fundamental and should be included in the article.
3. Removing several paragraphs describing the meaning of a resource-based economy—these don't seem to relate much to the subject, and are especially awkward so early in the article.
4. (probably the biggest change) Removal of the section "Regional and State Chapters"—Wikipedia is not a directory.
5. Restoring the see also link to Zeitgeist, the Movie.

I think all of these changes are justified, but if any are controversial, I'm happy to talk about them. Perhaps some of these should be reversed. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Hello and thank you for your help =)

1. I can certainly agree with number one, neutrality is important... we don't want Wikipedia to be another FOX =)
2. Number two, for instance, the paragraph is both incorrect and misleading. To say that the movement is named after the documentaries, this is mostly correct, but this creates a false relationship between the movement and the documentaries. As far as the third documentary, currently in production, not being named Zeitgeist, this is now outdated. Joseph, the producer, has changed his mind saying,"The Z name is too powerful now.... millions know of it. I think it would be a bad idea to break the trend now".
3. This movement claims that its major focus is the application of a Resource-based Economy. I think this topic is very relevant, although it may have been out of place within the general scope of the Wikipedia article.
4. Okay was not aware that we should avoid making it a directory, I must have missed that. Now I know ^_^

Would it be appropriate to re-add this section without the "directory" part (the links)?

Thanks again for all your help Luke FusionHalo 03:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

2. I understand the distance that the movement is making from the documentaries. That said, it's clear they inspired the movement, and virtually all press coverage mentions them. I think this section is therefore essential for a balanced article. However, it would certainly be appropriate to add that the movement has moved on from the documentaries.

3. Elaborating on the movement's position is fine, but launching straight away into discussion on resourced based economies was confusing and strange. You may be right that it could be restored, but I think it needs a bit of work to place in context.

4. Yes, I am sorry. I probably removed too much. The section before the directory (explaining the groups structure and chapters) was probably fine. It would also be useful to perhaps link to a Zeitgeist Movement page with such a list in case the reader is curious. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been making significant changes to the article to improve it's focus on TZM as an organized movement and would like to reduce the amount of RBE and TVP information as this information should be linked to their own individual articles.Professorpetey (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You are turning this article into a advertisement for the Zeitgeist Movement. Does there really need to be all of this information about the various chapters and projects and stuff, which is all sourced from the group's own biased sites by the way?

I removed stuff from the article that was just there to promote the group and also stuff that had no purpose. Like there doesn't need to be a definition of the words "Zeitgeist" and "Movement", nor does there need to be separate sections about each movie, there already is a whole article about the Zeitgeist movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandthefttoaster (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The movement is an organized body. Similar to The UN, Congress, or Green Peace. Referencing their pages we see important attributes such as organizational structure, decision making processes, governing policies etc. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain information on a topic from various branches of knowledge such as architecture, behaviour, psychology, biology etc. As an organism, the components and how it functions are extremely relevant. Oversimplifying a bacterial organism by saying, it's a small thing that makes you sick is absurd. there is no such thing as too much knowledge, only too much opinion. All of the edits you deleted were facts, not opinion.99.237.205.129 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm sorry but I disagree. Your edits inserted a number of points that are clearly opinions, not facts. For instance: "a grassroots movement focused on increasing society's awareness of the need for global social change" implies that it is a given fact that global society need change, and "money creates established institutions that are forced to protect themselves which inhibits progress" again implies that this isn't what they believe but what is fact (which it isn't). You then inserted a series of highly idealized paragraphs on how the organization is supposed to work, all of it not only mildly biased (eg "Decisions are arrived at by utilizing the Scientific Method", a dubious blanket claim) but also fairly clearly in the fan cruft level of detail. TastyCakes (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The way you have rewritten the article is just embarrassingly bad and reads like an essay. You start off by defining what "Zeitgeist" means and what a "movement" is. WTF is that? if people want to know what a social movement is they can read the article on that. The little box on the right says that the owner of the Zeitgeist Movement is "humans". I am glad to know that it isn't owned by buffalo. The sections about the three zeitgeist movies and the awards they won are redundant as there already is a detailed article about this. At the end of the section it explains that the zeitgeist movement is related to these movies in name only, so what's the point? There is too much information taken from the Z movement's own sources too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandthefttoaster (talk • contribs) 04:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Grandthefttoaster has reverted to this version in which the infobox has been removed, sourced statements are removed, and sections are removed with the description Undid revision 362341260 by Smallman12q (talk) unencyclopedic junk, definitions of the word movement? lol. Should the current version be reverted to this version?Smallman12q (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the paragraph above written by me, and the paragraph written by TastyCakes.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

