Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Neutrality dispute

Hello all, It has become clear since I began to examine this page that a set of editors continue to dominate and work in tandem to assure no viable or even basic, neutral data, objectively noted, about the The Zeitgeist Movement is posted.

The patterns are: 1) All general content and gesture of the editorial is confirmed to a negative and/or highly ambiguous bias to the extend total confusion. 2) Any actual, official data on The Zeitgeist Movement, even for summation purposes is removed in favor of ambiguity to cloud any formal impression of The Zeitgeist Movement to a viewer. 3) Most of the 3rd party sources referenced are deliberately negative - even though more reputable articles are ignored. Event basic summation data which can be found in many articles, is ignored.

Whether one agrees with The Zeitgeist Movement is not the point. Sadly, the core edits clearly show their bias. "Earl Jr.", for example, frequently blogs on other wiki pages in obvious disgust of The Zeitgeist Movement. Others do their best to also continue what is a subtle attack on The Zeitgeist Movement's actions and intents JamesB17 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It has become clear since you began to post on this page that you wish to convert this article into a pro-TZM puff-piece. That isn't going to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andy. In truth, I respect Wikipedia as a source for basic data on a given subject. Your biased editorial work has continually failed at that objective process. JamesB17 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In truth, I don't give a toss for your opinion of me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Good for you!!! JamesB17 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Standard "Verifiability" is critical for a proposition to be considered true. Wikipedia states: "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Reliable means to: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

It is here where this article is astray. For instance, the core "criticisms" noted are, by all comparative standards "Questionable", which Wikipedia defines as: "[S]ources...that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Both the "Journal of Cont. Religion" articles and "M. Goldberg's" fall into this category clearly as they are heavy in bias ( conflict of interest) and, by comparative standards, entirely inaccurate and bizarre. These are deeply questionable and are "fish out of water" reactions" JamesB17 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to edit war with the tag, andy, you will be banned. JamesB17 (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope - you have provided no policy-based grounds for tagging. You clearly don't understand Wikipedia policy on neutrality, on sourcing, or on conflict of interest, and accordingly, the tags are inappropriate. "I don't like it" is never a justification for such tags, and so far that all you've come out with. If you think I'm wrong, raise it at one of the relevant notice boards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(And BTW, the mess you left at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring isn't going to get much of a response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for the Tip. Don't worry. I will learn for sure. And I made the policy grounds very clear for those without such a negative bias like yourself. I never said anything about "not liking it". It is a biased article, with questionable sources brought into core focus for the sake of that bias. JamesB17 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, you're welcome to raise this alleged 'bias' at the notice boards - but before you do, I suggest you read up on what Wikipedia policy actually is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no basis for the pov tag. Sources aren't chosen based on what a few random guys on the internet think is neutral; neutrality is determined by what the sources say. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

TZM article is not proportional to the size of the movement.

The article for TZM on Wikipedia is way to short and scarce of information in relation to the size of the movement. The facebook page has over 150,000 fans, there is an entire 300 page book about the movement, there are worldwide Zdays, Zeitgeist Media Festivals, public figures who address the movement,etc. The movement is something global and yet the Wikipedia page is minuscule. Whether one subscribes to the train of thought put forward by the movement or not, its dimension must be recognized and accordingly the page must contain more information about the movement. The entire point of Wikipedia is to provide information about a subject to those who seek it, not to place it in obscurity because there are certain individuals that do not share the ideas put forward by the subject in particular. So please let the editors do their job by placing more concise information about TZM, and a neutral standpoint in the Criticism section, which I do not understand why it has to be called 'Criticism' section, as the reactions provoked by the movement have been both positive and negative. --PeachDinosaurShoe (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, not Facebook pages. Also, we don't do fair and balanced here, we report what the sources say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The amount of followers on the official Facebook or Twitter sites is a perfectly valid measure of the social impact of TZM. Whether you judge it or not as valid does not change the fact that TZM and its social follow up is of a large magnitude and that the page on Wikipedia and the information displayed on it should be concordant with that magnitude. --PeachDinosaurShoe (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I read it. What is your point exactly? Are you arguing against the fact that the Wikipedia page about the movement is limited and that there should be more information relating to TZM? Please explain yourself.--PeachDinosaurShoe (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist has not been hashed over much by serious commentators. In other words there are not a lot of reliable sources for citations that have much to say about it or put it in some other light. Right now the article is pretty good. It is informative. It is succinct. It leads to the Zeitgeist website. It portrays the start and continuation of the concept by Peter Joseph. You can not ask for more than that really. We can not just copy the Faq's page from Zeitgeist as information about itself. If the Moscow Times writes some big article on it or Peter Joseph is interviewed by Barbara Walters or even a good college newspaper then we can probably use that in the article. Base line is that it is arguable how 'real' the movement is. 'Grassroots social movement' is really a stretch even, since it is the personal project one could almost say 'marketing project' of Peter Joseph who sells DVD's of it. It can be said that the article is good, its informative. It does what it is supposed to do, tell about the Zeitgeist Movement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, find them. The number of twitter followers someone has is irrelevant. The official TZM twitter account has about 10 times more than I do, and I am no big deal...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Who needs reliable sources and for what? I am just saying that editors should be allowed to make the Wikipedia page more informative (yes, with their sources and all), which is not happening because some users are committed to keeping the page small, uninformed and biased. There should be an amount of information proportional to the magnitude of the movement, you or anyone should not need any source to understand that simple logic. --PeachDinosaurShoe (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is the way Wikipedia rules have been set up - if it hasn't been covered by a scientific journal or mainstream media, it is not considered worthwhile. This means that majority opinion and funding decisions (about what gets in mainstream media) is essentially deciding WP content and opposition views have a hard time getting heard (remember, history is written by the victors). You'll either have to find sources that WP allows or find some way to contest the guidelines.

