Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Nullifying the work of others is contentious

(copied from my talk page)

I hope you do not resume editing tendentiously on this article. You removed accurate information that was cited. Not a good idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: You replaced good text with babytalk: "Samuel Gilonis describes the movements opinions as wanting to replace all private property with for what Joseph refers to as ..." That is not good editing. A movement does not have "opinions", and the statement cites goals. You are not following WP:BRD -- Bold, revert, discuss. Go back to the talk page and explain why you want to nullify the work of other editors with this half-baked language. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Earl King Jr was following BRD. The IP made a bold edit, Earl King Jr reverted it, and the onus to discuss the matter was on whoever restored the material. It's not BRRD or BDR. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Study further. Earl King reverted a number of edits in a sweep that included the most recent from a signed editor -- without discussion. The history page tells all. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No, changed a few words back to conform to the citation that was given in sourcing the information and they were a very few words, not a 'sweep'. Someone tried to change the general information from the citation, an I.P. I think, not that there is anything wrong with that, but its better to keep the actual intent of the citation and not someones rephrasing, hence inaccurate, not even paraphrased right information. Please return the former edit as it was it was accurate. Also the bit you added sfarney about how many people belong to this very iffy movement is not actually sourced in the citation, its of unknown origin. Where does the number come from, Zeitgeist? We can not have some Peter Joseph interview claiming how many people belong when no public records are available for this social movement which may not even be a social movement but very possibly just a promotion for Mr. Josephs series of movies. After all he did announce the Zeitgeist movement at the end of a movie so this whole movement thing is very very iffy and needs good sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to accept as a definitive statement on the number of members sources solely to a student newspaper. Presumably the writer had obtained the number from somewhere but there is nothing in what is written to suggest that it was from anyone who might actually have access to the information.Martinlc (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the writer of the article is hostile to Zeitgeist Movement and would not be accepting their numbers without checking -- but it would be very boring if it included all the background work confirming each fact. If this it RS for any facts without a whole monolog on where it got the info, it is RS for this fact too. So either you throw it out completely, or you use it. You don't cherry-pick. Also, that standard for would have to be applied to all the hostile sources, too. Where did they get their information? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No. That logic fails. Editors have to exercise judgement about content in a source . There is no real source anywhere of the number of members. Is a member of a blog or forum a member?Unknown. Earl King Jr. (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

To aid you in your quandary, blogs do not have "members". By definition, blogs are written and published on the determination, origination, and activity of individuals.. Movements do have members, however. We are discussing whether this is a source on the number of members. Your argument that "there is no real source" is simply begging the question. You know what that means, right? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that you are tendentious and like to make points by being insulting. I know that Zeitgeist information and movies and movement was thought to be a right wing anti Semitic organization that promoted classic stereotypes about Jews. That clear enough? As you know the movement or so called movement and its debatable whether a movement exists, was banned on a common German social networking site. It appears that was taken out of the article but no doubt should be returned into the article. Your talk page seems to indicate you have a dog in this contest Slade. Anyway, the source for that information of members is not known. Membership is secret. It is not public information. There is no way to say a number and expect that is true. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

All those violations of WP:CIVIL do not make a hill of beans. It is a reliable source used in the article for some statements critical of the subject, but not good enough for statements supportive of the subject. That is a significant problem of WP:NPOV. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 12:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The right wing neo Nazi aspects of Zeitgeist

Probably not a bad idea to put back some aspect of this information [[1]]. Its one of our few reliable sources. From the link, Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement. Many were genuinely baffled in 2009 when a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism. Others seem a bit embarrassed by the first Zeitgeist; they’ll often say it’s “irrelevant”—one of TZM’s favorite epithets—because it came out before the movement got started. But no one is disavowing it, and so a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia. “I’m willing to accept that the filmmaker is a person who has a great energy and tremendous ignorance who inadvertently replicated the Nazi view of money manipulation,” says Berlet. “In which case he needs to repudiate it.” That seems unlikely. In a video interview available online, Joseph rails against his critics, “the self-appointed guardians of the status quo.” The first Zeitgeist, he insists, “is based on pre-existing information. There isn’t one thing in that film that doesn’t come from a source.” True enough. The problem is what the sources are.