will edit according to the above criticisms. 76.74.204.100 (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The article still has lots of problems with the "Organization" and "Phases of the movement" sections. All of the information in these sections come from the groups website. The stuff about using the scientific method is silly, this group doesn't process any information so what scientific conclusions are being drawn? They describe themselves as bottom up but that is just an opinion, former members have other opinions. The Phases of the movement section reads like an advertisement "this and that WILL be done, world hunger WILL be ended". I think the article was better off before these sections were added, all this stuff reads like someone's essay and doesn't add to the article. The "Media Project" section is pretty lame too. The "press release" was just a forum post, and the Media Project itself is just a website with people's Youtube videos, graphic art ect.

Wikipedia style

I have copyedited this again to conform to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as my previous edits were blown away in what appears to be a sloppy edit war. Here are specific changes I have made. If you disagree with any of them, please discuss them here and provide support for your proposed changes from the Manual or its guides before making the changes. Thank you.

• The title of the movie 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward' should be italicized.
• "Resource-based" - the article should be consistent in hyphenation: the paragraph under this headings uses "scarcity-oriented" and "scarcity-based" with hyphens.
• Removing in-line external links per WP:MOS, and Youtube is not a reliable source. (WP:RS)
• "The" should not generally be capitalized unless it is at the beginning of a sentence.
• "i.e." and "e.g." should be followed by commas.
• "State chapters" and "regional chapters" are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. It would be correct to capitalize the name of a specific state chapter, e.g., "the Arizona State Chapter of the Zeitgeist Movement" if that is its full legal name.
• Numbers ten and under should normally be spelled out in a sentence instead of using digits. (WP:MOSNUM)

Ground Zero | t 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

I added a criticisms section to make the article fair and unbiased.I have provided some evidence to these points.Now I know you might suspect that the Noam Chomsky quote is dubious but I have provided links to relevant forums concerning him.One can easily email Chomsky or the user [Unknown] to verify that.This article should have a criticism section as practically every NPO group has one eg.Greenpeace and Oxfam. Playboyoreo