BTW, the thing with likes and followers is that both can be artificially increased. So such numbers cannot be relied on. --Melarish (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

ZDay 2014 notablity

Hello, Some editors are not allowing the ZDAY 2014 data. Note: Abby Martin, a listed reported on Wikipedia/ notable as well for being on RT ( also listed as notable) mentions this: http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/mcdonalds-drug-penalties-economy-710/ at the 21 min mark. Flowersforparis (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not everything a Wikipedia-notable person or organisation does is significant. If this event is as meaningful as TZM claims, why is RT the only source covering it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

why? who cares. If it was on CNN would you feel the same? It's notable based upon wikipedia's rules. Go masturbate somewhere else. Flowersforparis (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably your comments could be removed Flowersforparis but I assume your editing days are over here, at least under that name. I guess you were busted as a sock puppet earlier so maybe you will incarnate back here soon. You are mistaken about your assumption of the article being controlled or of anyone caring to do that. R.T. reports on any old nonsense that is somehow anti American or questions society of the West. Zeitgeist really is a fringe group cult and that is why the usual media does not bring it up much, its just not taken seriously except by the zealots that believe in it. As you may know it has been called the worlds first large based internet cult. Mostly that is about the only serious internet commentary on it that is easy to find. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It is probably worth looking at trimming some of the earlier ZDay stuff too - much of it is sourced directly to TZM, thus failing to demonstrate any real significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need to cover it year by year - way too much detail. I think a small amount of additional info about zday in general could be useful. Ravensfire (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know how all this works, but my impression is that AndyTheGrump and Earl King Jr. are a pair of bullies and the only thing Jr. is right about is that Flowersforparis is a sock puppet. I was considering donating money to Wikipedia because I trusted in its lack of bias, but I've changed my mind now.83.34.103.253 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)SalsaBelly

I agree, perhaps a sentence or two mentioning it, perhaps giving an overhead of the subjects talked about?Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie criticisms

Could either Ravensfire or AndyTheGrump explain why information from the movement's own website is not allowed? As I said before, Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE clearly states that own websites are okay for information about itself. If there is a problem with any other part of my edit, why remove the whole edit and not just the bits that are not good? Currently, this looks like a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV because only one side is allowed while there is a reliable source for counter-arguments.

What if I just added the info from the official website, leaving the conclusions up to the reader? Would that be okay? I cannot make any further edits before being blocked so I hope someone responds here on the talk page. --Melarish (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of your personal opinion from the section added would leave us with nothing but a blank denial from TZM that they are conspiracy theorists etc. The source you link (a TZM FAQ [1]) entirely fails to address the criticisms in any meaningful way. Would adding "The Zeitgeist movement states that it does not "Support forbidden 'Conspiracy Theories'" and that it is not "Anti-Religious" actually add much to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would give the reader the information that actually the movement is not defined by the films and is therefore not about conspiracy theories or anti-religion. Otherwise they would only go by what the critics said and take that as truth. I know those are only citations and people should know better than to immediately accept someone's opinion but that's what people do in the absence of any other information. That's what I'm worried about - the article currently seems to say that TZM is a conspiracy/anti-religion movement because there is nothing indicating otherwise.

What would you consider "addressing the criticisms in a meaningful way"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melarish (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 April 2014‎

How many times do I have to point out that your personal opinion regarding 'truth' is of no relevance to Wikipedia? As for meaningfully addressing criticisms, something more substantive than 'not true' would be a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

How is this my personal opinion if it is clearly stated on the movement's own website?

Why cannot a movement define its own philosophy, or say what it is not? That would be like me saying my opinion of your beliefs is more true than your actual beliefs. How is that journalist's opinion in any way substantive? Is she an expert on social movements? Is she an expert in "exposing" cults? --Melarish (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

TZM can say what they like. Wikipedia is under no obligation to assert that it is true. As for 'journalists opinions', if we were to remove material attributed to journalists from the article (including criticism), there would be insufficient third-party sourcing to establish notability by Wikipedia guidelines - and the article would have to be deleted. Meanwhile, negative as well as positive reporting regarding TZM will remain - the criticism is attributed, and we aren't saying that it is necessarily true either, merely that such criticisms have been made. This is how Wikipedia works, and we aren't going to change things just because TZM don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So even if TZM's own page is considered opinion rather than truth by WP guidelines (I'd still like you to point out why WP:SELFSOURCE does not apply here? From what I can read, it is exactly saying that by WP guidelines that information would be considered true.) , can we at least have the movement's own opinion on the matter? --Melarish (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE is of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion - Wikipedia doesn't make assertions regarding the 'truth' of political philosophies, regardless how they are sourced. As for "the movement's own opinion", what text would you propose? 19:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Andy's comments about this. Lots of entities object to the views from independent sources that they consider negative. We normally don't include things like that on Wikipedia. We don't do the "they said but we they the are wrong!" Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be true that this objection is largely due to negative responses but nevertheless, it has been stated and the movement continues to abide by this. If that's not good enough, is this a reliable source to show that the movement is dealing with something much different than conspiracies? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0 --Melarish (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Selfsource is meant for mundane or trivial things. Zeitgeist itself does not pass as a reliable source, and most reliable sources have a lot of criticism of the movement and its films.

Also view: WP:CSECTION. Criticism sections are to be avoided. Instead the analysis of third party viewpoints should be integrated into other sections. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree in general with what WP:CSECTION says, I think it may be problematic concerning this article - there really doesn't seem to be enough in-depth third-party analysis of TZM to get beyond 'he said, she said' criticism and response sections. Take for example, the suggestions of 'utopianism'. We have a source stating that they consider the movement utopian, and no doubt we can find an "oh no we aren't" response, but little real expansion on the topic. With deeper analysis, we would probably find it easier to follow WP:CSECTION, but we have to work with what we have - and without citing the material in the 'criticism' section, even with its limitations, we simply couldn't justify the article at all. If TZM is notable by Wikipedia criteria, it must be due to a large extent to the fact that people have chosen to respond to it, even if the responses lack the depth we would prefer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinions aside though, mine is that the Zeitgeist movement is linked with its founders movie, the first one which is an assortment of N.w.O. Lizard gene conspiracy stuff, inside job of Mossad being involved, blowing up buidlings, secret financial groups, Bush family involved, etc. So, it seems like they themselves can say there is no connection to the 'Movement' but actually is there really a movement or is it mostly internet brainwashing? I know this is not a blog but it goes to show 'opinions' mine or others, even Peter Josephs are not to be trusted. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"....is an assortment of N.w.O. Lizard gene conspiracy stuff" There's no reference to "Lizard genes" in the Zeitgeist series, OK? Thank you and goodbye.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So a person is not allowed to change their views and start something new, without it being forever affected by the person's former work? If they declare lack of connection between the two, they're automatically lying?

