Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 9

Redirecting the movie article pages part 2
So one movie article has again been redirected Zeitgeist: Addendum to this article. The Zeitgeist Movement umbrella seems to cover it for sure. According to the Zeitgeist people information it is a part of the movement, a sequence at the end of Joseph's second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008), introduced the Zeitgeist Movement. The fans of the first two films became organized into the Zeitgeist Movement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been redirected and Zeitgeist: Addendum has been an article on Wikipedia for over 3 years. -- You need to chill out Earl. -- Having recently been the subject of a complaint on the Edit Warring Noticeboard due to your obnoxious behavior, I recommend you notify all of the editors who have played a significant roll on the articles in question and see what the consensus is. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not matter really how long it has been here if there is a reason for it not to exist presently as there is according to consensus of several people. As a formerly blocked editor, for edit warring and tendentious editing on this article and others you might exercise caution and also some caution about your way of phrasing things here, with your focus on other editors  You need to chill out Earl. -- Having recently been the subject of a complaint on the Edit Warring Noticeboard due to your obnoxious behavior, I recommend you notify all of the editors who have played a significant roll on the articles in question and see what the consensus is. end quote I would say you are trying diligently to 'bait' another editor here. Big mistake given your history. That will be reverted again because the argued aspect of it here on the talk page is indicating it is a good idea to cut back on these promo articles that are related to many of the current and former members of Zeitgeist related groups that come here and edit aggressively for bits and pieces of their theories and space for their film products. S.D.S. how is it that you are calling another editor obnoxious right off the bat for just doing their volunteer job of editing on Wikipedia? With your history of editing warring on the article I suggest its time for you to stop that approach of baiting and trying to rile up over edits and stick with Wikipedia guidelines. Also editing with the meat and sock puppets that come here is not exactly good company and there is a checkered history of swarms of them coming to do their dirty work on the article or in other words advert the article for promotional reasons. These are only internet movies released on Youtube. Is it really not a bad idea to consolidate the movies into the main Zeitgeist Movement article? It appears that makes sense and right now consensus is leaning that way. A lot of scrutiny will be given to the Zeitgeist supporters that show up here and say otherwise, as it should be. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I remind people that any proposal to redirect the articles should be noted on the talk pages of the articles concerned, with a link to this discussion. I would have thought that this was obvious - bet evidently it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, but that predicate is not so. There is an active discussion on this page of that issue. If you care to go to those pages and put this section on the talk pages, but giving orders? No. The articles are probably going to be put into this article except maybe for the first movie. Mostly consensus is for that and other independent editors seem to go with that. I would caution you not to immediately make unrealistic demands as previously done, at the recent board. Already s.d.s. is doing exactly what he was doing before with baiting tactics. You never edit this article only make reverts which is your prerogative. If you are interested to do something yourself like going to those pages and telling people to come here, do so. Otherwise I remind you that you can not give orders to other editors and that the discussion of those article is being held here currently unless you change that instead of complaining. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Turning an article (or swathe of articles) into a redirect - ie. removing all page content - at least deserves the same courtesies as deletion discussions or proposing a merger. That said, my response on any page will be the same; Has there been some effort to merge the information from each film article into the TZM article? I'm guessing not. What would be the point? This isn't an article about film synopses, it's about an organization. Which begs the question, do you propose to simply toss out the information from the film articles? That's going to need some strong justification, not just saying they're "promo articles" (which they most certainly aren't).
 * Before I ever edited these articles I'd watched 1 or 2 of the films, and wondered how Zeitgeist: Final Edition fit into the series. To my surprise there was no mention of it on Wikipedia. I googled it and discovered it was a re-release of The Movie, then I looked around to find out what the difference was between the two, if any. Having made some effort to find out, and being a Wikipedia editor, I then sought to contribute this information to the relevant article. About the movie. Not the 'movement'. I couldn't give a flying f*ck about The Zeigeist Movement, and I don't want to know about it. All I thought was, Wikipedia is good for movie facts.* I often scan movie articles to look at the critical reception sections, just to see the score on Rotten Tomatoes and any other relevant trivia, before I watch them. I skip over the synopsis entirely (don't like spoilers) but they're essential for an encyclopedia. I cannot understand why anybody would get so emotional about a film that they think it shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia, or that having an article serves as some kind of endorsement or propaganda. They're just encyclopedia articles about films. Even Jew Süss has its own article. Lighten up, and step away from the subject. Do something else.  nagual  design   04:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC) *My contribution was later spirited away by Earl & Co., and to this day there's no description of Zeitgeist: Final Edition on Wikipedia.
 * This is an article talk page not a blog, also it is a controversial article so caution has to be used. Saying things like  I cannot understand why anybody would get so emotional about a film that they think it shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia, or that having an article serves as some kind of endorsement or propaganda. is begging some question that no one asked and does not make any sense. A redirect means that someone looking for information is directed to where the information is. Its not a conspiracy to deny people knowledge about this internet movie. These Zeitgeist movie sites could be combined with the current article except maybe for the first movie which is kind of a stand alone for its posits of conspiracy theories. You are still accusing me of having a Zionist Agenda as your previous rationale for reverting on the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * *sigh* ..Let me help you to get started by asking you a simple question: What is your rationale for each page redirect?  nagual  design   19:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Me thinks all should be redirected to the first movie, or all deleted. Its a Youtube flick that was written, edited etc. by one dude only...what makes any of this stuff notable?--MONGO 22:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe having the movies except for the first one, redirect to 'Zeitgeist movement' might be better. Either way is probably o.k. but yes, it makes little sense to have all the movie sites when really the only one that is different is the first one and what makes it different is that there was no Zeitgeist movement then. Peter Joseph 'created' that in the tail end of the second movie. If you want to start 'Articles for Deletion' on the movies I would support that also, at least the ones after the initial movie. The original movie is unique probably because of its influence on pop conspiracy culture. I would also support your idea of just redirecting the ones after the first one to the original movie page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say redirect it all to the first YouTube flick...the "movement" is a pipedream and I'm not convinced it is notable enough to warrant an article.--MONGO 14:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The movies are all definitely notable, as evidenced by all the reviews and articles cited. And they each exist as films in their own right. How they were published is immaterial, as is how many 'dudes' were involved. I don't know how notable TZM is one way or the other though. Again, why remove the articles? What is the rationale?  nagual  design   19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How are they notable? YouTube movies are not notable. One guy then claims there is a movement...so what. There are no specifics as to membership, organization or anything else....all we have are some people that watched one or more of these flicks in YouTube and then what? Where is the headquarters?--MONGO 22:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already answered that question; the numerous citations on each page demonstrate notability. As for YouTube movies and the like, take a look at this list, and take note of how many have their own articles.  nagual  design   23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge the movies all together into one article. All will be better presented in context of the others, it will be easier for readers to have it all in one place, and it will be a better article. Tom Harrison Talk 21:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes some sense, at least, to merge the movies articles and leave this one alone. Although I wouldn't support it unless a better quality article could first be made (in a sandbox). Simply saying it will be better doesn't make it so, but making things easier for readers is laudable.  nagual  design   23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, redirect the movie articles into Zeitgeist the movie' or Zeitgeist Addendum? Then take some bits and pieces from the redirects, because otherwise the new article would be too big. Maybe just mention some basic things about the other movies. They are still just Youtube release movies as said above. As far as making copies in a sandbox that is fine if anyone here wants to do that but it is not necessary criteria on articles. Also as to notability of these I've already answered that question; the numerous citations on each page demonstrate notability. end quote Nageldesign. Actually that is wrong. One of the basic problems with all the Zeitgeist related stuff is the lack of good source citations, so many citation are used over and over. It just has not been written about a lot and what has been written generally is negative critique type things from the media with some few exceptions. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and Tom Harrison...using Wikipedia as an example of what we should cover is bad precedent, see schools and Pokemon characters. Perhaps all those other junk articles exist because they haven't gotten the attention this one has...we just need ot figure out what article should be the daddy one.--MONGO 01:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect all the movie articles to the initial movie. That's gotten the most attention of the movies.  Give the other movies a paragraph or two. Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think notoriety equals notability. With regards to the sandbox idea, a blind man on a galloping horse could see that this is going to be contentious, so I strongly suggest that any proposed overarching article be created separately, be it a sandbox or a new article. At the very least, material should be progressively copied to the new page in a transparent manner, with other editors free to interject, before the original articles are wiped. And just to be clear, I'm not saying that I support this merger at all at the moment. I've yet to be convinced as to how or why a new article will be better.  nagual  design   01:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"They, they, they" and citing
A recent edit I made trying to bring neutrality to the article got reversed pretty quickly and I think it's totally unnecessary. If we look at the greenpeace page for instance it starts with the words 'Greenpeace is a' not 'Greenpeace describes itself as a' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace, a similar case for pirate party international, go check it out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Party. Secondly the first sentence states that it was created by Peter Joseph, the films were, the movement was not, I will however accept you keeping this in if you can cite it. I'm neutral on TZM, but I'm fed up of seeing this, quite frankly, sad behaviour on here. Be fair, IT IS a grass roots, sustainably advocacy movement.