I doubt the forum you used as a source passes as reliable... TastyCakes (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the criticism section for the interpersonal relations issue denoted has nothing to do with The Movement's work and tenets. Just becuase people do not like The Movement or Peter Joseph doesn't warrant a section for attack. Also, the Chomsky quote was alleged and unsourced. If you have a referenced viable criticism by a large institution or publication which deserve recognition and based on the actual work of The Movement, please post. Otherwise, personal attacks are not justified. Also, criticism of the forum methods has nothing to do with anything. This would be like posting a critism of the fonts or the color of the website. No single person defines the actions of the movement so, again, your crtisism must be based on actual points related to the tenets and goals of the movement. --Falcon2112 (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The citicisms of The Zeitgeist Movement appear fair, it is only right that any criticisms of this movement are shown. The [unknown] email to Noam Chomsky can be verified on the movements own forum and is certainly real see here: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=7&id=18544 and here: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=232&id=211592&limit=10&limitstart=10#211705 there is no doubt he was emailed and contacted by zeitgeist movement members so there is no reason these can not stay here. All other criticisms are valid and should be there to view, this movement should not remain seperate from criticism when all others on wikipedia are not this is not inline with wikipedia norms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails (talk • contribs) 11:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually No. the Chomskly Quote is heresay and the others points made are from childish idiots who have a history of harassment. These sites are not viable to present here. It is nothing more than advertisement for crap websites. Removed --Falcon2112 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms can only applicable if they come from a group that has some diverse notoriety; while quotes made must be first person. People who hate the movement and make personal websites to attack are not viable as they are biased. Anti-cultist and Edward Winston are not viable critics as they exist only to harass the movement and are focused solely on that task, creating propaganda in an obvious way. This isnt blog/forum. Wikipedia must be neutral and any critical comments must meet a basic criteria of worth, meaning the people who present the criticisms cannot be showing personal vendettas. They do not deserve to be posted/advertised here just becuase they have an opinion. The fact is, this page is being used for advertising. Also, anyone could create "criticism" section on every wiki articles and express any "opinion"- this would be offensive and counterproductive. There must be quality control and these posts removed here are nothing more than personal attacks coming from a few people. Wikipedia isn't a blog where people voice their opinions. So please stop posting hate-filled websites that only exists to harass The Zeitgeist Movement. --Falcon2112 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And one more thing: To express the absurdity of these posts, imagine if I didn't like BP Oil Co. So, I make a single Web-press web page and post attacks against BP Oil. After I do this, do I have the right to post my unknown website on the official BP Wikipedia page under "Criticisms"? No- becuase I am nobody and my opinion is just that- an opinion. We cannot allow any random yahoo with a gripe to post their opinions on Wikipedia. Its that simply I think the Admins of this site would agree.--Falcon2112 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim you make here "Actually No. the Chomskly Quote is heresay and the others points made are from childish idiots who have a history of harassment. These sites are not viable to present here. It is nothing more than advertisement for crap websites." Is an emotional response and not a factually intelligent response, Peter Joseph even states ion this radio address he knows the person who posted the emails and has no reason to doubt their credibility or how real it was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwvXLWGLOgA&feature=related. undone the removal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify- This isn't to say that there shouldn't be a Criticisms section. The issue is that the criticisms posted must come from reputable sources which are not solely in existence to put down The Zeitgeist Movement becuase they simply don't like it or have a personal problem. This is a form of "trolling" which is occurring. --Falcon2112 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter's comments do not confirm certainty- however, I agree it is okay. I have clarified the post to show the 3rd party nature of the communication.--Falcon2112 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Also this: Members of The Zeitgeist Movement are actively encouraging their members to remove any criticism of their movement on their website see here: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=229&id=270305#270378 This is not a credibility issue in their eyes it is a propagandist emotional issue to them, and they are removing any factually proven dissent against them on wikipedia. Surely this goes against the presentation of facts wikipedia ? It seems to me the movement is removing factual information they dislike and nothing else.Dilligencedetails (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"It seems to me the movement is removing factual information they dislike and nothing else" - I agree even suggesting it should be locked is extreme(The forum post has been deleted now,further showing the lengths they have gone to protect themselves from criticism).The facts are these:

1.Anticultist has been the victim of character assasination.The blog provides an alternative view and has been trolled itself.Questions over the feasability and legitamicy of the movements aims are raised and ignored or condemened.Yes it has ad hom's and strawmen here and there but it consists of a group of people with varying opinions about the movement that express concern over the issues of the mo .The blog is meant to keep an eye on the practices of the group the same way newspapers and columnists/journalists comment and keep track of politics and as well as NGO's.It may seem he has a personal grudge but overall most of the articles on the blog have valid foundations in providing information that would otherwise be suppressed elsewhere.Its probably the only place alternative views can be discussed.Its not the best but its the only one there.Whether this is not be included remains to be debate