"is there really a movement or is it mostly internet brainwashing?" - what do you mean? Are you asking whether the Movement does anything in the real world? The answer is yes but probably not notable enough for WP standards :P --Melarish (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe a little bit of level headedness is needed here as people are not providing compelling argument for both sides. Just state why they're relevant, or do I need to remind everyone of something called Wikipedia:Relevance? Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy Section

In the philosophy section it says:

The movement advocates the elimination of money and property

Private property is meant here (it's also the former term used at this place). However the movement only advocates for a certain extend of elimination of private property for the purpose of pooling products. For example if a person has some personal artwork, a coin-collection or anything alike it stays his private property (in contrast to for example a mine or a field). Things are cleared up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rBRnjV-xI Please somehow incorporate that distinction. --Fixuture.member (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And why should we take a YouTube video uploaded by an anonymous person as a reliable source for anything? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be a source for it. That's why it's on the talk-page. It just clears up the misconceptions upon which this part is built upon. I'll try to find some source on that.

Fixuture, it might be a good idea for you to study about Wikipedia. Right now it seems you have no real idea of the mechanics of how it works. Though Peter Joesph makes it clear in his interviews that 'gate keepers' control this article, his term he uses on the official Zeitgeist Youtube station, that is not the case. There is no conspiracy here to present Zeitgeist in a certain way. We would welcome anyone here to edit the article but there is criteria that has to be used. The article can not be an advert for its subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., you clearly don't understand what Fixuture.member means by, "Please somehow incorporate that distinction." Distinction here does not refer to the YouTube source. It refers to the distinction made by the source. Fixuture.member even explains this, saying "Please somehow incorporate that distinction." He even says later, "I'll try to find some source on that." Your condescension (i.e. statements such as "Fixuture, it might be a good idea for you to study about Wikipedia. Right now it seems you have no real idea of the mechanics of how it works.") is not based on proper consideration.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"Though Peter Joesph makes it clear in his interviews that 'gate keepers' control this article, his term he uses on the official Zeitgeist Youtube station, that is not the case. There is no conspiracy here to present Zeitgeist in a certain way." Fixuture.member's post above didn't bring up the issue of conspiracy, so you have no real justification for "schooling" him by bringing it up. There's no reason to dig up his grave this time.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixuture.member, I would recommend a filtered Google Scholar search for reliable sources about the Zeitgeist Movement. Here's one. It's better practice on Wikipedia to look for a reliable source for the Zeitgeist Movement before deciding what information to incorporate. That way, instead of skipping every reliable source that doesn't cover the specific sub-issue you are looking for, you are instead picking up all the good stuff as you find it. It's much, much faster that way.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article you link, Kmarinas86? As I recall, having looked at it some time ago, it says nothing significant about TZM, and appears to be a non-peer-reviewed personal commentary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking back, I obtained that article via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange back in September 2012. If I've still got a copy, I haven't saved it anywhere obvious - it may have been on my Netbook, which has since been reformatted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Which "article" are you talking about? My link returns a bunch of search results.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 04:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I assumed that by "here's one" you meant the article at the top of the list: [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe a simple question should suffice, are there any reliable sources which clarify their positions that acceptable per Wikipedia Policy? Does everyone have to bite people's heads off here, I'm just saying. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources and restructuring:

• Reason magazine

I removed this as I don't think it's a RS.

• Tablet magazine

I'm thinking this isn't. I'm not sure though, and I'm not that familiar with them. Is it some blog, or some ideological magazine? I'm leaning towards removing it.

• Zeitgeist sources

Too much reliance on WP:SELFSOURCE. I think as it stands, the self source policy is a bit vaguely worded. I will cite guidelines #5 however. Far too much of the article was reliant on those sources. Self sources should be used for mundane, trivial things, (eg. when Zeitgeist was formed). If you rely too much on them for writing the article, it gives them undue weight to their views, and how they would like to present themselves. We should rely upon the reliable secondary sources to dictate which are the most important aspects of the movement, and to rely upon their assessment of their views.

• Criticism section

Which brings me here. WP discourages "Criticism" sections. I recommend removing the Tablet review entirely, then rephrasing the first paragraph which relies upon the NYT, Huffington Post, and Palm Beach Post, and moving it to the views section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Even now, I checked, and 7 out of the 14 references in this article are Zeitgeist sources. That's far too much. These sources need to be replaced, or removed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Tablet' piece, I suggest you look through the archives - this has been repeatedly discussed. As for the 'criticism' section, I have already responded above - I see no reason to repeat myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

And as for 'replacing' sources, could you please explain what you are proposing to replace them with? As has been repeatedly pointed out, there is very little third-party material written on TZM - if there were, I'm sure we could write a better article, but we can't conjure sources out of thin air. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the 'Tablet' source, it seems that it possibly isn't alone in suggesting that TZM indulges in antisemitism. An article on taz.de, the website for Die Tageszeitung, a left-leaning German paper, seems to be suggesting much the same thing. [3] The article is in German though, and it probably needs careful translation by a neutral person before we cite it - it is obviously a sensitive subject, and we have to get it right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that neither The New York Times source in this article nor The Huffington Post mentioned anything about antisemitism? - Why would they leave that out? - The only source we have right now supporting that material is a relatively new online magazine called Tablet Magazine. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry? Are you seriously suggesting that all third-party sources have to express the same opinions regarding the TZM? Excluding a source because it doesn't say the same thing as another one isn't Wikipedia policy as far as I'm aware. And no, the 'Tablet' isn't the only source regarding concerns about antisemitism - I've just provided another source that has said the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am asking you why neither The New York Times source in this article nor The Huffington Post mentioned anything about antisemitism. And please quote the new source as I don't read German. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