This article on TZM is well referenced for the most part and have no qualms with it, but it should be neutral and state what IT IS and should also not contain that it was formed by someone it was not (prove it if you can, otherwise don't put it in). As for the edit I did which includes 'which focuses on science and technology rather than monetary and political interests' this is simply taken from the same wikipedia page on TZM but on a different language wikipedia so I believe it should be included to provide background to casual (none sad people with nothing better to do that constantly watch wikipedia pages being updated.)

I think this edit war can stop if it's brought in line in terms of formatting with other pages on wikipedia that talk about groups, but if you want edit wars, feel free to continue your sad little lives editing wikipedia pages to show a group of people in a negative light. You can't get time back and you're not getting any younger :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikalify (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2014‎


 * Since it is abundantly clear from the sources cited in the 'history' section that Peter Joseph, producer on the 'Zeitgeist' movies, and frequent spokesperson for the Zeitgeist Movement, was responsible for the creation of the Movement, your edit has been reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the matter of "describes itself as" versus "is", I would have agreed with Zikalify that it's an unnecessary expression of doubt, but a cursory search gave 2 good examples; The UK Independence Party ... describes itself in its constitution as a "democratic, libertarian party", and The Labour Party is a centre-left political party in the United Kingdom. Given that UKIP have an uncertain reputation, with sources describing them in a variety of ways depending on their own political POV, the editors seem to have settled on an undeniable truth. On the other hand, Labour have a consistent reputation in that almost everyone, themselves included, would describe them as centre-left, so the editors have simply found a reliable source to verify it. Different subjects require different approaches.  nagual  design   23:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we do re-directs of the movies to here
The other articles about the movies? In other words redirect those articles to this article. There does not seem to be much of a reason for keeping those separate movie articles. Some of the Zeitgeist members that edit here are still kicking about the first movie not being connected but that is a non issue as overwhelming sources, plus common sense says they are. It is bad form to bend to their will just because they form a presence here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merging is good. Tom Harrison Talk 10:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I started the process and this guy accused me of 'being' a Zionist Agenda. That made me scratch my head I think he should be kicked out of editing Wikipedia for that. That aside merge the movie articles into the Zeitgeist Movement article, yes. No doubt these articles of movies were created by the zealous supporters and have no real value except to promote. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that too...if it repeats, a report to AN/I should produce a lengthy block. As far as the redirects, I'm not in any camp in that, but thought that the "movement" only happened after the movie...and to be honest, it seems like a scam to me or a hoax.--MONGO 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify something. I have nothing against the Jewish people or religion, nor any other belief system. What I am against is the constant erosion of these articles by Earl King Jr. and co. who seem intent on undermining the perceived "anti-Semitic" message of these films by souring the articles. He and others appear to lurk around these articles, waiting for other editors who they perceive as "sock puppets of Peter Joseph", "Zeitgeist members", "zealous supporters", etc. to be turning the other way, before editing to their tastes. Moreover, they appear to be the type of disruptive editors who attempt to game the system by careful, sometimes tag-team-like manoeuvers that leave their opponents looking like the unruly element. Sure, take it to the highest authority if you want to see me banned. As for the matter of article blanking, there is no consensus for that. Please desist. And I didn't accuse Earl of 'being' a Zionist agenda, I gave him a nickname, like Phil "The Power" Taylor. He's earned it.  nagual  design   16:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How did I earn it? Nothing you just said makes sense. You have no credibility and are now repeating that I earned the moniker Zionist agenda your nickname for me in your edit summaries. That does not even make sense. How do I have a 'Zionist agenda' You think I want a new Israeli empire in the Middle East? That is the common usage of that term. Also I did not blank the article so your edit summary is false. I did a redirect to the Movement article because the movie articles are mostly pointless fluff promotion pieces. Saying I blanked the article is lying unless you do not understand what a redirect is. Right now the small consensus is probably to redirect the two movie articles anyway into the main Zeitgeist movement article and I am going to do that. Maybe hold off on redirecting the 'Zeitgeist the movie' article for a while but that probably also could be redirected into this article page. Since you are editing as an anti ethnic group or anti country conspiracy person that believes in a secret agenda, I suggest you go easy on your reverts because that perspective is not neutral. Yes, you deserve a block and especially now since you are repeating the same thing without any apology for your language or inference and your rationale does not make sense, but you repeat it again. Maybe it is part of the Zeitgeist stuff to believe in conspiracy things but it is absurd to translate that to here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that the movie articles were redirected with no discussion on the relevant talk pages whatsoever, I have reverted. Any redirects will have to be justified vie WP:RS - i.e. evidence that sources discuss the movies in relation to TZM, rather than as independent material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What was the timeline...which came first? The movement or the movie? Also...what movement? A few wackos on the loose who watched a movie and want to protest at vermin ridden inner city tent encampments does not a "movement" make.--MONGO 03:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we please not turn this talk page into a forum for anti-TZM rants. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not democratic Andy. Getting overloaded with the same people that made the movie entries to discuss anything is pointless. The movies can fit nicely into the Zeitgeist Movement article. There is no real reason to highlight them beyond telling people the basics instead of a blow by blow account mostly sourced from Zeitgeist material. I think you could leave the redirects alone Andy. Yes, you can edit with the Zeitgeist sock-puppets and meat-puupets here if that is your prerogative though. Mostly these are internet released movies. There is virtually no serious commentary about them except mostly scathing critiques. Maybe some think the moon shot was faked also but can not verbalize because of chips implanted. The Movement article is pretty good now. Look at it from a year ago. Again Andy so far I have never seen you edit anything, just remove the hard work of others. Cited information. Reliable sources. Citing policy in the nastiest way possible ain't pretty either, or not being able to back off when wrong. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Consolidation is definitely in order. It might be better to merge the movie articles into one page to start with. Then, material about the movement can be included there as a section, and this article redirected there. Tom Harrison Talk 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, into one article I think. This article says there was the first movie, then a second movie, the end of which it was announced that the movement was to get started. It's all very exciting I suppose but it's mostly self referential and not really sure that it's more than an internet meme...its getting too much out of us by getting multiple articles.--MONGO 11:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Zeitgeist people are just going to keep reverting along with Andy now for what ever reason. Andy, you also did a false edit summary by saying the redirect was not discussed. Why are we promoting a bunch of internet You-tube movies? Do hits on You-tube actually mean anything? Its just free advertising with the movie articles. Andy apparently will chew his leg off rather than admit any error so the usual comments of outrage and fake policy diatribes can be ignored from him. The same cast and crew sometimes with different names will just keep repeating that the 'Zeitgeist the movie' is not connected with the movement. As far as the time line obviously the movement in a bottle, just add water, was a spinoff later of Zeitgeist the movie. So it is just a part of the history of this thing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since it is self-evident that Earl King Jr. is incapable of complying with policy concerning this article and the related ones on the movies, I shall be starting a thread on WP:ANI, asking for him to be topic banned. What with repeated personal attacks on this page and in edit summaries, the repeated use of this talk page as a forum to promote half-baked conspiracy theories, and a complete disregard for NPOV and RS policy in editing, I think it is clear enough that he is far too emotionally involved to maintain the necessary standards regarding this controversial article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are way over reactive. I am a neutral editor here that is using cited sources and improving the article. I do not understand this reaction. We are just trying to discuss things in an even handed manner. I see your block history. I assume you are trying to provoke a reaction and that is not going to happen. It's true that I rewrote the article mostly but I do not possess it. Lets make it about editing and not editors unless there is a real issue. Its your prerogative to hover over this article and revert revert revert but that is not really constructive. Better you engage in the debate in this thread. This topic is controversial so caution and super neutral approach must be used. There is a lack of good citation references and that is a problem in general. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A 'neutral editor' wouldn't be posting half-baked conspiracy theories on this talk page - and repeatedly violating WP:BLP policy in the process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a non-involved administrator,, achieve consensus to merge the pages before you try to merge these articles. Repeatedly trying to merge well established articles without consensus is "less than awesome," and will lead to issues if you continue doing so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. So far the consensus is to merge though that is marginal, here on this talk page. Its difficult because of the many people that land here from the Zeitgeist. For that reason, if you look at the article history say from a year ago you will notice that the article was pretty awful and constantly under attack for adding cut and paste material from the group. The movie articles are part of the walled garden of related things and it was all maintained intensely by movement members. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely against merging. Each page (movie) should be taken on a case by case basis, just like any other article on Wikipedia. Earl King Jr.'s long term anti-Zeitgeist agenda has grown tiring; largely a single topic editor, I suggest he find a new hobby. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The way to get started is to first merge the movies into one article. That should be relatively uncontroversial, if there's no consensus for more, then no more needs to be done. But there's no reason to have a different page for each movie. Tom Harrison Talk 10:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe...the movies must surely be more notable than this cock and bull "movement" hoax. I'll look into the notability of all these things before I comment further...if indeed there are more than a few wackos that are part of the "movement" them maybe this article has a purpose....right now all I see is that a head wacko that won't tell the world his surname says it's a movement, then some other wackos want to yack about it at tent encampments and you have some mass murderer that watched the movie and another wacko that lives in a tree somewhere....it's beyond weird...--MONGO 11:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion above is good The way to get started is to first merge the movies into one article. That should be relatively uncontroversial, if there's no consensus for more, then no more needs to be done. But there's no reason to have a different page for each movie. How is the title of an article changed? Maybe use the first movie as the one to merge the others into. So do a redirect to Zeitgeist the movie of the other ones? Give it a rest 'some different stuff' You are way off base. The main body of the article is very good now. There is nothing anti Zeitgeist about it. Maybe because you are one of the pro sympathizers here that end up with meats and socks backing is the reason you are upset. As I said before I think Zeitgeist is funny and a cultural marker and it is hard to resist trying to make the article neutral. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Its sad to see the obsession by those who wish to remove the massive cultural impact Zeitgeist and the sequels have had. Since it is more "underground" this route is a viable scam by those who wish to remove the influence from the internet. The fact is, each movie is a separate idea and they all have no direct relationship to the work being done by TZM. By work, I mean TZM does not promote the movies and the events hold focus only on the RBE stuff. TZM is not a "fanclub" of the films and hence any merger is highly misrepresenting of TZM's actual work and ideology. JamesB17 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Many films are relevant to the movement's goals which advocate an Open Source social system without the market's concept of fair or equal exchange. Hell I could go to youtube select some TZM lectures without a including a film from the zeitgeist film series, burn it to a DVD, and it would give an accurate display the goals of TZM.