2.Conspiracy science has articles that do offer constructive criticism outside the realm of the forum and some of this criticism is relavant.It is a reputable site for skepticism on conpiracy theories of which TZM is associated with and yes admitadly the forum can become the equivalent of childish name calling and gassing(of the prison variety) but its the articles that are relevant and give another alternative opinion - and are more mature than .The mentally ill comment also comes up in the article regarding peters comments(http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/2010/05/07/a-response-to-the-zeitgeist-movements-diagnosis-of-intellectual-inhibition/)Again like the anticultist blog it provides an quasi-alternative(as a few members still advocate the goals of TZM on both sites)that keeps track of the movement again in the same way as columnists and journalists.Conspiracy science also has articles criticising Alex Jones and as well as David Icke and other conspiracy theorists it is not a direct attack on Peter Joseph or TZM,TZM just happens to have conspiracy theorist members and Peter Joseph just happens to be a conspiracy theorist(although not as vocal or well known as Icke,Jones et al).Conspiracy science is a third party group they have been around since before the formation of the Zeitgeist Movement and the release of Zeitgeist:The Movie

Since both blogs advocate the goals of TZM they are not hate filled propaganda they agree with the core principals of TZM but they have criticisms regarding the current affairs and the methods employed by both members and the administration.Its like Patrick Moore and his criticisms of Greenpeace.Patrick shares fundamental ideals with Greenpeace but he does have criticism about the group and vice versa.

3.As for Anonymous their activities are even mentioned on the Scientology page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Scientology_and_the_Internet) so why should TZM be different when they have evidence of their claims.Some of there videos are ad hom filled as well but some are relevant evidence of practices that are continuing in the movement(as for example the video detailing advocation of entrapment by some of the moderators) that are serious problems in the movenment that is usually overlooked and censored. Listen this article needs a criticism page.Perhaps we could rephrase what was written as "former members/advocates of TZM have expressed criticism over the practices within the movement" or "Commentators have observed" The events such as remarks to and from critics is no different than what occurs to other groups but as is necessary lets keep them clean,sourced and unbiased(lets not have the same problem tha was had with the Scientology page).