My German isn't good enough to rely on - which is why I suggested a neutral translation. Meanwhile, Google translate seems to do well enough to get the gist of it: A section heading entitled 'Eklige Holocaust-Äußerungen' ('Disgusting Holocaust remarks' according to Google translate) may give a clue. As for why the NYT, and the Huff blog don't mention antisemitism, I really couldn't say, and it isn't my job to speculate. We use sources for what they say, not what they don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I can recall per memory, I believe that all of those were sources that either a) describe what TZM is and b) responding to criticism via official organizational material and figureheads. I fail to see how any of such sources, which was agreed upon by everyone now disputing this (with the exception of the newcomers). Did something in Wikipedia's policies change that forbid such use of self-published material? Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

When discussing what the "Views" of the organization are, the current section contains both secondary and primary sources, both of which are appropriate. For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library. -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor an accurate description. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not really. Zeitgeist Movement Faq's is already used and should not be used at all. Its not up to Wikipedia to be a format, voice for explaining from their point of view what they are. That is self sourcing material. The whole issue is conjecture anyway. Its just Peter Josephs opinion and that could change. Adding more stuff from Zeitgeist has to be a bad idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, really. One of the most important aspects is that we only make descriptive claims about the information contained in this primary; no analysis or interpretation. The example I posted in my previous comment is a good example of this. The material we are using is specifically discussing the philosophy of the organization, material that as far as I know is only available in this primary. The FAQ is a collaborative effort. Here is a link to the FAQ and here is a link to the 320 page book by the organization. -- Lastly, the way attribution is used in the current article is clear and appropriate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the language you want to incorporate, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library., what does that even mean? Basically it is some kind of blue sky statement with no outside backing of any kind. Its like saying the movement wants to put a chicken in every pot, like a political statement. It means nothing and if no outside sources have written up any material on that we can not use it for anything. Sourcing to their own Faq's material? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about "Self-sourcing"

User Harizotoh9 is complaining about too heavy use of self-sourcing. Now to make it clearer: what are you sourcing in a wiki-page on a book ? Most likely you're going to heavily source the book itself of course. (Example: Up from Dragons)

The same goes for this movement. In the part of the wiki-page ascribed to describing their core ideas you're going to have heavy use of "self-sourcing". The same is true for wiki-pages for all kinds of similar movements/perspectives such as Anarcho-Capitalism. Please go to that wiki-page and look up the references section and their associated text-sections. As you would expect most of them are of common representatives of anarcho-capitalist thought such as Murray N. Rothbard or Friedman.

I agree that TZM is a relatively new movement and still in very fluid/dynamic phase - however its main concepts should be described properly. And the best way for doing so is to refer to the book "The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" which was written by a variety of TZM members and serves (analogically speaking) as the movement's genetic code. Again, please first review other wiki-pages of similar type.

--Fixuture.member (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the best way to do it is to summarize what reliable secondary sources say about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So you just ignore the point about books and other similar movements ? If that's your take on it there's plenty of work to do on the Anarcho-Capitalism-page. --Fixuture.member (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

For all its faults the Anarcho-Capitalism article cites a wide variety of sources. It is problematic however, I agree. Sadly, there has been a long-running problem on Wikipedia regarding the promotion of Rothbard, the Austrian school of economics, and related issues - as can be demonstrated by the interminable discussions on WP:ANI, ArbCom and the like. I'd not use that article as a positive example of anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, this article needs to include some primaries where no other sources exist in order to present a neutral representation when discussing the Philosophy of the organization. One of the most important aspects is that we only make descriptive claims about the information contained in this primary; no analysis or interpretation. The example I posted in a previous comment is a good example of this. The material we are using is specifically discussing the Philosophy of the organization, material that as far as I know is only available in this primary. The way attribution is used in the current article is clear and appropriate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

TZM isn't a 'neutral' source regarding TZM... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no requirement for a source to be neutral, but much more importantly, the primaries I am discussing here are being used to talk about the Philosophy of the organization itself; there is no analysis or interpretation. It would be similar to quoting the Bible and then sourcing that quote to the Bible with appropriate attribution, it's absolutely acceptable. We are using these primaries in a way that primaries are meant to be used, without analysis or interpretation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a look at our Bible article. Not a single quotation, that I can see. The article is based on academic biblical scholarship - it would be far too easy to cherry-pick isolated passages from the Bible to prove almost anything (as has often been done). Regarding TZM, there is no such scholarship - which has to imply that TZM 'philosophy' isn't actually that notable. We clearly have to say something about the movement's ideology - but limiting it to what little secondary sources have said is clearly preferable to engaging in original research (which is what would be entailed) to determine what particular aspects of TZM's world view are of significance.

And if Wikipedia has no requirement for a source to be neutral (which it doesn't - hence the 'criticism' section), why did you suggest that TZM material would constitute a "neutral representation"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy, what are you talking about? Original research is not an issue here as we have a source, and the fact that it's a primary is still in no way a violation of OR as there is no analysis or interpretation of the source.

You stated, "it would be far too easy to cherry-pick isolated passages from the Bible to prove almost anything." Again, what are you talking about? No one is trying to prove anything. The material in the Views section is representing the views of that organization, nothing more. Nowhere does it say that those views are accurate. We are using these primaries in a way that primaries are meant to be used, without analysis or interpretation.

