Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 6

'Vague' tag
Re "Vague": Although the sentence is understandable English, it's really just buzzwords with little concrete meaning. Hence, it's vague in one sense, and not vague at all in another. You could say that the term "Vague" is a bit vague. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Quote:The movement responded to the criticism by saying that (a) it does not believe in utopia because there is no final frontier, and that, instead, it believes in a non-finite process of updating society's notions of economics and politics to continuously re-align them with new scientific and technical discoveries

I'm not sure 'vague' even covers it. What exactly (or even vaguely) is 'a final frontier' supposed to mean? And why should believing in 'non-finite process[es]' preclude utopianism? And how does having 'resource allocation' done by machines preclude utopianism for that matter? The sentence starts off all right, but as soon as it gets beyond 'because' we have a Star Trek reference or something, followed by a train of non sequiteurs. As far as I'm aware, the only responses from TZM regarding claims of utopianism have involved redefining what they think 'utopianism' means in order to argue that it isn't applicable to them. This seems to be more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's useful to the reader if we include a limited amount of this kind of language in the article, but we might do better to use a direct quote. Tom Harrison Talk 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Links
Is there a need to have so many references, each with a link? Has anyone checked whether the multiple links are helpful for this encyclopedic article? For example, stuff like [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] and [10][7][1][9][3][11][4][5][6][8][17] seem to have no value other than to include every possible TZM link. Why mention eight publishers that have criticized TZM (the first sentence of the "Criticism..." section)? Anyone interested in this page might like to look at Peter Joseph where the same problems apply, and where the external links section is badly in need of a prune. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, there's no need. I suspect it's one of these things Ijon added that nobody has had the energy to fix, as there has been so much other things that needs fixing. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Essentially only 1 or 2 are really needed for each point, they aren't controversial points. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and tidied it up. We don't require the citation overkill that was present. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's beginning to look like an article! Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With response to the links, IRWolfie- did a good job, but in the process he seems to have completely eliminated the TheMarker television interview. Otherwise I agree with his edit. I'm working on re-instating (most of) his edit. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources aren't used or needed, so why restore them. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear IRWolfie-, thanks for your fresh voice and insights. I agree with most of your edits. But you may be wrong to assume that "they aren't controversial points." You'll be surprised at the things editors on  this article consider "controversial". Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed the lead here
So it would sound like an encyclopedic lead and not a pamphlet. To describe some internet/facebook based advocacy group as "nonviolent" is redundent. Further more, "sustainability organization" is logically in place with other subjects advocated- this makes it sounds like a pamphlet. Further more, the computers and robots are a major feature that should be on the lead. --MeUser42 (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the robots, but agree with the rest of the reformulation. Possibly it can be reformulated as "automation" if we can find a good source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I switched it back to the former lead, which has been stable for a while now probably because it covers the basics well. The newly edited down lead removed the basic ideas of what the thing is and what they are trying to do. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more edited up- as the implementation was missing from the lead. OK, I'll take the feedback and try again. --MeUser42 (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is an improvement as well and support this latest version. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Earl's view - the former lead did a better job covering the basic ideas of the movement. But I suppor the inclusion of computerization and automation because comp. and auto. are supported by several secondary and primary sources. I am restoring the nonviolence because of at least two (interrelated, not distinct) reasons: (a) At least one attempt in the media to conflate a recent mass-murder with the movement, which even Andy described as "I'm not sure we should really be taking the American Spectator piece as a source for anything but the opinions of its author - it is speculative, and seemingly more concerned with linking Loughner with the Zeitgeist movie than actually analysing TZM in any depth. Given all the other guff written by partisan writers trying to pin Loughner's actions on whatever pet hate they have, that TZM are included is hardly surprising", and (b) a suggestion by an editor to consider linking TZM with violence (from Archive 4: "Another issue for the beginning and the 'critical' section is the claimed non violence of Zeitgeist, but their affinity for attracting violent people, and a fairly recent incident of someone inspired by the movies that tried political assassinations [] Jared Loughner. This site also claims there is a huge undercurrent of violent action within Zeitgeist because of its either/or take on their way or the highway type of belief in conspiracy theory  []" ). IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From the TZM mission statement: "The range of the movement's activism & awareness campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model based explicitly on non-violent methods of communication." (Sorry for the confusing edit summaries.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know where we stand with statements about the movement that are sourced only to the movement itself instead of secondary coverage. If you want to add that and others agree it's okay, that's fine, but then it needs to be added to the body first or simultaneously. As a matter of logic, I always find statements of negative positions to be weird. We could also say it's not an orange, but why do we need to?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ijon, I don't understand why you added back in the same material and called it "revised". I'm not going to revert it. I'll let others deal with it, but it's passing strange.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Non violence is also indicated in TZM's Q&A, in addition to the mission statement: "The Zeitgeist Movement is an explicitly non-violent, global sustainability advocacy group..." The TZM Q&A is already used as a source in several additional places in the article. Sorry about the confusing edit summaries, I intended per your suggestion to also include nonviolence in the body of the article but forgot. I'll do so now. Regarding the logic I believe I already explained above, re some attempts in the media to conflate Loughner's actions with TZM to pin murders on TZM, and the quote from Archive 4 of this talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't write articles preemptively based on what the media may be saying. Our articles stand on their own ground. You make it sound like our article is some sort of defense to what others may say or think of TZM. That is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bbb23. Also, again, the lead looks like a TZM pamphlet. Is the Democratic party "violent"? Is McDonald's violent? "non-violent" is not something we mention for a Facebook centered western "rainbows and unicorns" organization. Take the "non violent" part to the critique section. Your reasons for including it in the lead are not relevant. Please note- This now looks like a promotional pamphlet. Not like something encyclopedic. The previous version is better and I propose it is returned --MeUser42 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody directly accused McDonald's of being responsible for a mass murder. And no WP editor hinted to conflate McDonald's with mass murder. The original lead containing the word 'nonviolent' resulted from the work of many editors over many edits, reverts and re-edits, resulting in a version with 'nonviolent' which existed for months and during that time nobody, not even AOTE, called the lead section 'promotional'. It has nothing to do with preemptive action. It captures a very important aspect of the movement, well within the goals of the encyclopedia.    IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This belongs in the criticisms section and is promotional. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Q&A is used as a source in several key points in the article. The most important aspect of the Q&A is the nonviolence - evidenced by the fact the very first phrase of the (lengthy) Q&A is focused on the non-violence. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding computers and automation, I will add something to the body of the article in the next few hours in support of the statement(s) in the lead. My edit will be supported by the discussion of Compu. and Auto. in e.g. The Huff Po and Globes sources. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They can talk for hours about opposition to Nazism, this doesn't mean the lead should note they are also against Nazis. Look, this sounds promotional. This is not something to be stated for some facebook centered political activism group. I see this article is important to you, so I will leave you with this feedback...--MeUser42 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I'll revert my edits on violence. Regarding Compu. and Auto., I've posted a sentence or two. I propose we let MeUser42 and Bbb23 edit the sentence to improve neutrality or anything else they would like to improve (if they feel such edits are needed). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Earl King Jr, I didn't cite any sources with my edit. It was a summary of multiple statements on the movements website regarding resource distribution in their proposed resource based economy. The statement in the wikipedia article that "all resources would be equally shared" is inaccurate. They propose strategic resource management via the scientific method for social concern, utilising data such as consumption and depletion rates. Any thoughts?