The protest letter/trademarking part should stay: it involves an event that is even charted on the venus projects website:(http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/rbe-trademark) PWA and other groups have been faced with legal action over the use of the RBE term.Should that be put on the The Venus Projects page where it belongs? Should we at least mention the other RBE groups that formed from breaking away from TVP/TZM to keep people iformed as to the history of the movement? Should we have the mentally ill comment on the Peter Joseph page(he did say it after all).There is documented evidence for the valid criticisms prsented all over the internet. One things for sure this page(and discussion page) must be monitored frequently by those who have had no affiliation with TZM(to prevent biases from rearing its ugly head) and have remained neutral with regards to the movement since its inception Lets keep things civil and unbiased - .Playboyoreo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.0.210 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since my last claim in this discussion [@16:34, 26 June 2010] link evidence above has been actively removed by their admin I have taken the liberty to provide evidence of this with a screen shot taken since I expected them to do so, this can be viewed here: http://img709.imageshack.us/f/wikistatementadmintzm.jpg/ "The protest letter/trademarking part should stay: it involves an event that is even charted on the venus projects website" Agreed it can also be viewed in full here on the patents and trademarks office website, the full dispute can be seen: http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No&TEXT=77829193# and a dialogue about it all as it occured here: http://anticultist.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/legal-contest-of-trademarking-resource-based-economy/ Dilligencedetails (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Anticultist blog" is a run by a single unknown random person with a clear vendetta against the zeitgeist movement. This inclusion in the "Criticisms" section in anyway is merely an advertisement for this website and is spam. It is not allowed here. To be included the Criticism section is must be viable with regard to the movement's actual goals and must be made by a figure or group with a large degree of notoriety, such as Noam Chomasky. Otherwise, this will turn into a debate blog. --Falcon2112 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding :"Also this: Members of The Zeitgeist Movement are actively encouraging their members to remove any criticism of their movement on their website see here" Produced no link. If it was removed, then the case doesn't stand anyway as it is a past occurrence and hence overridden by the act of removal --Falcon2112 (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: "The protest letter/trademarking part should stay:" I disagree. The Venus Project is not The Zeitgeist movement directly. Such a trademark has nothing to do with the The Zeitgeist Movement as it was not directly involved. These are two associated but different organizations. --Falcon2112 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case we should agree the RBE dispute is relevant to TVP criticism and should be placed on that page. Dilligencedetails (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Regarding :"Also this: Members of The Zeitgeist Movement are actively encouraging their members to remove any criticism of their movement on their website see here" Produced no link. If it was removed, then the case doesn't stand anyway as it is a past occurrence and hence overridden by the act of removal --User:Falcon2112" Incorrect you have overlooked that they deleted it after seeint this dispute and I then provided a screen shot of the matter in my timestamped message [18:09, 26 June 2010 ] above with the following link: http://img709.imageshack.us/f/wikistatementadmintzm.jpg/ The matter is still relevant and the evidence is there to be seen. Dilligencedetails (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC) ----"The matter is still relevant and the evidence is there to be seen." No, by all logic it isn't relevant if it inst there. You could say the same argument if it happened 2 years ago. Sorry- no dice.--Falcon2112 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC) -- You do realise it is frowned upon to get your own members to edit a wiki page about yourself, remember scientology [rhetorical question] they did that, tzm are doing it here too. Dilligencedetails (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: "Conspiracy science has articles that do offer constructive criticism outside the realm of the forum". This website is just as unnoticed and arbitrary as Anti-cultist. There is no notoriety and Wikipedia is not a "blog" where anyone with a website can post their complaints. CS is also a "debunking site" for conspiracy theory and has nothing to do with social movements. It is like a car website criticizing abortion. --Falcon2112 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"To be included the Criticism section is must be viable with regard to the movement's actual goals and must be made by a figure or group with a large degree of notoriety, such as Noam Chomasky. Otherwise, this will turn into a debate blog" - Agreed "In that case we should agree the RBE dispute is relevant to TVP criticism and should be placed on that page". - Yes it belongs in the TVP page due to its relevancy - Playboyoreo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.0.210 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy science has articles that do offer constructive criticism outside the realm of the forum" These should be placed on criticisms of the movies, I am assuming there is a wiki page the zeitgeist members have made for the movies too ? If so Conspiracy Science articles are thorough and very well written criticisms of those movies. Dilligencedetails (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: "If so Conspiracy Science articles are thorough and very well written criticisms of those movies." That is your opinion. Likely No- CS is not a reputable source of anything. It is the opinion blog of an unknown person. If you look at the Zeitgeist Movie wiki page you see that the critics are well known, working in general media professionally or certified in academia and also diverse. Posting CS there will be removed as well as it is merely a blog website with no basis/precedent of integrity. --Falcon2112 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User Falcon2112 keeps removing this link from the article: http://anticultist.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/noam-chomsky-on-zeitgeist-venus-project/#comment-825 As you can see it is a comment made by [Unknown] , the person who emailed Noam Chomsky he acknowledges he made the emails in this post. This is another confirmation the emails are valid and made by him, I propose it is in there as a link, he keeps edit warring it out, so I will leave it up to the rest of you out of courtesy to wikipedia not him. Dilligencedetails (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the link is not viable or relevent. Re-posting this spam link to the Anticultist is not needed, for one. It is illogical to have a 2nd source for the Chomsky quote for it originated on TZM's forum. We dont need to see sources that are 3rd party when we have the closest thing to first party right on the site and sourced 3+ times. This is the origin. Stop it. Anti-cultist is also not a viable source of anything for there is no integrity and notoriety and the site shows an obvious personal vendetta of opinion. [Unknown] made the same comment on the Forum site. The issue is if he was lying or not. Probably not, but the need to show it is a third party claim is important. All this is found on the TZm forum , as linked 3 times--Falcon2112 (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Why are there so many links pointing to their own lectures and videos as well as a pdf ! ? Is this really necessary ? It looks like they are promoting their propaganda in the links as opposed to providing any real external links of sites that discuss them. The majority of these links are simply promotion and their own materials. Should there only be actual external links and all the advertsiement and self linking junk removed ? Dilligencedetails (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the word "Propoganda" reveals your biased intent. The materials link are merely the materials/data/info put out by the movement. This is perfectly in line with the nature of the wiki article which is to express what this movement is. --Falcon2112 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you questioning my intent through the use of a word this is not a forum for debating one another, concentrate on the matter at hand and stop being so emotional, stick to the facts.The external links section is cluttered with self promotional materials that are not external links, they should be removed Dilligencedetails (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links are to be neutral and relevant. Posting resources put out by The Movement is not a position of Bias. It is simply information The Movement provides. It would be different if "fan sites" were posted as that would be biased. Same goes for "hate site". These biases do sites have no place, but basic info officially put out by the movement does.--Falcon2112 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple links to the same site, for instance link to the website, and then a link to the same website with the pdf they created, then a link to a different website with a video version of the pdf, this is multiple links unecessary. A simple link to the movements website would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed 14 links all of them pointing to the same ten minute youtube video. They were embedded into this article as sources for different claims, all of which are not verified within the ten minute video. Not only is youtube an unreliable source, the video irrelevant to claims but it was repeated far too many times as a source. I have left one link in there for fairness, this being link source 1 [3 phases of the movement] But even then its still an unreliable source, Dilligencedetails (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Concepts advocated by the Zeitgeist Movement