The goal by Anti-TZMers here is to merge "Zeitgeist the Movie" with TZM page, since the first film does not describe TZM's soultion and is more a personal film by Peter Joseph. It's an off-topic stratgegy.Spirit of the times (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Add TZM Challenge to the page
Dear Editors,

I just went through TZM Challenge and feel that its a section that must be added here. Here are some links that talk about that challenge: ,

Please share your views.

Thanks, Codenamefirefly (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Wikipedia isn't a platform for the promotion of TZMs publicity stunts. Unless and until this 'challenge' gets meaningful coverage in credible third-party published sources, it does not merit inclusion in our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy is correct. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Changing the movie article
O.k, the most popular idea seems to be to put the movie articles into the original movie. Zeitgeist the Movie. As far as it being contentious it does not seem to be except maybe by some of the Zeitgeist hangers on. As far as sandbox its probably a waste of time for people to discuss that being done and not doing it themselves. So someone, probably not me because I have done my fair share on these things, take some basic stuff from the movies and redirect then to the first movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sticking all of the movies into the first film is one of the worst ideas I've heard. Not only does the first film have plenty of references to be a stand alone article, but they are different films, which is why different articles were created for each one of them in the first place. The only way it would possibly make sense would be to create a new article called The Zeitgeist Film Series, which is what it actually is - and then put information from the 3 film articles into that new article . -- But then you end up with either 3 different Criticism/Reception sections (one for each film), or just 1 bigger one that is largely focused on the first film with some other stuff shoved in there regarding the later two films. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The films are just YouTube films right?--MONGO 11:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they had screenings around the world and are available for purchase on Amazon like any other film. One significant difference is that all of the films are available for free/legal download. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest S.D.S remove the Amazon sales site above. That is blatant advertising promotion and probably will even Google up and people can use it for reference to buy the movie, so it is really awful promotion. Screenings around the world? By Zeitgeist supporters, some of the same people that created the content of the articles here also. Its doubtful that a theater actually showed these movies to a real audience beyond fringe festivals and weekend events. What is the longest actual theater showtime release period? They are notable because they sell them on Amazon? funny idea. Anybody can sell any thing on Amazon. Joseph makes X amount on each C.D. sold so why would we make a giant advert leading to his 'film series' website and his pay pal button? Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Its sad to see the obsession by those who wish to remove the massive cultural impact Zeitgeist and the sequels have had. Since it is more "underground" this route is a viable scam by those who wish to remove the influence from the internet. The fact is, each movie is a separate idea and they all have no direct relationship to the work being done by TZM. By work, I mean TZM does not promote the movies and the events hold focus only on the RBE stuff. TZM is not a "fanclub" of the films and hence any merger is highly misrepresenting of TZM's actual work and ideologyJamesB17 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Creating a sandbox for the proposed changes
I agree with user: nagual  design  that this process be transparent. I highly suggest that anyone who is pushing for these changes create a sandbox for the proposed changes/new article so that a consensus can be arrived at in terms of what is to be included. There would be a lot of work to do here regarding content choice and the process should not be rushed. -- If someone doesn't know how to create a sandbox just look at the top of this page to the right of your username. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to do that fine. If no one does it in the next 24 to 48 hours and finishes it in a day or two, then lets redirect the movies into the first movie. Also making a dedicated Wikipedia article that is named after a Peter Joseph blog is a bad idea The Zeitgeist Film Series is his website, why would we name a Wikipedia article after the 'Official Website' for Peter Josephs Youtube movies? Oh and his sites are pay pal sales sites for DVD's and it is all self sourced material. Also I see 'some Different stuff' is posting links to his edit warring thing. Could you stop?, you were blocked for tendentious edit warring and interrupting Wikipedia to make a point on this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Re: "If someone wants to do that fine. If no one does it in the next 24 to 48 hours and finishes it in a day or two, then lets redirect the movies into the first movie." No, don't do that. Please read this.  nagual  design   20:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

undefined 00:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an uninvolved adminstrator, I would highly suggest that anyone considering merging articles in this group do so by establishing consensus on each individual move (which I do not currently see, and which would likely involve a discussion on each talk page.) Given the prominence of this series of articles, I do not believe it is appropriate to merge them without a consensus being established, and I see no consensus for their merge, here or anywhere else. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps...but I have yet to see anyone demonstrate notablity for anything other than the first movie. I guess there was a sequal movie as bizarre as this one where the editor/writer/producer/director then proclaimed that the "movement" was now beginning. It reminds me of the scene in Forrest Gump where Gump has been running forever and he has this pack of dimwits also running behind him and then Gump stops and they all say, gee what are we suppose to do now Gump?--MONGO 04:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't think they are notable, you could always AfD them. But currently there's not a consensus in favor of merging the articles; merging them needs to wait until there is a consensus in favor of merging them (and all potentially effected pages need to be notified - there are templates to do so, although I can't remember what they are offhand (I wound up with a concussion last night that scrambled my brain a bit, heh.)  If additional outside attention is desired, you can always run an RfC or other proess about it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah its a colossal waste of time dealing with the pro Zeitgeist people and yes they are internet movies that are sort of an Angry Birds flash of pop culture. I doubt one theater had a real run of people going to see these movies. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Yeah its a colossal waste of time dealing with the pro Zeitgeist people" That's some good time management skills you got there then. Please continue making the best use of your time.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

Part of the problem on the article is the power struggle between pro and con Zeitgeist people. If you look at the article history say from a year ago or two years ago you will see that. There are several editors here though that just want a neutral presentation of the group. Also people troll each other on the page especially recently. Its better if that stops now and just editing and discussion take place. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe it would be fair to make a clear distinction between the first movie and the actual cause of the movement. TZM has stated many times that the first movie, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate it is, does not represent the real objectives and train of thought of the organization. Focusing on conspiracy theories is counter productive to a sane discussion of wether the proposal of the movement is feasable or not.