Zeitgeist Movement Mission Statement "the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions."

Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 1) No money or market system.

"True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation."

Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 3) Technological Unification of Earth via "Systems" Approach "consumption statistics are accessed, rates of depletion monitoring, distribution logically formulated, etc. In other words, it is a full Systems Approach to earthly resource management, production and distribution, with the goal of absolute efficiency, conservation and sustainability"

Zeitgeist Movement FAQ 4) Access over Property "It is important to point out the TZM advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency, not any surface influence by these supposed "Communist" ideals."

Hemi2050 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is almost all self sourced to information from Zeitgeist sites presently. Putting more of that on the article is not a good idea. The article now is saying much the same as what you are bringing up except in a slightly different way. If information from Zeitgeist is copy pasted then the en.Wikipedia article becomes just a web accessory and information tool for Zeitgeist, which is also in business to sell tapes of its information, and statements like "It is important to point out the TZM advocation of no property is derived from logical inference, based almost explicitly upon strategic resource management and efficiency, not any surface influence by these supposed "Communist" ideals." that is original research, though it may seem true or logical to you, it is not a neutral presentation of information. So not everyone believes the premises of the Zeitgeist movement so it can not be presented as logical or true because then it is a biased view toward that group. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Media Festival (ZMF)
DS, are you repeatedly removing my inclusion of ZMF because of Examiner.com? Please see this on Examiner.com. Additionally, ZMF is also discussed in an RT TV interview on TZM, as well as on ZMF's and TZM's official websites.

Zeitgeist Media Festival Official Website

The Zeitgeist Movement discussion, RT TV, Sept. 14, 2011

Zeitgeist Media Festival Challenges the World to Be Positive, Vicki Godal, Examiner.com, 3 August 2012