Regarding why this primary source is necessary for a "neutral representation", I will repost what I've already explained: For example, one sentence states, The movement advocates the elimination of money and property, in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library. -- The second half of the sentence, "in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library", is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this "library" type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. By only stating "The movement advocates the elimination of money and property", without explaining how that would be handled, is not neutral nor an accurate description. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope - you are merely asserting that your own opinion is more 'neutral' than the Huff post's. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Double nope. Agreed. Unfortunately, this article needs to include some primaries where no other sources exist in order to present a neutral representation when discussing the Philosophy of the organization. end quote. Why is their 'philosophy' notable? Also the statement of that book being the genetic code of the movement? No, its just more primary self sourced stuff. The book is not notable. The Faq's if it were notable somehow might be discussed on some outside article or critical essay but it is not. There is a link to the Zeitgeist movement on the article page. Anyone wishing to understand the strange, intricate, so called philosophy of it can go there and learn about the lending libraries and property annulment aspects of free distribution. Trying to breakdown their rhetorical aspects to some pure form here is a nonstarter using their latest criteria. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that both you guys think you have ownership of this article, with Earl King Jr. largely being a single topic editor (subjects related to Zeitgeist in some way), but that doesn't give you the right to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Primary sources are absolutely appropriate in certain instances and I've already explained why they are necessary here. I gotta say, my experience with Earl King Jr. over time has largely been one of feeling bullied through the process of edit warring. Just as he recently reverted the article even though there is an ongoing discussion taking place, the illusion of ownership is securely entrenched. And if you actually had a solid understanding of how Wikipedia works you would've known that sources are not required to be notable, only article topics. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope - you aren't going to be allowed to cherry-pick from TZM primary sources to insert your personal opinion as to what TZM stands for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No again SomeDifferentStuff you and a bunch of socks and meat puppets are now trying to dominate the article while a few neutral editors step in now and then to stop you and them. Adding something like this???? like you are trying to do in favor of a strategic access system which would function similarly to a library, is sourced to the TZM Faq, which as far as I know is the only source available that explains this library type system. Leaving this material out would create a non-neutral presentation because we would be intentionally misguiding the reader. end quote from SomeDifferentStuff. Intentionally misguiding the reader by not adding some self sourced nonsense about strategic access system libraries? That is not even a real thing, its some neologism phrase by Peter Joseph or one of his helpers. Why not just say a supermarket without a check out? It sure is not notable in any way. Zero comments about it in the press. We can not have the article be a blog/website format for Zeitgeist supporters or ideologues. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

More nonsense. The material is sourced, and even though you hate the fact that it IS sourced, I've already explained why a primary is appropriate here. And again, according to Wikipedia policy, sources are NOT required to be notable, only article topics. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You still aren't going to be allowed to cherry-pick from TZM primary sources to insert your personal opinion as to what TZM stands for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section includes critique of "Zeitgeist: The Movie" which is unrelated to the movement

The first movie is, despite popular belief of many critics and apparently editors of this wiki-page, NOT related to The Zeitgeist Movement. The Movement was founded in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum and members of the movement often criticise the first movie etc.

Critique of that movie should move to its wikipedia-page: Zeitgeist: The Movie Such as this section that keeps getting added:

In Tablet magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being "steeped in far-right, isolationist,

and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories," and called the Zeitgeist movement "the world's first Internet-based cult,

with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity."

--Fixuture.member (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's right. It is criticism. It is sourced. It is attributed. And it explicitly refers to the movement as well as the movie. It will remain in the article. And for the benefit of the clueless trolls who keep removing it, without the criticism section, there would be insufficient material from third-party sources to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and the article would thus have to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section includes critique of Zeitgeist: The Movie which is unrelated to the movement. The first movie is, despite popular belief of many critics and apparently editors of this wiki-page, NOT related to The Zeitgeist Movement. The Movement was founded in the movie Zeitgeist Addendum and members of the movement often criticise the first movie etc. end quote.

I guess that is your opinion, but probably someone elses opinion would differ. Is it just an odd coincidence that Peter Joseph called the first movie Zeitgeist and the movement Zeitgeist or the the subject matter about plots and schemes by secretive groups is used? Do you have any outside source from reputable sources that dismiss the connection? There is too much of a logical disconnect. Its like saying the Simpsons t.v. show did not have anything to do with the Simpsons movie or the old Zorro T.v. show had nothing to do with Zorro the Movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is that regardless of whatever TZM may say, the sources we cite make connections between the movies and the movement - and it isn't up to Wikipedia to decide who is right or wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Zeitgeist" is a very generic term referring to themes and beliefs present in society. Which is a very wide topic and also changes with time. Earlier, PJ was talking about religion and terrorism, then moved on to economics and sustainability. Why he kept the same name - probably because he didn't realise he would change his mind about his earlier work or predict just how misused it would be by people who fail to do their research. Regarding your Simpsons example: South Park used to be all about crude jokes, now it tends to discuss recent events and political issues. They still do crude jokes but the point is that even things with the same name can be very different in their early and late days (not to mention countless bands that completely changed genres).

Reliable source about the change already mentioned twice on this Talk page: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0 --Melarish (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The criticism is not in question, however the disconnection between the first movie and the movement is explicit on the movement's website, and this has to appear in a subsection 'response to criticism'. I can see no better source than the movement's website for such de declaration. Not including this statement is providing only half the truth, thus a biased point of view. Ukuk (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Usable citations

Since its so hard to find outside information on this article subject maybe we could post some links here to see if they are good enough to use or not. How about this one?

[4]

Anyone have others they would like to post and discuss? Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We aren't going to use websites of fringe far-left organisations as sources, for much the same reasons we avoid using TZM itself. They are reliable sources only for their own opinions, and such opinions are of little significance as far as Wikipedia is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes let's enlist all critical articles on TZM, the more ridiculous the better (I personally think they're a lizard-racist-9/11 truther-faked moonlanding-new age-nazi-conspiracy-suicide-cult).

No, seriously by posting such links it just perfectly reveals your bias. If you're recognizing that as a valid source but apparently not RussiaToday I'm just speechless.

Related to this: Complaints about Self-sourcing

http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/2012/09/29/peter-joseph-and-the-far-seeing-emergent-zeitgeist-so-what-is-this-earth-of-ours/

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story/1936879-toronto-s-first-tool-library-to-open-at-parc-in-march/

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/new_world_re_order/8838/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=2

http://rt.com/usa/zeitgeist-moving-money-utopia/

http://rt.com/shows/boom-bust/dollar-debasement-zeitgeist-movement-346/

http://rt.com/news/economic-systems-peter-joseph/

http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/opinion-world-s-th-annual-z-day-call-for-a/article_325f2b9e-ad4e-11e3-aa3c-001a4bcf6878.html

examiner.com/article/what-is-the-zeitgeist-movement

examiner.com/article/the-zeitgeist-movement-part-1-of-8

examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-media-festival-challenges-the-world-to-be-positive

examiner.com/article/peter-joseph-zeitgeist-movement-founder-on-innagural-zeitgeist-media-festival

examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-movement-selects-bucky-fuller-critical-path-first-book-of-the-month

examiner.com/article/the-zeitgeist-movement-resource-based-economy

examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-addendum-film-review-past-present-and-future-of-money-and-economics