The objective of TZM is the same as The Venus Project Activist Movement which spawned after the TZM and TVP spilt. An Open Source society, without politics or supposedly equal exchange, the free market. Nowhere in the first zeitgeist film is that goal mentioned or laid out, it simply dismantles religion, says 9/11 is an inside job, and talks about bankers using the social structure to swindle more wealth into their hands. Only at the end does it say the one line "humans re-discovering their relationship to nature" ONE LINE. Aeon-characteristic (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose you think that it is us that is formulating the story line in the article about Zeitgeist things? That is not so though. We are merely reporting on what is reported about it by what are thought to be reliable sources, so we have no 'dog in the hunt' for the larger and smaller meanings of the whole thing. That is an important point. It serves your cause much much more to have a neutral presentation article that has no baggage of your interpretation. Unless you are someone that is published in credible sources on this subject your opinion has zero value if I can say that without sounding insulting. We are just worker bee's here making some information for the public, volunteers that for whatever reason have nothing better to do. That information can not reflect the F.A.Q.'s material from Zeitgeist, pro Zeitgeist sentiment by members such as yourself etc. It has to be given at an encyclopedic level or quality. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Views Subheading Needs A Little Sumthin' Sumthin'
It appears odd that the article in its current form takes only three sentences to describe the entire social movement. Adding what could be looked at as an inflammatory quote from Peter Joseph which adds nothing to the views of the movement takes up more article space than the three sentences mentioned earlier. As I am new to this sort of thing, how would more content be added? There is now a book "The Zeitgesit Movement", which looks really more like of a collection of essays, that could be an excellent source for more flesh on the bones, so to speak. Without more, the article fails to define the movement as well as it does the controversy which apparently surrounds it. A good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.27.25 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2014‎


 * The book you mention is not notable because its published by the group itself, Peter Joseph and really is just a format for them to say what they please. Part of the issues with the article are that very little has been written about them because there is not a lot of mainstream interest in them. In other words we have already located the very few sources that are reliable about people writing on the subject and they are in the article now. Maybe in the future someone will write more articles about them or something else will happen with them that will give them more coverage that is not sourced to their own writing. So, we can not use their self published stuff because of those reasons. It is too primary in nature, they are writing about themselves and that is not really perspective on the group but just them saying what ever. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The book may be unnotable as a source for citing from, but should still have a mention of publication. Only in this context will it receive proper critical review and examination by a large majority of people. Unless of course this site believes in a closed and censored world? Dlordmagic (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Reception
Some recent tagged aspects in the reception section of the article make it clear that the beginning of that section is not so good. That area is the only area remaining from the original article from a year or more ago and it has never looked right. It is the laundry list of newspaper or internet news about Zeitgeist being this or that etc. It might be better just to remove that beginning part or edit the papers out or take actual quotes or summations from those sources rather than just listing them. Most of those citations are used multiple times in the article anyway so its doubtful that it would really lose anything if the beginning few sentences with that list of papers was removed or reedited a lot. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It may well need attention, but removing it entirely wouldn't be appropriate - we need to include third-party commentary on TZM (positive and negative) in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * /* Reception */ Its pointless to have a list of sources when nothing is actually attributed. All of those sources are used elsewhere in the article anyway. That part of the article has never been right. At least now it makes some logical sense without throwing a bunch of stuff up against a wall. It was all tagged for either fixing or removal and removal is probably a better course since it was not put together well from the beginning. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true Earl and any editor can check the article history. There were only 2 tags in the section that needed to be fixed. Here's proof if anyone is interested (please read the edit summary). -- I've put the material back in place as it summarizes some key aspects of the organization, both positive and negative. I would appreciate help in figuring out which of the 3 sources were used for the tagged material. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No doubt you would appreciate that but maybe you could have figured that out before adding the list of news groups that somehow have mentioned Zeitgeist things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What??? You did a wholesale removal of material when all that was needed was some research. Please help us fix the tags. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutral edits
An editor expressed concern that a recent edit might not be neutral. This seems odd because in the previous edit he used the same article to make a quote so had no problem with the article. He refers to Jew-baiting, that term as not being neutral, but the other editor did not coin the term Jew-baiting in regard to the first movie, the source that SomeDifferentStuff uses, uses the term. So to balance the article just a statement of the many bodies involved in the 'movement' is not really that descriptive while leaving out the critical perspective of the reliable source. The recent edit also gets at some other issues that are good to bring out now in the article for perspective. Again cited material. This is a reliable, well written source for perspective One of only several in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems ok by me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now one person thinks its ok. Another is on the fence. I think its o.k. I will re-edit the information also. Because the information is plain spoken, I think it has alarmed some of the Zeitgeist advocates that inhabit the page and their supporters. It is sourced and the citation is good. No real reason to leave out the critics of the movement on Wikipedia. It makes for a more well rounded article to report from all sides, but the new edit should take care of the reason that was complained about probably without altering the information a lot. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Given your relentless efforts to include every bit of questionably-sourced negative material you can find (including a John Birch Society website article ) in TZM related articles, I have to suggest that your claim to 'neutrality' should be taken with a pinch of salt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Very off topic. Please stick with the facts. The John Birch Society is a legit group just like any other group and their paper has been around a long time. Just because the Christians publish a paper called The Christian Science Monitor does not mean that its a bad paper, if you know what I mean? A source is either legit or not but lets not inject our personal bias about the sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The John Birch Society is a fringe far-right organisation, who's views on TZM are about as relevant as TZMs would be in an article about the Society - and your attempt to promote their views is a perfect example of why your claim to be 'neutral' is a total crock. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Its no wonder that your block record is so long and colorful. I wonder who will block you for what next. Ever consider your style to be ridiculously offensive? Your view of what they are does not count, right of left or left of right. You understand? The Ku Klux Klan is a legit group also. What better way to have a citation in the article than a group that probably embraced Zeitgeist initially as one of the own? So tone down the rhetoric. You could have fixed the article but you seldom edit just revert. A couple of words changes things. Wikipedia editing for angry sport? Stop. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your clear and unequivocal demonstration that you don't have the faintest understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, or the purpose of an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I am not against the right or left. Zeitgeist appeals to both in the original form of the movie its super right wing, then becomes a liberal globalists wet dream. The article citations about this reflect that. But, I guess you like to agitate your putdowns masked as policy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A movie a is not a movement, it's very simple what we advocate: we're against trading or the free market and favour of an open source society. Although the "reception" can call us names like "a cult" this is what the movement is about and promotes and should be displayed as such. Of course you want further misleading bullshit on this article since you want to confuse people as to what we're about.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Huff Post blog source for the article
This source seems bad for the article. It is not really a news story from the Huffington Post, it is one of their contributors writing a fluff piece of what could be a topical filler for their paper, perhaps written for so many dollars per word for their in house writers. It is in the blog and forum category. After the article it says 59 people are discussing this article with 84 comments so that is really a blog/forum thing. It looks more like a Zeitgeist Forum post than anything. The article is better off without that citation. Opinions? Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Blogs from reliable sources are fine. Given the limited availability of material discussing this topic we should use what we can. And it isn't only being used in the reception section. It is also sourcing part of the lede as well as material in the "Views" section that gives the organization's view on money and the private ownership of property. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Since there is such a limited amount of good citations maybe the article should reflect that by removing some of the not so good ones, like the blog, instead of making due with poor material. It is being used for instance, like this in the article and that is hard to figure out what it is even being used for . Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The source is fine Earl. One thing it is currently being used to support is, "The movement advocates the elimination of money and private ownership of property in exchange for their version of a resource-based economy." -- This is useful information for someone unfamiliar with the organization. You need to read I just don't like it. -- Let it go. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. Please refrain from underlining and using capital letters and lecturing about what others should/could do. That gets old. Other people have to weigh in. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Though the Huff Post material is a blog, it is at least from a fairly mainstream source, and we aren't using it for anything particularly controversial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is blogs suck for referencing since there is limited to zero peer review.--MONGO 14:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy. And if you really find the source that upsetting you can take it to RSN and get their thoughts. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When there's limited material discussing a topic, we should not use what we can find, but shorten the article. Otherwise we end up with excessive coverage of fringe topics, which seems to be a common problem. Tom Harrison Talk 10:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