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * NEW SOURCES: The Media Fesitval is also sourced to HollywoodToday.net with articles here, here, and here. I have attempted adding this sourced information today, however it was immediately removed once by DS as well, with no reason given (Darkness Shines - August 25th, 2012). I added it back (claiming no reason given). It was then removed by "AndyTheGrump" with the reason "revert unencyclopeadic puffery sourced to TZM". Yes, there are links to TZM but this is allowed under WP policy since there is also references to 3rd party information, (ie. HollywoodToday.net). If hollywoodtoday.net is not a reliable source, then please forgive me, and I apoogize.
 * Please do not remove sourced information. If more sources are required, please add that in a citation, then remove it. Thank you. Zgoutreach (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If all of the sources are primary except for the one local rag reporting on an event in Hollywood, that doesn't make the material (which was fairly extensive) noteworthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly - Firstly, HollywoodToday.net is unlikely to meet WP:RS requirements for anything of significance - content on other subjects seems to be little more than puffery. Secondly, this is Wikipedia's article about TZM - it isn't a platform for the promotion of the movement. Zgoutreach's edits were badly-written, promotional, and largely sourced to TZM itself. We do not base article content on material supplied by the article subject. And thirdly, Zgoutreach should read Neutral point of view, and in particular the WP:WEIGHT section. Devoting a large proportion of the article to an event that attracted next-to-no notice from external sources is entirely unsupportable. THere have been extensive discussions regarding the way TZM supporters have attempted to turn this article into another recruiting-ground for their movement, and by overwhelming consensus, and per multiple Wikipedia policies, it isn't going to happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You have deleted it because it is "unlikely" to meet WP:RS? The events of the 2012 Media Festival are found in Google News. Early in this thread, there are other sources listed as well. There is sufficient reliable sources to put a few sentences about this event in the article.
 * You have insinuated that inclusion of this would "turn this article into another recruiting-ground for their movement." Agreed that they should not post things like a promotional pamplet, but AndyTheGrump, you should put your admited Dislike aside, ie. on July 31, 2012 you deleted the entire article and wrote: "The Zeitgeist Movement is a deranged utopian cult" and "its membership consists of more than two men and a dog." which is harldy accurate or neutral, and you back this statement today by ranting on my talk page: "Personally, I think my comments, though ill-advised, were actually a better representation of what TZM is". Whether or not you condisder a news report as "promoting" a movement is irrelevant. Please review, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you must put your disagreement aside in wikipedia and allow the facts to be presented, even if you believe it will "promote" an organization you don't like or that you believe is a "deranged utopian cult".
 * As for WP:WEIGHT, as of August 25th, 2012, the largest section of the article is the criticism section. It appears any attempts by editors to expand (with reliably sourced neutral material) any section other than the crtiticism section are reverted immediately. For exampe, today, August 25th, 2012, there is one external link listed. I decided to add one more external link (ie. www.zeitgeistmediaproject.com), to make two in total. This was immediately deleted by AndyTheGrump with the following comment: "that is NOT an external link". This is clearly an external link, since it is pointing users Outside of wiipedia. A link pointed within wikipedia are Internal links.
 * A wikipedia article reporting on an event is not necessarily self-promotion. Please do not delete reliably sourced material, or request for further citations before deleting. Thank you. Zgoutreach (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A simple question. Have you edited this article previously under another account, or as an IP? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Zgoutreach, the removal of the one external link was, in my view, correct, although not for the reason in the edit summary. I agree with you, it was an external link. The reason is similar to the reason I removed the list of external links you added. The one external link is easily found on the movement's website, which already has an EL, and is, therefore, unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah - sorry about that. I meant to remove it as unnecessary duplication. Bad case of brain fade... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, I forgive you for your improperly titled revert, however I disagree with the revert. As for your simple question, no, I have only used this account. I have never edited this article with an IP. Why do you ask?
 * Hmm, so I won't ask about the Official Youtube Channel, or Facebook Page (which many respectable articles include in the external links), but do you think we could possibly list "zdayglobal.org/" or "www.zeitgeistmediafestival.org" or "www.zeitnews.org" or "www.tzmnetwork.com" (IF NOT ALL, howabout one or two?). Also, these sites (I believe) are not found anywhere on the official site: "http://watchaddendum.com/", or "www.zeitgeistmovie.com" so that means they can be posted without being called duplicates, right?
 * Can we agree that as a general concept, a reason for exclusion is NOT because of disagreement with a website? What other articles do you know that delete all external links if they can be found somewhere on main website? Zgoutreach (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about TZM. We provide a link to their main website (thezeitgeistmovement.com). Neither watchaddendum.com or zeitgeistmovie.com are official TZM websites. And no, 'we' don't agree 'general concepts' - 'we' follow Wikipedia policies. A single link to TZM is quite sufficient. If they insist on producing multiple websites (for no very obvious reason), we are under no obligation to link them all. This is not a directory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point about WP:POLICY, but miss the point entirely. The point is WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not valid reason for excluding something. If you don't agree, what can I say? Currently, as of Aug 25th, 2012, there is one link in the external links section; it is an exaggeration, AndyTheGrump, to claim expanding that list to two or three is a directory! You may not see a differnce between the websites, but does not mean they are all the same. Maybe 'Zeitnews' is a different site perhaps for the same reasons 'wikinews is a different site. I don't question the methods, I just report it (or in this case link to it - and yes, without making it a directory!). Zgoutreach (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If what you are saying is true, go ahead and delete the external links on wikipedia's own article here and notice the response you'll receive, and with 11 links listed they should get a warning it is being turned into a directory. Yes, of course, Wikipedia is much more popular than Zeitgeist, but watch out for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Disliking Zeitgeist, doesn't mean it should receive any lesser treatment than any other article, including the external links section. Zgoutreach (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to propose any substantive changes to the article (based on proper links to third-party reliable sources), we're done here. The link you added was unnecessary, as both Bbb23 and I have made clear. We have already discussed the media festival repeatedly here, and without proper sources (rather than the two you intentionally misrepresented as eight - neither of which pass WP:RS), nothing is going to be added. This isn't a promotional page for TZM - promote it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is quite a lot of discussion above, but I don't see much related to the WP:EL guideline. When the value to Wikipedia of external links is questioned, it is incumbent on anyone proposing such a link to explain how the link helps. WP:IDONTLIKEIT links are irrelevant, and discussions about the topic of this article will no longer be resolved by the perseverance of those involved. If the link in question is particularly relevant to the topic, it should be on the official website. It is not the role of Wikipedia to provide a handy list of promotional links that belong elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Source
At the request of AndyTheGrump I have started this talk thread in response to a request for a citation (in the criticism section) on October 10th, 2012. Please anyone feel free to add any citations that may help and fall under wiki policy. Thank you kindly! Zgoutreach (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'n not interested in arguing with an edit-warring TZM-promoter: see WP:RSN, where we can get outside opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What? No one is asking you to argue; there has been a request for a citation, that is all. Do not take it personally if someone requests that a fact be verified. Please do not delete requests for proper citations without discusion. The citations you provided thus far (as of Oct. 10th, 2012 6pm est) were either primary sourced, or sources was checked, and did not contain the cited material. Thank you in advance for providing reliable sources. Zgoutreach (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On the subject of questionable sources, we do not cite school blogs in articles - I have removed this ridiculous source, and suggest that proper sources are found. I shall be looking into the question of sourcing further, as it has been suggested at the WP:RSN discussion that the Huffington Post blog (used repeatedly in the article) is unsuitable as a source. If this is indeed the case, the article is going to require substantial trimming. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good points, furthermore on the subject of primary sources at the WP:RSN discussion, about 'TZM official website": To quote WP:RSN, "The official webpage can be used to makes claims about the subject as long as the are directly supportive of the material. by Amadscientist on 21:52, 10 October 2012"
 * I do not support this comment one way or the other, but thought this outside input should be reported here, and I'll wait to hear any more outside input as well on this subject. Thank you Zgoutreach (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And here's another questionable source: What the heck is it supposed to be cited for? That Vancouver hosted the 2012 Z-Day 'main events'? Given that it reads like a TZM blurb, I see no reason to treat it as remotely WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there aren't enough good secondary sources for us to have an article on the movement. Could be merged into the article about the movie? Tom Harrison Talk 11:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is more than one movie. Somehow I don't think a merge between an article on a movie and one on a political movement would make sense anyway. I think that the relevant notability guideline for an article on TZM is WP:ORGDEPTH, which they may possibly just scrape through, though there is nothing to prevent another AfD discussion being started: the previous one was based at least in part on outright bullshit - a 'keep' vote claiming that TZM has "500,000 individual members" obvious SPA votes, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Humm. A Google news search for "zeitgeist movement" (with quotes, to search for the exact phrase), currently returns 7 results. Evidently the media still aren't interested... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Also, capitalizing the Z returns over 2 million results, and adding the definite article returns over 6 million ... Writegeist (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no. I said 'Google news', not 'Google'. Neither capitalisation nor the definite article make any difference. My point wasn't that you can't find anything relating to TZM in the net - it was that you can find almost nothing in the mainstream media. Hence the reliance of the article on Huff Post blogs, non-English sources (for a US-based organisation!) and the like. If TZM was one-tenth the size it claims to be, there would be more reports of its activities, surely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I stand corrected. (Sit, actually.) Keep up the good work, Grump! Writegeist (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, anti-corporation & anti-political & anti-media organizations are not often covered in the media. So I doubt your claim is true, if anything it would get negative attention more often than not in the media.
 * As for potential reliable sources, the discussion topic you brought up here (at WP:RSN), so far makes the official website, and articles at HollywoodToday.net (specifically by Bruce Lyons) potential reliable sources. So there's a couple more there. The Wiki article on TZM should be kept relatively small to reflect the limited news coverage. Zgoutreach (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've bought into their usual conspiracy theories then. And cut out the crap about what has been agreed at WP:RSN - the only consensus so far seems to be that we shouldn't be using the Huff Post without at least citing it as the opinions of the blogger. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. Thank you. For your kind reviewing: WP:CIVIL. Your pal, Zgoutreach (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there isn't a valid source for the somewhat ambiguous and open-ended statement that Zeitgeist the Moive helped 'inspire the Zeitgeist Movement', should this whole statement not be taken down? This a popular misconception, not an accurate summary and of all potential 'inspirations', which could be listed ad nauseam, the first movie in the filmmaker's trilogy not only does not take primacy, but is decidedly the least relevant as a source of inspiration. It is not a neutral choice of wording to end that sentence on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.124.169 (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Michelle Goldberg's article says "There are lots of strange things about the Zeitgeist phenomenon, but strangest is how it got started. It's a global organization devoted to a kind of sci-fi planetary communism, but it was sparked by a 2007 documentary steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories." Should we say "sparked" instead of "helped inspire?" Tom Harrison Talk 12:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its true that inspired is not a great word choice because it sounds vaguely like the origin of a religion or something happening. 'Inspired' was placed in the article previously by members of the group?? its just so suggestive of inspiration.