So opinions about using some aspect of Zeitgeist movement having been banned from studiVZ ? Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And another of your comments fades off into gibberish. Would you like to clarify? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarify? Asking for comments on Zeitgeist being banned on a social networking site in Germany, whether that merits being in the article. Are you pro or con Slade Farney? You are that Slade Farney right? Your old signature would imply a certain bias on this issue? Anyome ever tell you that your signature is annoying? Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, your comment is non-sequitur. I am "pro" making an encyclopedia. People can call each other names until the crows sport flowers, but not all name-calling is encyclopedic. You may recall that Benito Mussolini called for making the trains run on time, but that does not turn every train schedule advocate into a fascist. Editors must use common sense. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Being a Holocaust denier and subscribing to the theories of Jewish conspiracy of banking etc. does not preclude one from editing. As a public person with a theory of denial about history that is considered fringe, a little caution is probably needed. The subject on the talk page is whether to include the basics of the 1st Zeitgeist movie which conjured up the Protocols of thr Elders of Zion and the outlook of Nazi Germany and its theories aboit Jewish culture being a large aspect of the 1st movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you should back off on your personal attacks. You should conform your conduct to the standards of Wikipedia. Consider yourself warned.

• None of the movies mention the Elders of Zion or the Nazis. Such associations are hysterical mud-slinging. The Nazis proposed both Social Security pensions and broader public education before America saw fit to implement them. That fact does not turn Roosevelt into a Nazi, nor is the association appropriate for the Roosevelt topic. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Goldberg citation says otherwise as do other reliable sources that are not hysterical. The group/movement was banned from that German networking site for promoting antisemitic ideololpgy.. Your public website advocates shall we say fringe thinking on these things. It appears you are trying to influence the article with conspiracy thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If Goldberg accuses Roosevelt of Nazism, feel free to add it to the topic. Let us know how it goes. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just one more blatant example of Earl's interest to pollute ZM with fringe nonsense. JWilson0923 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Sock

I have been reverting a sock who keeps recommending to delete this article. The TP history shows the same person with socks constantly suggesting this article should be deleted since 2014 with this edit. I know who might be doing this. I have a few suggested users who have been blocked prior from these occurrences and have engaged in discussions on this TP. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ian and I have been blocking these socks as they pop up - I've blocked the latest two. Just revert and report. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII and NeilN: [2]

New York Times

The Newyork times piece is a good reliable source, but there is no sense in over using it. Its an old story. It does not really deserve a place in the lead given its nearing ten years old and does not reflect the current state of this movement supposing a movement does actually exist now. It would be better in a history section [3], besides the information is already in the Events section in the body of the article so no real reason to list an old event in a current lead. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Understand your concern, but as you have said many times, we have no information on the size of the movement in present day. It could be greater, could be smaller. The size of the Movement is an important basic fact that a reader would want to know immediately, though. What do other editors think? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The movement could be an promo advert for the movies since announcing a movement at the end of a movie as Peter Joseph did seems pretty non organic. There are no records to check. No membership records at all, anywhere. It all seems adhoc. It may be the movement imploded after Fresco quit several years ago and no longer exists beyond some token meetings. There are no sources for the last few years for Zeitgeist information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Membership records are not expected for a movement. Movements do not require "membership" with formal registrations, uniforms, dues, and mailing lists like organizations. A Movement is a number of people moving in the same direction, like the Christian Zionists of American churches, the Abolitionists of 150 years ago, the Separatists in Quebec and Norther California, the Tea Party, Occupy, Anonymous, the early Christian church, the hippy movement, the French Underground Resistance, and the antisemites. When winter comes, there is movement of wildlife down from the mountain heights, and when spring comes, a movement in reverse. The individuals do not register their intentions or pay a toll at the turnpike. They just move, or attend, or show up. And when the event is done, they disburse. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