''I agree with Andy. And if you really find the source that upsetting you can take it to RSN and get their thoughts.'' No reason to do that at this point. upsetting? No, just a poor source and if good sources are not around then the article needs to reflect that by trimming. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Realistically I'm trying to remove any neutrality regarding TZM and I desire strong negative publicity of them, but since there are no mainstream sources for TZM at all, the TZM article, the Moving Forward Article, the Peter Joseph article, should all be removed since I don't like TZM.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a case you do not do your case a service by commenting cynically or ironically or whatever the above is. If you are curious about how Wikipedia works read some of the guidelines. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Aeon-characteristic, your sarcasm is noted. Unfortunately, neutrality is not a priority here, which is extremely problematic. At the moment it is majority rule (Clearly against Wikipedia policy) and is mainly headed by Earl King Jr., followed by MONGO. -- Just remember, nothing false remains stagnant forever. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It might be better that you do not confuse new editors s.d.s. into thinking the article is controlled by 'certain' people here. It is not. Lets not make the Zeitgeist article into a continuation of conspiracy things. I seriously doubt whether Mongo works at the New World Order, has any lizard blood in his veins or is a member of the Bilderberg group or a member of the tri-lateral commission. So, lets keep the negative rhetoric about other editors to a zero tolerance level. And for gods sake please stop editing your comments on the talk page with capitals, underlines and big black letters. False emphasis on opinion points leads to a kind of 'crying wolf' about issues. I also noticed you are soliciting other editors that are tandem in nature to you to come to the page. Probably not the best idea. As to the issue Peter Joseph is not exactly a critical voice on Peter Joseph. I added that information above originally, his saying about neurotic society etc. After learning more about issues connected to Wikipedia not being a format or having to present 'both' sides on issues I removed it and another editor removed it. Also that citation is being used to death now in the article because of the lack of citations that are decent. I hate to bring this up but right now s.d.s. has started edit-warring this article so better put it in the open since he has a history of being blocked once before for edit warring, tendentious editing on Zeitgeist things, so please proceed with caution S.d.s. given your edit history of having some kind of horse in this race. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Earl, flooding the talk page does not equate to a coherent argument. -- You need to read WP:Consensus. -- And given that over 90% of your edit history is related to Zeitgeist in some way  your intention on Wikipedia is very clear. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now you are against a very limited consensus of editors with the revert in question. I added that information originally, but think better because it is too promo, too adverty for himself, etc. My intentions are clear to you? Doubtful. Why bring up that kind of rhetorical argument of mind reading another editor? The point of my comment above is that Wikipedia is not a format for defending and counterpoints, especially when the person in question Peter Joseph is making some blue sky statement about Zeitgeist which is used now as answering his critics. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no legitimate reason whatsoever, given a source which clearly considers PJ's views on TZM of such significance to interview him, why we shouldn't include a brief on-topic quotation from PJ. I am sure our readers are entirely capable of deciding for themselves what is or isn't a 'blue sky statement', and don't need to be told how to think by us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The source is fine, and including the quote provides a more NPOV.  nagual  design   18:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No to the blog. It's no different then WodPress or other blog sites as HuffPo does not actually endorse it. A WaPost blog written on the WaPost site by a WaPost editor is different than HuffPo's method of random contributors. --DHeyward (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article already contains too much interview self sourced information without adding more from a blog source. I removed another reference to it. Since the movement has no leaders according to Peter Joseph, why emphasize Mr. Joseph as an authority on it anyway. It just sprang up overnight in some obscure fashion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And presumably, by the same logic, we should strip out all the commentary about PJ's movies too? Or would that deflect you from your self-evident objective of filling the article with every bit of off-topic negativity you can cobble together? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Calm down Andy. I have zero horse in this contest. I am not a right or left person. If someone mentions the John Birch Society in a legit article citation about this movie, I have no problem with that or the other antecedents of the movie. No point in white washing the movie into a song and dance about this and that according to the sources of their webpages and spokes people from the FAQ's material of the 'Movement', is there? Lets go where the sources lead us. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Earl, you are one of the most non-neutral editors I've come across on Wikipedia. It's very problematic to the community that you are unable to see this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong thread. Do not attack other users. Do not insult other editors. My edits are generally used/accepted and by consensus. You have been blocked on this article previously for edit warring and tendentious editing ([]) and more recently you and Andy have supported each others edits. So, stop the battlefield. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Given your blatant POV-pushing, your continued soapboxing, and your inability to avoid personal attacks both on this page and in edit summaries (e.g. ), I have started a thread at WP:ANI, where I have proposed that you be topic banned. I have nothing further to say here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Given your blatant POV-pushing, your continued soapboxing, and your inability to avoid personal attacks both on this page and in edit summaries (e.g. ), I have started a thread at WP:ANI, where I have proposed that you be topic banned. I have nothing further to say here.