"""In the July 2010 Monthly Newsletter, a summery of The Movement's ideas/goals are included: "The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) seeks to transition into a new social system, called a “Resource-Based Economy” which seeks to base social organization on Resource Management and Preservation as the initial starting point of all relevant earthly decisions. In turn, we wish to see Science and Technology be used liberally for the greater social good, including the scienti!c reorientation of Labor, Production, Distribution and hence Industry at large. This can be done through a “Systems Theory” approach to a global technological management infrastructure. “Politics”, as we know it today, is considered outdated in the view of The Movement, for it is an institutional byproduct of ancient folkways of human relations that pre-dates the advent of modern scienti!c understandings. Politics inherently prefers “opinion” to “fact”. In other words, Government today acts in accord with vested interests, not objective scienti!c reasoning." """ This section is somewhat ambiguous in that it states that politics does not use the scientific method to conduct any of its decisions, yet we can easily argue against this when we look at the global warming issue. The political motivations are driven by their research and suggestions from the scientific arena and they are certainly conducting themselves based upon the scientific method here. Consensus should be reached as to whether the zeitgeist movement can actualkly truly state things like this and it remain 100% fact. Not only this it is promoting banning of governmental agencies in the above statement through the use of subjective opinion and has no real substantive founding in any evidence provided other than a pdf written by the zeitgeist movement founder. I therefore think it is not neutral and also irrelevant. Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The first two sentences from this newsletter quote are ok because they tell me what the goals of the movement are. The stuff about politics just sounds like propaganda though. I think someone just wanted to promote their newsletter, the quote is way too long too.--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Further reading section