But then it becomes a rhetorical issue. We are talking about fans of a movie and perhaps only a movement in regard to that. There is no indication about numbers anywhere and putting some numbers in the lead from many years ago as kind of a rah rah promo is not really accurate to the present. In a history section that would be fine. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We are talking about fans of a movie -- You may overlooking the fact that some people found real ideas in the movie and the speeches by Jacque Fresco for making a better world. The statement above is a little like saying that Marxists are just book fans of Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie -- who knows if there was a real movement? Yes, Virginia, there was a real World Wide Communist movement, regardless of an accurate count, regardless of uniforms, memberships, dues, and secret handshakes. And it was not just a fan club. And the New York Times documents that there was a real Zeitgeist Movement with real people and real numbers in 2011. That kind of fact is encyclopedic. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes but that is five or six years ago. What have they done lately besides holding some yearly meeting and having internet forums. Probably saying The statement above is a little like saying that Marxists are just book fans of Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie -- who knows if there was a real movement? Well there is a difference between a movement built on extreme fringe theory conspiracy theory and a well known topic like mainstream communism. The comparison does not really compute in any kind of argument. The information belongs in an event/slash history section. Its not like they are filling Madison Square Garden or holding rallies somewhere that are being reported on besides that old information. Its too rah rah promotional for the lead though its a good historic footnote about this group. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Five years ago is "lately" in the life of an encyclopedia. This is not People Magazine that withers faster than lettuce in the fridge. The size of the movement is as important as the date. Movement, theme, date, size, founders. Those are the key elements and they all belong in the lede. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not a movement though. That is just the title of the organization. According to the Zeitgeist's published book 'The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies “motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.' That is in their own words. Movement is a term for the group or organization. It is not an actual movement of people, it is a concept by an organization. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This is getting a little off-track. Even though the word "movement" implies motion or change, it also implies a movement. The NYTimes tells the size of the movement. We do not have a source that says it is not a movement -- do we? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Latest changes

Earl King Jr., I think the edit by Sfarney improved the article both grammatically and by removing a reaction I'm not sure is needed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Apparently to the people involved in both of these 'movements' it is a big deal of why or how they split up and that is why the information is in the article. Its part of the history of sorting out what they are about. I thought his edit summary was way off in the sense that people that advocate for the group often say the movie is irrelevant. Actually it is in the overview section of the article so I think it is a fitting place for that kind of information for people interested in the history of the movement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have a source about the Movie, put it in the Movie article. If you have a source about the Movement, you can put it in the Movement article. But you do not put comments about the Movie on the Movement article. We get it that you want to say the Movement is antisemitic, but reactions to the Movie do not belong on the Movement page. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong and please lets not get into what 'I' think, lets stick with neutral information presentation that reliable sources give us. Our reliable sources tell us that the movement and the movie are inextricably linked. Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement. Many were genuinely baffled in 2009 when a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism. Others seem a bit embarrassed by the first Zeitgeist; they’ll often say it’s “irrelevant”—one of TZM’s favorite epithets—because it came out before the movement got started. But no one is disavowing it, and so a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia. from this [4] So lets leave it to our sources to let us know and not the opinion of the Zeitgeist movement or its sponsors to tell us or Wikipedia ediors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Tablet is a source about the movement, so you can use it. The subject of this edit was not. Right now you are arguing for WP:SYNTH: A says ... and B says ..., therefore we can put them together and say ... -- but that is SYNTH. Please read that section and conform your editing. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Its obviously a source about the movement and the movie [5] Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The quote provided was not about the Movement. And NO source so far provided says the "that the movement and the movie are inextricably linked". Some editor originated that assertion. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are obviously mistaken about the movies and movement not being connected Two hours into Z-Day, the educational forum associated with the online movie “Zeitgeist,” Peter Joseph, the film’s director and the evening’s M.C., stepped out from behind his lectern and walked forward earnestly on the stage. [6]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"Connected" is not "inextricably linked". And "associated with" is neither "connected" nor "inextricably linked". A good dictionary might help you discover the differences. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Zeitgeist is shown by our sources to come from his performance piece. Most dictionaries are the same so your point is lost on that. Reporting the facts of the Zeitgeist movement is the point of the article. You have lost the argument because of the cited sourced information on the origin of the movement being from the original film. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-Neutrality and constant biased vandalism