 * Maybe motivated to form originally from a 2007 documentary or something like that, is more neutral in tone, but gets the idea across o.k.? Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"There are lots of strange things about the Zeitgeist phenomenon, but strangest is how it got started. It's a global organization..." This is extremely sloppy journalism. It conflates Zeitgeist: the Movie with the Zeitgeist Movement (this is the point of my original comment) and is therefore either purposefully misleading or simply the product of intellectual laziness. That's not my call and does not ultimately matter, what matters is the un-deniable misleading conflation of the two phenomena as one phenomenon, in which all activities with this film are fungible with the "global organization", meaning the Zeitgeist Movement. It's quite obvious that the "should we say sparked instead of inspire" response comment is pithy, the point of my original comment being the conflation, not a pedantic concern about the word 'inspire', but I'm quite sure the responder and anyone reading this knows that. I'm surprised at the conversation about centering around how we could use a word other than 'inspired', such as 'motivated', aside from an exercise in pedantry this is completely missing the point: the conflation of the film with the movement, and that above quote from Goldberg is a wonderful case in point. The Zeitgeist Movement was neither inspired, nor sparked, nor motivated into existence by Zeitgeist: the Movie, and this quote from Michelle Goldberg is ludicrous. A far more accurate 'spark' would be the latter part of the second movie Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Jacque Fresco, and furthermore any comment on their current dissociation is quite irrelevant to that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, 202.7.222.243, when you make a statement like you made above It conflates Zeitgeist: the Movie with the Zeitgeist Movement (this is the point of my original comment) and is therefore either purposefully misleading or simply the product of intellectual laziness. you are going to have immediate problems here as an editor. To most neutral observers, the movie was the initial thing that got the movement going and that has been written about and sited by outside third party or second party sources. There is something called o.r. or original research, when a person such as yourself tries to make claims that are undocumented, or a personal opinion or the party line of some group, as they try to present themselves to the public in a certain light problems arise. It could be because of the baggage of the first movie, conspiracy stuff etc. that they desire to have a different origin than the one that is mostly mainstream accepted (I am just making a guess about that), but here it is just a question of whether something is backed by documentation, and I do not mean documentation by the group itself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that such a third party source would be deemed unreliable when (crucially) checked against the facts, the source in question does not even claim this, so it should actually be taken down. In fact the likely issue is more probably those wishing to cast it under a certain light, blurring the lines between the two and making this categorical/ontological error that is supposedly '3rd party cited' and hence pushed out as legitimate. I'm afraid while you are correct about valid and reliable 3rd party sources, checked against the facts (unless reported as opinion's and views, not fact), you're not by alluding to me in a veiled way as trying to cast something under a positive light that is factually erroneous under closer inspection. That's ad hominem, and irrelevant. 'Baggage' of the first film is only relevant as a guilty-by-association ploy in conflating the two. There is quite a problematic issue here in fact: representing as 'fact' in an encyclopedia only what is 3rd party sourced, albeit an assertion that is even factually inaccurate and not even backed up by the source in question, which may indeed lead to false inferences by the casual readers. I'm afraid the reality has nothing to do with my being neutral to the promotion of a social movement, but that I am not neutral to the facts. Any decent journalist or researcher must check 2nd or 3rd party sources against the facts. "To most neutral observers, the movie was the initial thing that got the movement going and that has been written about and sited by outside third party or second party sources," this is rather like FOX news saying "A lot of people say (fill in the blank)" and "Most people think (fill in the blank)". Even if 'a lot of people' think something, such as the earth being flat, it is only correct to report this belief, not this fact, despite the plethora of flat earth 2nd and 3rd party sources out there. Quite objectively, the movement did not exist at the making of the first movie, and the second movie introduces the movement and calls for members. If every single rational argument and presentation of facts in a scientific journal required 3rd party sources, it would retard the ability to actually make rational inferences. It is quite clear that the creation of the movement follows its inception in the second film, not the first, and this is not an 'undocumented claim' or personal opinion. But in lieu of presenting rational inferences from facts, a reliable 3rd party source is required for a claim. That statement has neither: not only is it factually erroneous, but reading its so-called source (Huffington Post article) at no point do they actually state that "(Zeitgeist: the Movie is) the original 2007 film that helped inspire the movement". So while its the notion of good research, ethical standards and epistemology I'm really quite bothered by, and the idea that opinionated and problematic '2nd and 3rd party sources' can be presented as fact when they don't actually measure up against the facts, I don't even need to engage in that--the source doesn't show what the article claims, therefore its invalid. Now I'm sure there are factually erroneous sources out there, that can be used with the ambiguous language to misinform people as to the facts, and I can be told that I or anyone else concerned with properly representing the facts is engaging in bias or otherwise lacking a source, but for the moment that current part of the article is wrong no matter how you offer it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