I am going to remove the "further reading" section from the article. None of the books in the article are about the Zeitgeist Movement or related to it except for the Fresco book. The point of having a further reading section is to list books that are about the articles subject, for example a biography about Marx could be listed on the Marx article. The books on this list are just taken from Jacque Fresco's "recommended reading" list.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Now wait a minute, remember that the Movement is multidisciplinary in what it discusses. How are we to draw the line of where this association stops? Personally, I feel that all of the books on the list were related to TZM, it just depends on how specific we want to get. For example, TZM advocates machine automation because of the trends of Technological Unemployment. This is basically the main subject of Jeremy Rifkin's book The End of Work (one of the books in the further reading section if you remember). So, are we supposed to leave this out because it does not directly reference TZM? These kind of connections exist in all of the books cited. I see no problem in listing books with subjects concerning what the Movement talks about even if just in theory. It's not like we're referencing books about the 1932 Winter Olympics, the relations do exist if you grasp the larger picture of what we are trying to point out. Another example, Stuart Chase's book The Tyranny of Words is about the subjectivity of our language and the inherent problems encountered when we speak to each other. To an outside observer this point might seem irrelevant to a social movement that advocates creating a sustainable social design, but as a long time member of the Movement, I feel it is safe to attest that this is one of it's main points. Our entire social framework from money to politics to religion are all based on contrived human subjectivity and opinion, not on real, objective physical processes. This is why we stress so much the importance of The Scientific Method. Too much of our interaction is based on opinion and ambiguity. So if you're following, the connection is once again present. So, I guess my main concern is in where the line is drawn. What's the real problem with listing as many related books as possible even if they're outside of the direct activism intentions of TZM? Should we instead list them under The Venus Project article? Even Fresco's book doesn't directly relate to The Movement, should we not even list that? I feel, that this guideline that Grandthefttoaster states above is a bit too rigid, but I would very much like to hear what everyone else thinks. So before I hear feedback, I will simply repost The Best That Money Can't Buy along with the Orientation Guide and wait for your responses. I hope I made myself clear :D Imyoda69 (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between having a further reading section that is intended to list books about the subject, and a recommended reading list that is intended to convince people of a certain point of view. Jacque Fresco created his reading list because he thought the books were necessary to understand the need for the Venus Project, which is a good idea for his own site, but not for Wikipedia which is neutral.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talking of other literature, would you be interested in my book that has just been published? The title is "A DiFfErEnT PoInT Of ViEw". I shall have a blog of it very soon, but the book is not transmissible electronically. You really need to see and feel the paperback to get the experience of it. For instance, my front and back covers display the Earth, as yours does, but mine is upside down. Although I had no knowledge of the Zeitgeist Movement, but much of what I write supports the philosophy they put forward, especially about the redundancy of money and efficient use of resources.My book is a gift to anyone who asks for it. We have RRP of A$13 marked on it, and we ask that everyone pays that. Apart from maintaining our supply of funds, it gives the recipient the opportunity to demonstrate that can overcome any sub-conscious waryness about the number 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.34.218 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

TZM Wikipedia entry has been trolled

he Zeitgeist Movement wikipedia entry contains the following points listed under "Concepts advocated by the Zeitgeist Movement"

1. The entire human race is corrupt to one degree or another, and our system of ethics, which is seen as evil, leads to aberrant behavior.[3]

1. The solutions to the world's problem's will not come about through logic or reason.[4]

1. The current social order should be replaced with a military dictatorship, which will change culture and remove deviant and socially offensive behavior.[4]

Did anyone else notice this?? I'm not all that familiar with the editing process of wikipedia, but is it really that easy to maliciously change entries like this??

The citations they used dont contain any of the text that they are suggested to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L thetruth (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jinx55, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello wikis,

I humbly ask for a completely new wiki-article on this matter. What the Zeitgeist Movement is all about is spreading awareness of the social design which the Venus project proposes. Mr. Fresco of The Venus Project has designed another economy, and a different way of running society. These are ideas. The Zeitgeist Movement is only concerned with spreading his ideas.

Jinx55 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. That isn't going to happen, but if there are specific errors or omissions you would like to correct, just specify the text and provide a reliable source. Thanks. Celestra (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dadude:

I agree with Jinx55. The whole tone is just distorted in this article.

For example: Zday is not celebrated, thats sounds wrong. It is held as an awerness spreading event. Fix this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadude4 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadude4 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5