Legitimate complaints should be condensed into a clear set of WP:DIFFs and brought to WP:ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Introduction is totally biased- the section about the venus project is incorrect in using phrasing "super brain" and others since the source it cites doesnt exist. Venus project direct materials give a clear and unbiased description and should be the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.95.151 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Recently, a thoughtful and updated edit was made to this page, expressing a clearly neutral and informative position for the ZM, including its legal 501 c3 non-profit status. This was reverted by Earl King Jr., who has consistently reverted any attempt to allow for a respectable, honest page here. This is an insult to Wikipedia and needs to stop. Since 2012, his edit history has been very clear: Make sure the ZM appears as fringe and nonsensical as possible. Despite controversy, many highly reputable articles have been written that define this org as per Wikipedia standards. This need to embraced to provide the public with a true picture of the organization. Having looked at the history or what is highly violating and immoral behavior of Earl King Jr., I suggest the full banning of him, as was partly done before for the same reason. His history of non-nuetrality and bias speaks for itself if anyone reviews it and he does not belong anywhere near wikipedia. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:Earl_King_Jr.reported_by_User:Somedifferentstuff.28Result:_Stale.29 He has also been reported for destruptive behavior here: [7] He has also been reported for harassing editors here: [8] He also violates wiki rules by deleting the info on his own page, trying to hide his history and many other problems. JWilson0923 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC) I have reverted your non-NPOV edits which also broke half the refs. --NeilN talk to me 22:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC) If you are a administrator, how can you sit by and watch this constant extreme NPOV editing coming from single purpose editors like Earl King Jr. and not do anything about it?! JWilson0923 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC) I am doing something - discouraging blatant whitewashing from SPAs. --NeilN talk to me 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Agreed. "Fatima 77"'s edits were the most honest edits this page has ever seen and Earl needs to be banned, along with his friends. This is neutrality and should be incorporated.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=727026331&oldid=726969718 74.80.228.162 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC) And yet nothing has come of those past reports... Reports being filed and nothing resulting from them mean nothing. Also, what "rules" prohibit an editor from removing material from their own talk pages? As for this edit summary: no, it is not under general sanctions because of folks like Earl King Jr or NeilN, it is under sanctions because of single purpose accounts here only to praise Zeitgeist under the guise of an artificial "balance". You've been reverted by three different editors, so unless you're going to argue that Wikipedia as a whole are Earl King Jr's cronies, you're gonna need to back off on that line of argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Oh, it will come to something as Earl is the enemy of honesty. All this is cumulative evidence of his extreme bias. He roams every zeitgeist page with the same stuff and people like you, who are clearly biased as well, come in and pretend to have any honest interiority and defend him. Amazing. JWilson0923 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC) You need evidence for your accusations, otherwise they are nothing but personal attacks. And no, repeated reports by single purpose accounts who are not here to build an encyclopedia but glorify TZM are not evidence of anything except why this article needed to be put under general sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC) There is 5 years of evidence against Earl and your idea that putting honest info about a non-profit organization with almost a decade of history is not glorifying anything. It is simply being honest. Nothing posted recently was anything but an explanation of what the org does and its history. You disagree? If so, lets hear it in detail. The only reason you and your friends want to put sanctions is to limit, once again, any honesty on this page and you should be ashamed of yourself. JWilson0923 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC) For starters, you downplayed Peter Joseph's proven and documented role, relied way too much on WP:PRIMARY sources, and completely censored the criticism section. You turned it into a puff piece for y'all's ideals. Between that and your sockpuppetry, you accusing anyone of bias and dishonesty is ridiculously hypocritical. And again, you either need to present evidence or shut up. Pointing to reports by your fellow POV-pushers (or perhaps other accounts by you, given that you are a sockpuppeteer) does not amount to jack shit except that some cult members tried to game the system in bad faith in order to turn the article into their own little recruitment drive. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: Please be mindful of WP:BITE. Wikipedia does not apply SPA to a person who has only a few edits. If it did, every new account that made its first edit would be banned as an SPA. You know that Earl King Jr. crowds the boundaries of good conduct and hardly meets the standards of good editing. His/er favorite term, "Documentary-style", was debated intensely almost two years ago, and rejected by the consensus. Yet we find now, under Earl King Jr.'s careful tending, it is back again and has to be removed.[9] In this edit, he enforced Valley Girl English on the article. A couple of years ago, Earl King Jr. whittled away on this page until it was folded in with the Zeitgeist movie, then he whittled away on that page, with the announced intention of having that page deleted. Is tearing out pages consistent with building an encyclopedia? He bullies and insults other editors. Why do you protect him? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC) @Sfarney: Why are you defending a SPA who blatantly socked to sway discussion? --NeilN talk to me 17:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC) "Socked"? Do you have WP:SPI evidence? Can you show me? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC) @Sfarney: I would have thought you'd look at a user's talk page before chastising another editor for calling them a SPA. The block notice is right there. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC) @NeilN: The issue is not an editor who was sanctioned more than two months ago and restored, but an editor who continues to violate good editing practice, insert bad English into articles, remove content, and insult and bully other editors. Would you care to address those problems? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC) @Sfarney: That's your issue and not the one I got involved with. You are free to address your issue however you wish and if you make suggestions or edits I might post some feedback. --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Thank you, yes, that IS the issue. And it affects all of us at Wikipedia, and the readers, too -- not just me. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Ha. I'm sorry. I stand corrected - you are not biased at all. Cult? Jack Shit? You kiss you mother with that mouth? You are just another example of a person who should be no where near this page. JWilson0923 (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC) If they're not a cult, the members that come here sure do a bad job of not acting like one. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia articles are not mouthpieces for their subjects, existing only to provide subject-approved history and facts. To give our readers a complete understanding of the subject, we heavily rely on what others say about the subject. --NeilN talk to me 23:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)quote If that is the case then why are about 90% of all viable non-primary source articles about ZM dismissed, focusing on the truly fringe, right wing things pushed by Earl King and friends? These guys pretend there is no good info about the movement outside of bigoted critiques. Both and Earl and Ian uphold what can only be called a bigoted and opposed view of ZM and they edit exactly that way. Just because something is honest and detailed doesn't mean it is a "puff" piece. For example, ZM is a 501c3 Non-profit. A legal entity. These guys prefer that be ignored as it supports their fringe hatred. Instead, they support things like linking the "Elders of Zion" and supporting totally fringe idea like Zm is anti-Semitic. You call this Neutral?! JWilson0923 (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC) The Journal of Contemporary Religion, NY Times, etc. are not in the habit of publishing "bigoted critiques". Do you have sources of equal stature? And having a 501c says nothing about how "respected" an organization is or how it is viewed. See Church of Scientology --NeilN talk to me 00:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC) NY Times is fine. The article in the Journal is so uncorroborated and out of left field is is highly fringe. As far as the 501c3, it is noted because the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain what an organization is and does. Yes, people like Earl very much prefer to keep ZM appear as unorganized and fringe as possible. It does serve their biased interests to downplay everything about zm and the edit history proves it. they remove any real data, forcing in fringe and bigoted info. Other sources you say? Extracted from the prior edit, there are plenty, each presenting corroborated and basic info about ZM without the bias, confusion and hatred so common to this pathetic wikipedia article. Here are some you can read- http://www.yongestreetmedia.ca/features/torontozeitgeist060513.aspx http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/new_world_re_order/8838/ http://www.heralddeparis.com/the-zeitgeist-movement-practical-advices-to-build-a-better-future/27800/ http://www.dailyprogress.com/entertainment/first-local-zeitgeist-day-part-of-global-pause-to-focus/article_e486425a-8cf5-11e2-817e-001a4bcf6878.html http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxOPorto-Peter-Joseph-Arrivin;search%3Apeter%20joseph http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2010/03/15/local-zeitgeist-chapter-celebrates-global-zday http://www.ve.lt/naujienos/lietuva/lietuvos-naujienos/laiko-dvasia-uzvalde-ir-lietuva/ http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/10634-zeitgeist-and-the-venus-project https://www.forewordreviews.com/reviews/the-zeitgeist-movement-defined/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html and many more — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWilson0923 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Also, a more extreme example: Westboro Baptist Church. So non-profit status really does mean nothing. --NeilN talk to me 00:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC) See above. This is basic wiki standard stuff. JWilson0923 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Again, the 501c3 means nothing as to what an organization actually does (see the two examples I listed). Few of the sources provided match the the status of the Times or Journal (which is peer-reviewed so your opinion of it means little) but you can suggest specific changes on this talk page using sources and see what others think. --NeilN talk to me 00:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC) You are suggesting WP:OWN, and that is not the way it works. Nobody owns this article. Nobody has to ask permission or win approval to edit the topic. You should be ashamed of those misrepresentations. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC) @Sfarney: Give me a break. I'm trying to save him from an indefinite block. This article is under general sanctions so it's good practice to discuss significant changes on the talk page first. --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC) You have accused the editor of being a "sock", above. Now you are trying to "save him"? Why? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC) @Sfarney: Because he served his block and is allowed to edit now. I will try to work with anyone presently in good standing. --NeilN talk to me 17:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC) You are suggesting WP:OWN, and that is not the way it works. Nobody owns this article. Nobody has to ask permission or win approval to edit the topic. You should be ashamed of those misrepresentations. Grammar's Li'l Helper Mmmm, as just another grunt editor here I would suggest that you are tendentiously verbally out of control and the amazing forbearance given you for your comments is really very liberal. As a non Admin. I would suggest you tip toe back a bit and lower the acrimony level. Supporting a Sockpuppet and other single purpose or fake accounts does not win a lot of applause/support. Assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, for disputes, seek dispute resolution Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC) I'd like to add this same complaint on James Earl King Jr. regarding his obvious unfair bias against TZM's wiki, restricting new and relevant info appropriate to what an informative outlined Wikipedia page on TZM would be, while sourcing particular associations which radicalize and alienate TZM in outright bias. Please remove him from participation. He's not neutral, just sits on the site undoing what are legitimate, well sourced, matter of fact contributions, preventing anything other than what supports the fringe/obscure perception he works so hard to shape.IntegrasRadiata (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Organization, Movement, analysis from their book