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/zeitgeist-creator-peter-josephs-culture-in-decline-season-finale-tale-of-two-worlds-released-september-6-222661521.html

http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/letters/ci_13488825

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/tag/the-zeitgeist-movement/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-357795975.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-2248499841.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-339980011.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-253448169.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-203179719.html

Ojai Valley News January 19, 2011 "'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward' coming to Ojai Friday" http://www.gillsotu.com/files/OVN01-19_12033.pdf

http://www.gillsotu.com/files/OVN01-19_12033.pdf

http://www.dailyprogress.com/entertainment/first-local-zeitgeist-day-part-of-global-pause-to-focus/article_e486425a-8cf5-11e2-817e-001a4bcf6878.html

More to follow. --Fixuture.member (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please confine any sources for consideration to material that (a) actually mentions TZM (unlike this for instance [5]), (b) isn't already cited in the article, (c) isn't self-evident promotional material submitted by TZM members, and (d) is published in a reliable source ([6] for example has already been discussed, along with other material at the reliable sources noticeboard[7]) - and note that examiner.com has been blacklisted by Wikipedia as an unreliable source lacking appropriate editorial oversight. I see no reason why people should waste their time looking through material which clearly isn't WP:RS. And to avoid further unnecessary time-wasting, please explain what proposed content the material would be cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(a) Ok

(b) As there are some edit-flaming anti-TZM guys maintaining this page you can't know what else they/you are going to delete. Hence I'd rather save it all up in here.

(c) The only article that might concern is the prnewswire one. However it's sourcing the production company so that might be a valid source for a note on the series issued there.

(d) There's only a link to it. And why shouldn't it be a reliable source ? And that links.org site should be a reliable then ?! Ok for examiner.

The person who started this section only asked for links, not for their associated edits.

--Fixuture.member (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Long indiscriminate lists aren't going to achieve anything. And neither is going over the same ground again. If there is new material from reliable third-party sources that can actually add useful content to the article, I'm all in favour of it - but it has to comply with Wikipedia policies regarding sources, and it needs to actually tell us something meaningful about TZM. What we really need is an in-depth discussion of TZM's perspectives written by an uninvolved source (preferably academic) with the credentials to actually analyse them, rather than merely repeating them, or dismissing them as 'utopian', 'cultish' or whatever without explanation. Failing that, we may have to accept that the article will remain much the way it is - there are no circumstances whatsoever where decisions regarding article content will be made by TZM supporters alone, and likewise, TZM supporters are going to have to accept that critical material will remain in the article, despite their objections. It is a requirement of articles that they demonstrate notability through third-party sources - removing critical material would (as well as violating other policies) render the article liable to immediate deletion as failing to demonstrate notability. Frankly though, on a personal level, I find this endless complaining by TZM supporters about the article containing criticism of the movement quite bizarre. You are proposing a fundamental reshaping of the entire global political and economic system. Do you really think it is going to happen without people raising objections? Get real... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any problem with critical material that would address the movement's actual aims - if someone comments "Society will collapse without incentives" or "This is utopian and will never happen", that's relevant criticism because the movement *does* aim to have a society without money, relying on intrinsic motivation. While it *does not* aim to make everyone believe in conspiracies and any journalists making this connection are either extremely paranoid, or are trying to make money off sensationalism (and if WP is citing such tabloids, can it really be taken seriously?). Also, there are enough sources mentioning TZM without the "cult" accusations - the Huffington Post one and NYTimes one, for example, provide a mature and relevant coverage of TZM suitable for an encyclopedia tone. Why do you say that the article would have to be deleted without the irrelevant criticisms? --Melarish (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Coatrack

The current article looks a lot like Wikipedia:Coatrack, meaning it is superficially true and properly sourced but takes the focus away from the actual topic. Especially relevant is this section: Wikipedia:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22

• If an article about a journalist mostly describes a conspiracy article he once wrote, the reader will leave the article with the false impression that the journalist's career is mostly about that conspiracy theory, and he is a vocal advocate of the theory.
• An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. --Melarish (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is neither an article about a journalist, nor does it have a disproportionately long criticism section (it is two sentences long). If you are going to accuse this article of being a coatrack, you need to say what the actual topic should be, and what the focus actually is. The lead, history, and views section, all of which are about the article subject itself, take up the vast bulk of the article. You need to be more specific with your complaint. -- Atama頭 18:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The journalist was an example from the guidelines. The actual topic is The Zeitgeist Movement but the criticisms that get the most attention are about Zeitgeist: The Movie, which already has its own page and includes the same criticisms. The Criticisms section of this article used to be longer, before someone recently (around 6th April) moved the Journal of Contemporary Religion article to "Views" for some bizarre reason. Maybe 1/3 of the article for criticisms is not disproportionately large, I'm not sure what is meant by that, but it doesn't take anything positive from the newspaper/magazine articles listed (it seems to say they are all only critical of the movement but if you read for example the HuffPost one, it is maybe skeptical but also supportive). --Melarish (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, there shouldn't be a criticism section at all. Per WP:STRUCTURE:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

So our neutrality policy itself recommends against criticism sections (and has done so for years). Unfortunately, I find that far too many people ignore that part of our NPOV policy and add criticism sections because it's easy. What was done before, where material was moved out of the criticism section into the "views" section, was a good start. I think you do have a point, though, that complaints about the film really don't have a place in this article. They belong in the other article, and if they are there then it's redundant to include them here. -- Atama頭 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The 'complaints about the film' explicitly mention TZM - and if sources chose to make connections between the two, it isn't our job to second-guess them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that while criticism of the film could be interpreted as criticism of the group, that interpretation skirts a bit close to synthesis. I don't like the idea of conflating criticism of the film with criticism of the group; I don't think it's necessary and it seems redundant when the film has its own article that repeats those criticisms.