202.7.222.243, for starters it is better to make your ideas concise and not get into a rhetorical polemic WP: Too long; didn't read: and your ideas have not gained any traction by repeating them over and over. As far as the actual issue in discussion the arguments you are using do not hold water if I can put it bluntly. En. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and can not be used to present an organization in some way that they either o.k. or veto, and members or hangers on of different social groups can not come here to present a biased view of information according to their opinions. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right about being more brief, not with regards to your continued labeling as 'not holding water' nor a 'biased view according to opinion'. The source from Huffington Post does not show what the article claims. This is unbiased and a high school essay would be docked points for this. Secondly, the movement objectively stemmed from the second film, not the first, this is not the product of opinion or a 'hanger on' of a social movement. These are not 'my ideas' but my analysis of another's unverified, un-sourced opinion. I'm afraid this is rather weak tea for polemic: in fact it's quite cut and dry. But you are right about brevity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In hindsight I find it interesting you're contesting this when the page itself calls that source into question. Read the source, check the facts. Find another source that actually claims the first movie was the catalyst for the movement, and then we can talk about the factual basis of that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations from two Hebrew-language sources: ' TheMarker' and 'Globes'.
Per Verifiability policy, "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". At present there are no translations provided. Given the controversial nature of the movement, and the dependence the article places on such sources, can I ask that such translations be provided so readers can confirm that the material is being cited accurately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Further to this, note that such translations are a requirement for direct quotations, e.g. where TheMarker is apparently cited for a quote reading "erroneous, pejorative, derogatory and intended to silence the movement's message". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Serious changes needed at related articles.
It appears to be very messy. It's been related to these "Utopianism", "Technological utopianism", "Utopian socialism", either someone does not know a lot about socialism, or they just felt like adding the appropriate link, or I can be misinformed, As far as I know; the TZM advocates an emerging society that is based on scientific and technological understanding of human beings and where we inhabit, based on mostly what Jacque Fresco envisions for a better society. I'd also be careful adding in "Utopia" seeing as that term is deemed unacceptable, due to TZM constantly saying that there is "No such thing as a perfect society", and mentioning an "Evolving society", they strongly support a sustainable society, as well as maximum scientific and technological advancement and a removal of politics, therefore it cannot be a socialist view, nor utopian. It would make more sense if it was linked as a anarcho-technocratic movement. I am tempted to make a change on that, but seeing as I am not an official user, I am just making a reasonable suggestion and would like to ask the community if it would make more sense to leave it as a technocratic movement. --82.34.155.229 (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The description of TZM as 'utopian' is based on the assessments of others - TZM may see it otherwise, but they aren't the sole arbiters of what the article says. As for the relationship between TZM and Jacque Fresco, there seems to have been a parting of the ways. In any case, we base articles on published reliable sources, not on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But who says it's "Utopian"? What makes it "Utopian"? Because from what I've read, Utopia(n-ism) basically describes a "Perfect Society", alright, it will mention about the things below such as removal of money, but if a society has to change according to environmental, scientific and/or technological advancement then obviously the "Desirable" requirement for that society is not met, due to the changes of what I have mentioned, so they advocate a society that constantly emerges. Also, regardless how Jacque Fresco and TZM parted ways, they still have the same values of proposing a better solution to society and finding ways to solve problems that we face (Please note the word "Better"), seeing as they find money a detriment to both human behaviour and how we advance in society means that it can't be Utopian, as their reasons for proposing the solution is more scientific (Their lectures, and where they normally get their information from; www.zeitnews.org) shows they are greatly leaning towards science and technology. Therefore it would be more reasonable to leave it as a Technocracy Movement. I have stated a very good reason why it would be unneeded to leave it as "Technological Utopianism" then "Utopian Socialism", not only is it potentially misleading, but it's also out of place having 2 separate ideologies plastered on the related articles. --82.34.155.229 (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Who says it's "Utopian"? Third-party sources. That is what we base articles on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would clear things up for 82.34.155.229 if you would post the source(s). Thank you kindly! Zgoutreach (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see nothing presented. I do feel that it's smart to leave it as technocracy. The movement constantly shows what is possible by presenting the solutions backing it with scientific evidence and technological advancement. Unless anyone can explain in detail why it is not a technocratic movement. --82.34.155.229 (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "The movement constantly shows what is possible by presenting the solutions backing it with scientific evidence..."? Scientific evidence? Really? I've not seen any material by TZM published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Come to that, I've not seen anything that qualifies as a scientific argument at all. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide the necessary citations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Who says it's "Utopian"? Third-party sources. That is what we base articles on." Surely not merely third-party sources, but third-party sources checked against the facts. There are third party sources claiming Hoover was a crossdresser...although come to think of it maybe he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Simply wrong. Wikipedia bases articles on published sources. We do not base them on what we decide that 'facts' are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Actually it is about checking it against the facts to ensure it's a reliable source. That's part of the process before other 3rd party sources are suggested in replacement. And I wasn't talking about 'facts', but facts. "Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance." I have no problem at all with the 'utopian' part, that's properly sourced. I will add a sourced response in time. In the future when I have time, I will make and suggest a number of changes, including the overall structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The current state of the article is missing some important goals and suggested methods on solving crysis. I refer to the German version, the scientific method. Images are missing, activism is missing. Eduard Gotwig (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The German article is (quite correctly) tagged for lack of neutrality etc. As always though, the problem is a lack of third-party sources. TZMs claims to base their ideas on 'the scientific method' are just that - claims. Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for the movement, and unless and until their claims are taken seriously, and subject to in-depth analysis by outsiders, they cannot be treated as anything but the opinions of their supporters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Seeing as Andy is intentionally ignoring the point that I am trying to make. I'll make it super simple; They want decisions to be done by scientists or engineers based on the current scientific and technological understanding, not opinion makers. So, knowing that, that would mean that their idea is leaning heavily towards Technocracy.
 * It is not hard to actually study it and actually come to a reasonable conclusion. Sourcing it from another website is, more or less having their opinion on here, Wikipedia should function on what it advocates and not worshipping someone's opinion. --82.34.155.229 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not 'intentionally ignoring anything', except your irrelevant opinions. Find third-party reliable sources. That is what Wikipedia advocates... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have a valid point, but Andy is right about third-party reliable sources. It is true that something may be blindingly obvious, yet an acceptable source may not be there yet, or another source may be used to claim otherwise. Fresco was into technocracy, so if you search around enough you'll probably find a source, and then you can maybe add a sentence saying Fresco himself claimed he was exposed to, or part of it, and then later put technocracy in the See Also section. I was reading the Objectivism page (Ayn Rand) and there is a lot that is directly derived from her own writings. Perhaps Fresco has some technocracy discussion in his own writings, or lecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But that's the problem. If TZM advocates the majority (if not, all) of the ideas from Jacque Fresco, then clearly it would be Technocracy. Unfortunately, Andy likes to pass this off as an opinion, and said he would want reliable sources, if that were the case I see no sourcing of where it's "Technological utopianism" or "Utopian socialism". If they advocate most of what Jacque Fresco had envisioned for a better society, then it's harmless to say that it's Technocracy. That's the point I am trying to make, if we leave it as the 2 above, not only would it be misleading but that would mean they would have to ignore reliable sources which is, against the policy, even if it is not enough to be deemed Technocracy, then removing the 2 related article links would be a requirement. --82.34.155.229 (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. Some of the i.p.'s making comments here might take the time to make an account and then learn more about the criteria of En.Wikipedia for posting information, that would save a lot of explanations. Regarding Technocracy, it is a proposal of a form of government, the original idea was based on energy accounting and proposed by Howard Scott. There is no connection what so ever to Fresco or Zeitgeist in that. Fresco is a former member of the Technocracy group but has disavowed any connection with it, so no doubt its confusing. No doubt doubly, because Fresco has disavowed any connection with Zeitgeist or Peter Joseph groups also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted Earl, I will set up an account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.222.243 (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist The Movie and The Zeitgeist Movement: Why are "movie" criticisms being placed here ?
Zeitgeist The Movie and The Zeitgeist Movement: Why are "movie" criticisms being placed here?