Why are you putting this information into this thread? Are you soliciting the many Zeitgeist supporters to go there and make negative comments? I think so. Bad idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The many zeitgeist supporters? Are you serious? There aren't many TZM supporters here, well 1 since I'm commenting.

I hate to see this article ruined by editors which seek sources which have a negative and therefore untruthful view of TZM, what we stand for is obvious, the recognition that the market system with its traditionalised notion of "fair trade" is a complete scam. Trading mathematically leads to inequality and therefore violence, and poor public health.

Will there be articles out there that have a destructive agenda to slander us because of a wealth addiction. Yes indeed. Aeon-characteristic (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. Wikipedia doesn't base content on what contributors claim is 'obvious'. We do however aspire to accurately reflecting the balance of opinion in published reliable sources - which is what is being discussed here. If you wish to complain that such sources don't all accept TZM's ideology without question, you will have to do so elsewhere. We aren't going to rewrite policy to suit the objectives of TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinion (noun)

1. A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty "my opinion differs from yours"

2. A belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people "he asked for a poll of public opinion"

I can say with certainty that opinions are scientific.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Political Movement?
How is TZM a political movement? They do not advocate change via the common political means and publicly condemn the electoral system. By their own self-description, they are a "social" movement and appear to fit that criteria more than anything. Bizarrely, the opening paragraph of the article even confirms this. Is reads: "The Zeitgeist Movement argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations but instead the scientific method should be employed to develop a society based on collaboration and a balance of technology and nature.[5]"

Therefore, they can't be political if this line is stated, in the traditional sense. The opening paragraph is self-contradictory. Why not change it so "Social" JamesB17 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. That TZM for some bizarre reason attempts to suggest that a movement with the stated objective of fundamentally transforming the global economic system (amongst other things) isn't involved in politics is of no relevance to this article - after this 'transition' takes place (and pigs fly) Wikipedia will no doubt redefine the English language to suit the new techno-overlords, but until then, our article will use words as we expect readers to understand them, and not to suit the TZM agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy! AGF!!!!--MONGO 19:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Andy. I'm glad to finally see that you truly do dislike TZM and hence you are have no interest in being neutral. Great characteristics for an editor. Read: "The Zeitgeist Movement argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations but instead the scientific method should be employed to develop a society based on collaboration and a balance of technology and nature.[5]"
 * Rub those too-close-together eyes and read it again. Maybe 2-3 times if you need to. See the problem? JamesB17 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. This is an encyclopaedia - it is written for the comprehension of readers, not for the benefit of political movements. TZM can argue all they like that they aren't involved in politics, but both common sense and reliable sources say otherwise - and we aren't going to mislead our readers just to satisfy TZM's weird compulsion to redefine the English language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. so they are a "political movement" that does not condone the use of politics to solve problems. Got it!!! LOL JamesB17 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, plenty of people have been killed in the name of religions that condemn violence, most capitalist countries structure themselves to prevent the poor from getting richer, and most communist countries continue to maintain a division of wealth and status. What large groups of people say and what they do rarely overlap.  And if a group says they don't advocate setting themselves on fire, but every single member has been hospitalized for dousing themselves in kerosine and lighting up, what are they going to be notable for?  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And? JamesB17 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I blocked JamesB17 for a week for the personal attack on Andy above, after I'd warned him last month that further insults on talk pages and edit summaries would result in a block. This is following on a previous 3-day block for edit-warring. --  At am a  頭 21:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Science which is the testing and discovery of how nature works, it's different from Politics. In science 1+1=2, in politics a large amount of people can vote to claim 1+1=5. I find the term "political science" to be contradictory, since you'll have a christian agenda being pushed through political means.

Where's the evidence which establishes TZM as a political party campaigning for office? or is a lecture event or an art festival campaigning for votes?

If TZM is in fact involved in politics there actually needs to be more reliable sources to establish this, not a biased article which claims what you want to be true.

There needs to be more evidence, and I haven't seen it. otherwise yes you are misleading your readers intentionally.

And no TZM is not redefining the English language, it actually takes note of the definitions of the words being used.

Zeitgeist-Movement-Member (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See No original research. And if a group wants to make changes that require completely overhauling politics, how are they not political?  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They sure as hell aren't scientific... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

how are they not political?

In science 1+1=2, in politics a large amount of people can vote to claim 1+1=5.

If I put on a big event, campaign successfully, gather votes for my 1+1=5 party, will that make me right?

The reason why TZM advocates against the current culture of trading or property is because they're covert forms of violence, and therefore are in no way justifiable. There's nothing fair or equal about trading since it's about deceiving your opponent to get the better end of the trade, hence the unhealthy state of the rich towering over the poor is the direct result.

Trading sure as hell isn't a science since it's disconnected from human and environmental health, all the monetary economists out there are con artists, plain and simple.

Naturally people have gotten comfortable to these beliefs, and won't like science proving these most personal social values wrong.

quote from Zeitgeist: Moving Forward: ""It's all in the genes": an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behaviour when that person is living in the freest and most prosperous nation on earth? It can't be the system! There must be a flaw in the wiring somewhere." Zeitgeist-Movement-Member (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I got a bridge I can sell yah.--MONGO 02:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * They are probably a social/political movement as they oppose current political ideas and advocate another form of governmen and government means politics, even a science based government is a politic of some kind. Joseph says “It’s not about getting mad and breaking windows. That doesn’t do anything but reinforce power and lead to more police, more military, and that can lead to a police-state. Ultimately, we want concentrated nonviolent action, not against the U.S. but against the entire global manifold, saying ‘you can’t do anything if we don’t participate.’ The fabric of the system is based on participation in it.” End quote.ref VCreporter. So it appears they are non participants in the current situation of politics and want to introduce another type of politic. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In science it's realised that 1+1=2, in politics you can vote and claim 1+1=5. That's a religious mob, not a calm realisation of the facts.

No I don't want to introduce another type of politics, since all types of politics are insidious.

I oppose politics since it's a religion, I don't "oppose current political ideas in favour of other political ideas".

Science is not a "government", it's learning how to manage society through recognising natural laws. So a statement like "a science based (political) government" is a contradiction.

The act of buying or selling is covert violence on 2 main levels: relative poverty: corrupt social values, wealth addiction, and absolute poverty: basic needs in danger/not met, so I don't enjoy those kinds of insults, I don't advocate bridges being bought or sold by me or others since it's covert violence. Zeitgeist-Movement-Member (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't like 'insults', I suggest you stay out of politics... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

An insult is a display of something wrong with society. It needs correcting.