Apparently from their self published book the name of the group is a little different than any kind of organic movement and more accurately at least in part they are better termed an organization except for when they 'title' themselves in their information.

According to the Zeitgeist's self published book which is cited in the article 'The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies “motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.' Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you have been doing a little OR and SYNTH from primary sources. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Quoting their book is not o.r. or synth plus that citation is already in use in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Your SYNTH begins with your word "therefore". Please consult WP:SYNTH.Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No, This is the exact quote which is quoted which you apparently did not check The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies "motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time. So that is the quote which is given as a direct quote in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References

You are apparently arguing that the Zeitgeist Movement is not a movement -- is that correct? I don't think that thesis comports with our sources. Even Tablet admits it is a movement. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read the information above from the Zeitgeist Movement group's book. They say what they are. I am not arguing anything. This is the exact quote The term “zeitgeist” is defined as the “general intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era.” The term “movement” simply implies "motion” or change. Therefore, The Zeitgeist Movement is an organization that urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time. So that is the quote which is given as a direct quote in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We do not investigate primary sources and draw conclusions. That is WP:OR. If you have a secondary source that denies it is a movement, you have something for the article. As it is, all our secondary sources agree it is a movement. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I asked you kindly not to edit tendentiously before and that goes for talk pages also. No conclusions are or were drawn. Please stop. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "tendentious" about pointing out your editing errors. No one has called you names (as you have done to others[10]) or violated any other canons. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Another Book

Probably belongs more on the peter joseph article but another movement related book is coming out on amazon by PJ called "The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression", which might be worth a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzeeem-account (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)