I have no idea why the criticism section is so focused on "Zeitgeist: The Movie" when not only does The Zeitgeist Movement website state the films are not related, also supporting nothing Zeitgeist: The Movie speaks of in any of it publications or lectures, The Zeitgeist Film Series Website also has no relationship. Is it not odd to conflate the two? Seems very poor and dishonest to posts these things as though they relate. Flowersforparis (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is inescapable that the original movie led to the movement. It formed the original basis of the Joseph work, and is cited accordingly. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

To make this article grow on Wikipedia, you got to know the in and outs of Wikipedia.
Above all else, when expanding the article, please adhere to Good article criteria. The importance of this article might seem low to the movement right now, however be rest assured that the media does use Wikipedia to find balanced third-party reviews, if they are available. Do not underestimate the potential implications this article will have on the overall impression the general population will have of this movement, especially for those who are just aware enough to feel that they are interested in the idea of it.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia undefined 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are talking about the importance of the article to the movement whatever, but what you did was not neutral, so I reverted your edits. If you want to post a few of your edits on the talk page and talk about why they could be in the article that might be a good start, but the edits that you did were promo type or advert type or praise/homage type things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

undefined 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC) undefined 11:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need to delete more text than you type. Doing the converse is well advised. If you could only add to Wikipedia articles the same way you add to talk pages, that would be something. Here's my score: (article) (talk).siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
 * Now that I got that said, I agree to discuss some of these edits....siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

undefined 11:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

undefined 16:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of your edits are change for change's sake, others remove sourced content, others add POV material and tone, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "A lot of your edits are change for change's sake". Really? If so, If we started with my version, and tweaked it to match Earl King Jr.'s version, would you call that change for change's sake? And how is adding transition sentences such as "Z-Day is now an annual event in the movement, occurring every following March.[7][12]" adding a POV? Maybe, I shouldn't have added Ron Paul. Neither of you seems to be clear about what POV issues there are specifically. You seem to be handy dandy with simply reverting everything without any detailed account as to the flaws. I even numbered the groups of the text, some somewhat altered and some not. They were not even that major of edits. No discussion in reply to elucidate the flaws. They were all still reverted. At least when I edited the article Lie algebra, when the guy (you know who) also accused me of making edits that were "change for change's sake", someone was rational enough to at least restore some of these edits, because they can't all be that bad. I cannot expect however that an avid WP:Deletionist, who seems hell bent on putting these articles on a deletion treadmill, could actually separate the wheat from the chaff, for he instead prefers to throw away the edits in whole batches. He also does not seem to appreciate how my edits have been different from others on these articles, which quite often frankly lack significant knowledge of how to properly implement third-party sources and how not to over use primary sources. You can guess what I might be thinking at this point.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

Consensus right now is that your edits are POV material the tone is non neutral Kmarinas86. The article attracts along with Technocracy articles, J. Fresco, Zeitgeist, Peter Joseph etc. loyalists of those groups that though well intentioned are so invested as members or hangers on that things start getting twisted from neutral presentation or bloated with minutia that reflects the groups ideas too much without critical thinking. Just a simple thing like making the lead information logo picture of the article too big becomes an issue. Why make that bigger than it needs to be for the article? Also the idea is not to grow the article, it is to present the facts and a neutral perspective on the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

undefined 02:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Also the idea is not to grow the article, it is to present the facts and a neutral perspective on the subject." That I agree with. What I do know is that this will never be a great article unless there is enough depth here. But I guess that's kind of a problem. It's much easier to develop a "neutral" article when an organization is not idealistic, or when an idealistic organization has committed critics. The thing is, there are somethings in this world that are pretty much neither of these things, and good luck if you could make a neutral article about them that also isn't so plain, limited, or superficial.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

BETTER WORDING

In the summary of the 'Philosophy' of The Zeitgeist Movement it is stated 'a sustainability advocacy group based on the belief'. The word and term 'belief' has a specific meaning which is non-correlational with many anti-theistic aspects of the movement. A better (more appropriate for accurately conveying information) word may be 'idea' or 'concept' or 'practise' etc.195.49.180.114 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lies and Propaganda
I had wrote several talk sections in the past on this page. They were all meaningful and to democratize this talk page. They were all erased by the Zeitgeist editors on this talk page.