A statement like "If you don't like 'insults', I suggest you stay out of politics" is itself an insult. Zeitgeist-Movement-Member (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have collapsed the above due to the continual repetition of the same unconvincing argument over and over, preaching, some potential issues ahead with WP:CIVIL, and generally not following WP:NOTFORUM. I will have caught some comments meant to stick to the guidelines in the crossfire, and I apologize for that, this just seemed like the best course of action to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In the "forest boy" source 4 movement types are mentioned when talking about zeitgeist.

Radical Movement

Action Movement

Political Movement

Protest Movement

As a continuation of the article's slander against TZM, wiki editors settle on catorgising TZM as "political" when TZM in fact engages in zero political activism. (As wiki says "a political movement is a social group which operate together to obtain a political goal")

What are Political Goals? They'd be along the lines of gathering votes to get into office to therefore influence government policy. As a member of TZM I have no such goals.

Immediately after saying we're political the TZM wiki article says "TZM argues that a religious or political ideology should not be the basis for societal operations" comically contradicting what was just previously stated which shows the "edit warring" which continues on this page.

This is only one source which is used to justify us as political, shouldn't there be more sources saying "TZM campaigning for office for changes to policy in government" No? Thought not, just say we're a satanic cult and be done with it.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reception section
I was hoping an editor here would step back from reverting cited valuable information for neutrality in the article. Before, the article said Joseph 'stepped back' from his conspiracy stuff, a supporter of Zeitgeist put that in the article. I modified the article to include a counterpoint by another journalist that says explicitly that Joseph had not moved away from his ideas and sourcing of the first Zeitgeist movie the edit summary given by that editor is also confounding with zero viability concerning the edit. Weasel wording in the information? No balance to the statement from another source. It is very clear that Zeitgeist in general has never really 'moved away' from the first movie intellectually they are all connected. Please editor do not continue to remove information that is cited and notable and brings balance to the article, and please watch those inflammatory but most importantly not accurate of the edit information edit summaries. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. What is 'very clear' is that you are going to continue with your gross violations of WP:NPOV policy until you are blocked or topic banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy...is this edit due to a problem with the reference or because you feel it is a violation of NPOV?--MONGO 01:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It violates NPOV in that it asserts opinion ("rails against his critics") as fact. And in placing undue weight on a single source clearly being repeatedly cherry-picked (and misrepresented in another article ) to portray TZM in as bad a light as possible. It is also synthesis: "however". It also arguably violates copyright. And note that yet again Earl is using this talk page as a soapbox for his own negative opinions of TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What is going to get balance here? Do we need an Rfc on this topic? I don't think arbcom wants to mess with this since (least it seems) that we have a content dispute...well some edit warring issues and etc., but on the surface it doesn't look to me like anyone is sanctionable, but I've been wrong before.--MONGO 01:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "In a video interview available online...", when was this particular interview and where is it? I don't think Andy's remarks about Earl are quite fair. The neutral point in NPOV is not midway between the view of the Zeitgeist people and what reliable secondary sources say. The neutral point is simply what the reliable sources say; Earl's edits seem to reflect that pretty well. However, I would not say "however." Tom Harrison Talk 01:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Not if you go out of your way to only select sources with negative opinions - and then cherry-pick them for the most negative bits, as Earl has been consistently doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's something of an exaggeration, but maybe you and I will have to agree to disagree. It might be better to argue for or against the edit without reference to the editor. Tom Harrison Talk 02:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is clear that Zeitgeist in general has never 'moved away' from the first movie intellectually so this information has value because the edit previous to that says Joseph has and he is the major spokeperson. That is documented back and forth and up and down. Please editor do not continue to remove information that is cited and notable and brings well rounded information to the article by pointing out a possible contradiction by a pro Zeitgeist editor, no point in making the article an apology for Zeitgeist related people for them to rationalize things unimpeded. Please watch those inflammatory but most importantly not accurate edit summaries also. It appears that you are against a general consensus. Your use of rhetorical polemic is not cute in your edit summary. Please retreat with trash talking others, talks of topic bans, remember you had zero support previously on that score? Does that make your approach change here or []. The only reason my edits are accepted generally is for the usual reasons why edits are accepted. Since your edit history includes a lot of edit warring tendentious aspects please just relax and stop the current thing you are doing. The source is good and it is not overused. Three times I think. Other things in the article, references are used more. It is one of the few good sources we have on this thing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion as to what TZM has or hasn't 'moved away from' is of precisely zero relevance to this article. And as for 'inflammatory edit summaries', considering the way you routinely use them to attack others, you might do well to avoid the subject in future. And no, I'm not going to 'relax' if it entails allowing you to further violate WP:NPOV policy in the way you have been doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A movie is not a movement.

The pursuit of the 9/11 topic has NOTHING to do with the solutions TZM advocates, which is to counter the destructive market system or the pursuit of property and trading, which is a utopian concept by definition since there's nothing fair or equal about trading.

One can only have a biased, slanderous agenda to push an association between 9/11 debate, and the zeitgeist movement.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy has been explained.Repeatedly. The inability of TZM to communicate its objectives to the media etc is their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh I see, the media wouldn't have any bias towards slandering TZM and deliberately misrepresenting us, TZM must be at fault for an inability to communicate its objectives. Yeah Sure.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy your edits at The Zeitgeist Movement, including your comments in edit summaries, your comments on discussion pages, are clearly willfull disruption to make a point. I guess the point you are trying to make is not shared by the other editors in the main here that another editor is not editing neutrally. You are slow mo edit warring and editing tendentiously against consensus on the talk page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you believe I'm engaging in disruption, report the matter. And expect your 'ownership' of this article, soapboxing on this talk page, repeated abuse of edit summaries to engage in personal attacks, and repeated violations of WP:NPOV policy to come under scrutiny in consequence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to mis-characterize what is happening here with over the top rhetorical polemic mostly focused on an editor and not information You are slow mo edit warring against the limited but real consensus of the neutral oriented editors and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, a point that virtually no one agrees with. Riding rough shod over the article against consensus is not a good way to proceed. Trying to make a case of bias against that editor does not follow the evidence. The editor you are speaking of (me) has placed a wide variety of content in the article, not a positive or negative agenda, just following the citations. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe I'm engaging in disruption, report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

TZM is an evil cult The End, k I fixed the wiki page.Aeon-characteristic (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)