For example, look at Ku Klux Klan. (I'm not citing this article as an example because I'm drawing any kind of parallels between the ideologies of the two groups.) The Klan also got its (re-)start through a film, The Birth of a Nation, which helped popularize the organization and portrayed values and beliefs of the group. The Klan article doesn't need to conflate criticism of the film with criticism of the organization. Granted, the Klan has 100+ years of history to draw from, while TZM is less than a decade old, but I think the amount of weight in the Klan article given to the film is appropriate. I don't think that we need much more information about Zeitgeist: The Movie than what is present in the history section of this article, and that includes criticisms of the film. I'm in no way suggesting that we whitewash this article, but I think any criticisms should be those directly about the group, its founder, and/or other individual members or subgroups. -- Atama頭 22:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how quoting a source which combines criticism of the film with criticism of TZM can possibly be synthesis - it is the source that makes the connection, not us. As for citing other material instead, that is all well and good, if it can be found. As it stands, the article barely passes Wikipedia notability criteria, based on the material we cite. If we were to start removing critical material without adding new material first, we'd be left with little more than a single NYT article and a Huff Post blog - clearly unacceptable, even ignoring NPOV issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose it's not synthesis if we're not just the ones making the connection. This article does need some work, but there's nothing that needs immediate attention. I still think that the criticism section should be eliminated, but that can be done as the article is expanded. -- Atama頭 00:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section is not neutral

The way this criticism section is structured, having a bunch of sources listed at the beginning, is both unusual for Wikipedia and I'd argue in violation of WP:NPOV. It should list each source and what their criticism is in order of WP:Weight. I've also tagged Tablet Magazine with a weight tag. Please demonstrate why it deserves inclusion as it is not well known. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been rehashed many times here. Mostly pro Zeitgeist people come and want to change it. Tablet Magazine is notable and the author Goldberg is well known writer journalist. Suggestion to you to read some of the talk page above for previous discussion on your proposal that you are making now. It has been discussed plenty and the outcome was the state you found it in, which seems good. Please do not put tags like you did on the article page without discussion first. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I continue to question the notability of Tablet but because Goldberg carries weight I'm okay with it. Please discuss why you think the structure of the section is neutral. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree the citations look weird at the beginning listing all those things, links at the beginning of the criticism section. All that could be taken off, its like a strange laundry list. I think it just wound up like that from some not so good formatting of past editing. The Tablet is credible like many news magazines these days Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The criticism area is out of date, it refers mainly to the 1st of the Zeitgeist movies which is not officially considered a production by the movement and if it wasn't produced by the one of the founders of the movement it would be totally irrelevant(Peter Joseph himself said this in many youtube interviews, if it's needed i will provide links and then there is also the clear statement in the FAQ http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq11). Further information for any unbiased editors of this page can be found in the FAQ http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq as well as in the orientation guide "The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/orientation which is up to date and relevant and also addresses in a thorough fashion all the criticism presented - if anyone of the edit warriors would be bothered to read it. Please end this edit war that's been going on around here for a while now, let the Zeitgeist Movement present the relevant information on this page and not just outdated point of views of questionable american media outlets which are irrelevant for a global organization of thousands of people. (Signed: A member of the movement)

The criticism isn't meant to be "correct" criticism of the movement - it's just presenting critique of it. However the movement's response of such should be equally presented hence someone added a new section for that recently. Also wikipedia isn't for members of movements to portray themselves but to neutrally describe a movement's ideas (which of course mainly origninate/are described on their official webpages). And that's restricted to the "Views"-section. Sadly there are a bunch of gatekeepers in here that view at as their duty to block any relevant or non-negative information on the page and attempt to advocate for their anti-TZM opinions. --2A01:4A0:10:AD10:3827:86DF:A0A5:835B (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Promptly deleted by our dear friends, we don't want no real information to be presented on the page of these hippie feggits misters AndyTheGrump and Earl King Jr. now do we? "This is 'Murika bois, we dun care about no solutions to our problems, and those that don't agree aren't PATRIOTS and HATE MURIKA!" "Bias??? We call that lack of sourcin' here in United States of Wikipedia boi, now git ur dumb european terrorist towelhead ass out of dis hir page before i edit ur ass for lack of sourcin'!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.13.215.241 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the two major focal highlights in the Criticism Section are abjectly biased and present a notable ignorance of TZM's actual, day to day work after 5 years. While the baggage and controversy of the first film might be pointful in passing, to construct the entire section around "M. Goldberg" clear contempt and arguably tabloid like sensationalized and provably flawed accusations; along with the "Journal of Contemporary Religion's" extremely un-contextualized criticism (which was also mostly derived from its objection to Joseph's first film) creates a deeply misguided perspective of The Zeitgeist Movement. Isn't Wikipedia about showing the general public the basic info? Isn't it something of a requirement to have articles related that show a general, informed understanding of the Movement's activities? So, I support the dispute. Whoever is keeping these criticisms in place on this page clearly operates in opposition to TZM, not objectively. This isn't about support of TZM's work. It is about basic objective data regarding what it actually does and why. JamesB17 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to point out a contradiction within the article's propositions. It states in the History section: >>The Zeitgeist Movement's origin was a reaction to Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008).[11]<< If that is so, then why all the ongoing hype about Zeitgeist: The Movie as the central theme in the Criticisms section? It would be different if The Zeitgeist Movement began due to Zeitgeist: The Movie. But that is not the truth. Therefore, the very basis of having such criticisms are flawed as well. JamesB17 (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is based on published reliable sources. The fact that such sources appear not to take much interest in TZM's 'day to day work' is perhaps unfortunate for TZM, but not anything we can rectify. As for the significance of Zeitgeist: The Movie, it is the source we cite that makes the connection, not us. Meanwhile, if there is more third-party material available from reliable sources which might enable us to expand a little on TZM as it now stands, that would be useful. Otherwise, the article will have to stay much as it is, as the content has been discussed many times, and the consensus is clear enough that the critical material is appropriate. We certainly aren't going to hand over editorial control to supporters of TZM, as much as they'd like us to do so. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for the promotion of minor political movements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, this article should not reflect the bias of a pro or con perspective of TZM... and I have to state publicly that if there are any two editors which appear to have repeatedly dismissed any attempt at a fair article; an article which has the subject of a social group that has many published, reliable sources in its wake from all sides, yourself and "Earl King Jr." appear to, having read this Talk page, done nothing but work to highlight the worst and most dubious of all sources. That said, let's examine the logic of your argument and hence the nature of "published reliable sources" and the vast degree of perspectives in those source. This is to show that what has been highlighted in the Criticism's Section is likely in violation of wikipedia neutrality standards. The problem I see here is that you seem to think that anything that doesn't show a negative angle- is "supporting" TZM. I'm sorry, but that isnt acceptable in a world seeking objective information on wikipedia.