However Wikipedia makes it history cannot be hidden:

If you read this then trace back to 2011 December. Notice all the criticism talk on the page? It is there for a reason. The reason is to show that there are many visions to one idea and many pages to a book, both negative and positive. However the talk section has been updated continuously and ideas and opinions removed. I consider this a blasphemy to the ideas of a free internet.

Zeitgeist should be criticized for its ideas. People have the right to know. If the idea is to establish a new system then that should go by finding a sponsorship, advertising, Facebook groups etc...

You cannot erase talk pages, they are meant for ideas to be spread. If you remove sections of a talk page then you're doing it wrong. And if the only valid reason is that it would be taking up too much space then I think that there should be a rule about that. Like removing data on every 1 Jan of the year. Unlike that, here we get the most precious criticisms removed so that Zeitgeist ideas get a positive connotation.

If you remove this i will start vandalizing the page for the sole purpose of it getting protected. You just can't and shouldn't and may not remove criticisms of Zeitgeist. When you're building an idea you want to get public support and it you get the readers angry then you're not on the bright path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.17.190 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussions about TZM - it is intended solely for discussions concerning article content. If you vandalise Wikipedia your edits will be deleted and you will be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading And Inappropriate Wording
At two stages in the second paragraph it references 'belief'. Whilst the word has a common usage synchronous in some regards with idea, think, advocate etc. etc. in many regards, it is not appropriate. The movement itself is not belief-based nor does it advocate the utilisation of the belief mechanic. As an anti-religious member/advocator of The Zeitgeist Movement a discrepency is thus caused. Belief could be appropriated for other words which do not hold religious connotations. Could someone who knows what they're doing please do this as it would be much appreciated. 82.132.222.204 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The word 'belief' does not have religious connotations in the context it is used. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles are written in the common English language of our readers, rather than being defined by the usage within adherents of the subject matter. It is entirely clear what the word 'belief' indicates when used in our article, and if TZM has problems with it, that is unfortunate - but it is their problem, not ours. They don't control the language. AndyTheGrump (talk)

The word belief has religious connotations since religions are belief-based systems (i.e. the utilisation of the belief mechanic), that is systems that consider the mechanic of belief to be a valid form of knowledge acquisition.

I hereby refer you to an article written on the subject of beliefs:

'The meaning of belief

To establish a common ground for the general concept of belief, I hold to the common usage of the term from the American Heritage dictionary:

Belief: 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing; faith. 2. Mental acceptance or conviction in the truth or actuality of something. 3. Something believed or accepted as true; especially, a particular tenet, or a body of tenets, accepted by a group of persons.

Believe: 1 To accept as true or real. 2. To credit with veracity; have confidence in; trust.

In its simplest form, belief occurs as a mental act, a thinking process in the brain that requires two things: a feeling and a logical statement. To "believe" requires a conscious feeling of truth. To communicate what this feeling refers to requires some form of logical structure such as spoken or written language. Thus a belief requires a thought and a conscious feeling of "truth" which, according to neurological brain research, stems from the limbic part of the brain (discussed in the mechanism of belief, below). Thus, belief occurs as a thought with a feeling or emotion "attached." In other words: Belief= emotion + logic. Because belief requires emotion, it also represents a psychological state, not simply a mechanical thinking state.

In all cases, I refer to beliefs as occurring in an aware state of consciousness. Beliefs here do not refer to subconscious thoughts, or any mental activity occurring below the threshold of consciousness. Nor do beliefs apply to sleeping and dream states, or to unconscious habits, or instincts. When a person owns a belief, s/he consciously accepts their own belief. The degree of feeling to which one accepts their own beliefs, as valid, can vary from mild acceptance to certain absoluteness. Thus it would prove meaningless to say that a person has beliefs without them knowing it or for them to deny their own beliefs. Obviously, a person who does not believe in something, does not believe in that something; a person who believes in something, does believe in that something. Belief requires conscious acceptance.'

From the source http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

Furthermore Wikipedia should be tending towards a more accurate portrayal of subject matters within its circumference, a simple change of wording helps illuminate a more accurate picture of the subject matter less afflicted with misappropriated wording, since it's representing a line of thinking, expressed through a movement, it should do it's best to clarify the intents of the movement without misportraying it to non-theists, anti-theists and otherwise non-anti-religious persons.

'How belief confuses arguments

In the mildest form of belief, that of acceptance without absoluteness, a speaker or writer could simply replace belief words with more discriptive words to avoid confusion.

Note that in most instances, one can replace the word "believe" with the word "think". For example:

"I believe it will rain tonight."

can transpose into:

"I think it will rain tonight." '

In addition The Zeitgeist Movement is not a sentient entity, it cannot think for itself and thus cannot fall prey to owning or accepting beliefs, only members of it can, adding a further inaccuracy to the use of the term. As not all members of the movement utilise beliefs, nor does the movement itself profess or advocate the utilsation of said mechanic it is inaccurate. A simple change of wording for gaining extra clarity cannot be a bad thing surely? 109.144.188.234 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is quite clear enough, and I'm not interested in arguing proper English usage with people who use phrases like "advocate the utilisation of the belief mechanic" or other such gibberish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah the commentary by 109.144.188.234 (talk is confusing at best and the point they are making is not taken. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Re-Write/Re-Format
Hello WikiFellows.

There is so much data not mentioned on this page about what TZM is and does that it is just strange. If this page is to fit the characteristics of a Group Biography, as per wikipedias standards, why do we not give it a comprehendible format that actually gives the reader a basic understanding of the interests and pursuits of TZM? Below is a re-write I have created which I would like to propose as a well needed update. Please review by section. I have take great time with this so please give it some thought. I have taken great care keep this concise and objective. I have only taken the official materials of TZM and added it, along with a balanced "response and criticism" section. Please note the sources.

 THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT

The Zeitgeist Movement is a self-described Global Sustainability Advocacy Organization which conducts community based activism and awareness actions through a network of Global/Regional Chapters, Project Teams, Annual Events, & Media Work. It currently has Chapters in over 50 countries and seeks economic and social reform on the global scale, in the form of a new social system.

1 Philosophy

2 History 2.1 Origins 2.2 Venus Project Split

3 Organization and Activism 3.1 Chapters 3.2 Zeitgeist Day 3.3 Zeitgeist Media Festival 3.4 Podcast

4 Media Coverage and Criticism 4.1 Positive Reactions 4.2 Criticism: Philosophy

5 External Links

-

1: Philosophy

According to Movement's official Orientation Guide, The Zeitgeist Movement seeks to transition the global social system and economic approach to a “Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy”, defined as: “An adaptive socioeconomic system actively derived from direct physical reference to the governing scientific laws of nature.” It views the Market Economy as “unsustainable” existing as inferior in its efficiency, compared to a direct “technical” approach, which could enable a world without the need of money to meet basic human needs, solving many global problems, such as poverty. The Zeitgeist Movement also sees the current socioeconomic approach to be an unnecessarily negative factor on public health.

2: History

2.1 Origins

The Zeitgeist Movement was founded by filmmaker Peter Joseph in association with The Venus Project, featuring a call for social reformation in his documentary film Zeitgeist: Addendum. After the release of the film in 2008, the internet network and chapter structure slowly emerged. The first major event of The Zeitgeist Movement occurred to a sold out audience of 900 in New York City, months after the release of Zeitgeist Addendum. The New York Times described the event as “The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life.”

2.2 The Venus Project Split

The Zeitgeist Movement in its original form was in partnership with a organization headed by engineer Jacque Fresco called “The Venus Project”. However, in 2011 disagreement over future direction occurred which caused the two organizations to disband, with The Venus Project breaking its association.

3: Organization and Activism

3.1 Chapters

The Zeitgeist Movement is a self-proclaimed leaderless movement operating in a network of Chapters. While maintaining a large online presence as well, a system of coordinators, teams and projects work to connect the Movement globally through mainly concerted events.

3.2 Zeitgeist Day

The core public expression of The Zeitgeist Movement is it annual Zeitgeist Day or “Zday” global gathering. This annually includes one “main event” and parallel regional events. In 2009, the main event was in New York City, along with the event in 2010. In 2011, the main event occurred in London, 2012 in Vancouver and 2013 in Los Angeles. Hundreds of parallel events have also occurred each year in up to 60 countries. Notable attendees have been musician Brandon Boyd from the group Incubus and Actress Michelle Rodriguez.

3.3 Zeitgeist Media Festival

Started in 2011, The Zeitgeist Media Festival is an annual socially conscious arts festival which conducts a Main Event each year in Hollywood California. In 2011, the event was at the Music Box with a notable line up including Billy Gibbons and Natacha Atlas. In 2012, the event was held at Club Avalon, including notable actor Rutger Hauer , best selling author Marianne Williamson and others. The 2013 event will also be held at Avalon on Aug 4th. As with Zeitgeist Day, many parallel international events also occur during the same weekend, in global unity.

3.4 Weekly Podcast

Notable figures and coordinators of The Zeitgeist Movement participate in a weekly podcast rotation via BlogtalkRadio. This podcast serves as a core information base for global members.

4 Media Coverage and Criticism

4.1: Media Coverage

The Zeitgeist Movement has received notable international media coverage, including the New York Times, Huffington Post, 	Globes, The Marker Russia Today   Hollywood Today and The Young Turks. Reactions to The Zeitgeist Movement have been mixed and often controversial due to its association to the founder Peter Joseph and his critically acclaimed Zeitgeist Film Series, which is described as unrelated to The Zeitgeist Movement in terms of its tenets and goals, merely existing as an inspiration.

4:2 Criticism

Direct criticism of The Movement's officially published materials have ranged from claims of utopianism, to transition problems to a loss of work incentives. However, the vast majority of extreme criticism towards The Zeitgeist Movement 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 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.

5 External Links

External Links: Main http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com Global Chapters http://www.tzmchapters.net Official Blog http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com Official Forum http://www.thezeitgeistmovementforum.org Zeitgeist Media Project: http://zeitgeistmediaproject.com ZeitNews Technology: http://www.zeitnews.org Zeitgeist Day Global: http://zdayglobal.org Zeitgeist Media Festival: http://zeitgeistmediafestival.org Global Redesign Institute: http://www.globalredesigninstitute.org TZM Social Network: http://tzmnetwork.com TZM Global on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/tzmglobal TZM Global on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tzmglobal TZM Global Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TZMOfficialChannel


 * ---(End of proposal)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB17 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 July 2013‎


 * No. This proposal does not even remotely comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform providing free publicity for political movements. I suggest that you take the time to research Wikipedia policies regarding content before making any further proposals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate on the exact Wikipedia policy by which this is in violation. This is simply the raw facts about the institution in form. And every single wikipedia article about anything is a form of "publicity" in the sense of covering a topic for public digestion. The noted re-write is objective. Why should there even be a wikipedia article is it isn't objective and truthful? And by the way, "Andy", you don't run this page, friend. You are here to help find public concensus with myself and others concerned about the nature of this article. So please stop "telling me" things. You are not special here and have no power. So again, : Please elaborate on the exact Wikipedia policy by which this is in violation. JamesB17 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which policies does this violate? I suspect a list of policies it doesn't violate would be shorter. You can start with our policies regarding reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and original research for a start. I'm not going to waste my time explaining it all here - if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you should at least take the time to study core policies for yourself. And you're right, I don't run this page - but I do understand the way Wikipedia works, and this sure as heck doesn't involve finding 'consensus' with people who haven't bothered to look into the basics of article writing. I'm under no obligation to spoon-feed everything to you. Go away and study our policies and guidelines for yourself, and then come back when you can make proposals that are actually worth considering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)