To do this, lets examine the published source themselves, in concert, to average out what is mostly highlighted. Here is a list of articles, reports and interviews which can be found in any detailed internet search:

1) New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=3&

2) Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html

3) Globes: http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000547764

4) The Marker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbN86J-ihHE&list=UUEwoFdqY09VwZFESGZ8Qp4A&index=145

5) Russia Today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RDihFrV_Os

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POkxC0oJWNo&feature=youtube_gdata

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap9aMv8OUEI&list=UUEwoFdqY09VwZFESGZ8Qp4A&index=16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmMrx-yhaIA&list=UUEwoFdqY09VwZFESGZ8Qp4A&index=140

6) Hollywood Today: http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/2012/09/29/peter-joseph-and-the-far-seeing-emergent-zeitgeist-so-what-is-this-earth-of-

ours/

7) The Young Turks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCQGbO7K3EQ&list=UUEwoFdqY09VwZFESGZ8Qp4A&index=17

8) Tablet Magazine http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/57732/brave-new-world

9) Journal of Contemporary Religion http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537903.2011.539846

10) Yonge Street http://www.yongestreetmedia.ca/features/torontozeitgeist060513.aspx

11) London Real http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq8CkQE1lzE

12) Yahoo News http://voices.yahoo.com/peter-joseph-creator-zeitgeist-movement-8869497.html

13) Harold de Paris: http://www.heralddeparis.com/the-zeitgeist-movement-practical-advices-to-build-a-better-future/27800

14) Venture Reporter: http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/new_world_re_order/8838/

Those above are just some of the articles that can be found, ranging from large publications like the New York Times to local papers. Now, having read/seen all of these in the process of writing this addition to the Talk Page, I would note that there are many criticisms present in each article, most of which are doubled in theme in various articles. However, the current highlighted articles [ Journal of Contemporary Religion & Tablet] are VERY distant in context. In fact, it could be argued that they are utterly out of place to the extent of incompetence, since they are nearly random, when compared to every other article out there.

How do we justify neutrality when the vast majority of notable publications offer criticisms which have zero confluence with the ones highlighted? And while the films are mentioned, never is anything mentioned in the context and extremity of the opinions of the Journal of Contemporary Religion & Tablet. In order for a criticism to merit highlight, it needs to be repeated and averaged within the context of all other reports. What is currently here is "fish out of water" extremes.

Also, as per your comment, the consensus is not clear enough or we wouldn't be here. This neutrality claim is legit and needs fresh ideas. Just because you or "Earl" declare "its done" doesn't make it so, friend. JamesB17 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So what material are you proposing we should add, based on what sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple. Remove the "tabloid journalism" criticism or any criticism that has no confluence. Otherwise, is it just gossip. And why is there a "criticisms section" as opposed to a "praise" section? I say that jokingly as it is obvious that the originator(s) of the "criticisms section" have chosen to deliberately paint the picture of TZM as negative as best they can. To gain neutrality, I would first change it to "Media Perception" and then list both sides, as per the links above.

However, for the subsection of negative issues, as per the existing layout, the following would be appropriate to balance it.

"Direct criticism of The Movement's officially published materials have ranged from claims of utopian- ism, to transition problems to a loss of work incentives.

However, the most negative of criticism towards The Zeitgeist Movement actually regards the personal expression of Peter Joseph in his first documentary film called “Zeitgeist: The Movie”. Tablet Magazine, the Journal of Contemporary Religion and other outlets have targeted so-called “conspiracy” themes in their objections to The Zeitgeist Movement itself. However, none of The Zeitgeist Movement’s official materials online, since its inception, have made any recommendation of such “conspiracy” themes and Peter Joseph, the founder and core spokesman, has commented numerous times on the false conflation of his personal work and The Movement, which he deems as either deliberately malicious by biased reporters or simply poor research. JamesB17 (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources. Your personal responses regarding criticisms of TZM are of no relevance whatsoever to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything listed above is based on published reliable sources. What "personal responses"? Every sentence and edit you have made on this page has been "personal" and you know it. Please clarify you objections.JamesB17 (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:SELFSOURCE, it is okay to use self-published sources as information about the Movement itself. Since the Movement's official website states that the Movement is not about conspiracy theories or anti-religion (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq11), I will mention that in the article, because the current criticisms are simply irrelevant. --Melarish (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This section features two poor quality, biased, "fish out of water" reports, un-paralleled in gesture/conclusion than anything out there online, that fall in the policy violence of :"Questionable Sources". How about we include the other fringe report that The Z Movement is "New World Order" or "Illuminate". Alex Jones has written and spoken extensively about this. I see he is not included. Goldberg and the Journal of C.R. are exactly the same. JamesB17 (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Three points: (1) Criticism isn't expected to be 'neutral' - that is why it is called 'criticism'. (2) This article is written in English - please write your comments here in English, rather than gibberish. (3) Please continue a discussion in the thread you started it in, rather than jumping back to one which is two months old. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I just rolled back three edits, but my finger slipped and I hit the return key rather than finishing my edit summary, which should have erad 'You can't just say stuff, you need sources'. [8]. Sorry about that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: (I have been away from Wikipedia for awhile to pursue activism so I have not been involved with TZM since late 2012) Having taken the time to read through this thread and similar ones regarding content being added I can say I am sorely disappointed by both sides in this. However, I do have to say that I will be reporting a certain individual who has had a history of goating people via edit wars. That being said, there is no rule condemning the use of responses to criticism that is published or put forth by said organization. Examples on Wikipedia Include: The Michael Moore, Austrian Economics, and even organizational material is being used to describe certain types of activities regarding annual events, Amnesty International is one that comes immediately to mind. That being said, what I find equally very interesting when asked a simple question regarding source use, AndyTheGrumpy can't take the time to answer what is the copyrighted material and can we use the material without the copyrighted information, instead he simply decides to start reporting people as if to shut down the conversation, sorry, just an observation. I thought this whole debate was settled back in January 2012-June if I believe. Why is this debate even happening again?Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)