Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)/Archive 1

Social movement
Is Zeitgeist a social movement Social movement? It appears that maybe it's not. It might be something else. Should we use their title to themselves in the article and should the Film article mention a zeitgeist group involved in informal discussions and some literal protest meetings, etc, etc,.

It looks like there could be fresh waves of recruits arriving here from their blogs and  so it could be increasingly difficult to keep these inspired followers from doing what they are doing in the future. Maybe just removing the movement aspect is better and just mention large groups of Zeitgeist fans have meet ups and discuss Peter Joseph movies on the internet. ????. I think it may be like Star Trek conventions or Harry Potter groups. They are not really social movements just inspired by some media. As far as I know they do not actually do anything in the real world. They claim they are not political. They have no official incorporation and appear to be internet driven only and with virtually no 'news' about them, they are very iffy except as an internet fan site. Does any one have any new articles about them from legit press from the last few years? Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears you still don't understand that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources (message boards or group blogs are irrelevant to what is admissable on Wikipedia). The reason the article states that The Zeitgeist Movement is a political movement is because that is what this reliable source in the The Daily Telegraph says. The fact that the organization has appeared in very reliable sources, such as this piece in The New York Times (one of the most read newspapers in the world), and this piece in the The Daily Telegraph, is very  relevant to their notability. Although I'm not a fan of RT, here is a current source that mentions the organization. The fact of the matter is that, regarding Wikipedia, articles are not reliant on current events to maintain notabitlity, which is in part why organizations such as the LaRouche movement have an article here, even though they have not been discussed in the mainstream media for years. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not really answer the question though about the basic idea of even including this beyond a footnote in the movie section, maybe the second movie would be good and just getting rid in general of the Zeitgeist material at the bottom. The fact that the organization has appeared in very reliable sources, such as this piece in The New York Times (one of the most read newspapers in the world), and this piece in the The Daily Telegraph, is very relevant to their notability. Not current information and really it may have been a media darling for a few months but now there is zero being written about it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did answer your question and will not do it for a second time; re: notability. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Blindly Undoing Contributions

 * This topic has been split to, below.

To Earl King Jr: Sir, your blind undo of all my helpful edits hurts the integrity of this article and the integrity of Wikipedia. You will notice that Tom Harrison has already manually restored some of your damage. I understand that mistakes are made and that this page has been the target of vandalism lately, but the fact remains that your undo was misplaced. Your stated reason, that I "removed cited info" is not grounds to blindly undo all my edits. The claim that I removed cited info is accurate, but it was a duplicate quote that also exists elsewhere in the article and did not pertain to the section I removed it from. I organized. I made things clearer. Mr. King, please take the time to realize your mistake and manually restore my edits as I am no longer able to easily undo the damage you've done. 68.7.95.95 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Its customary to put new posts at the bottom of the page. Also it is considered inflammatory to post an editors name in a negative way in the talk page heading so I removed that. Thanks to Tom for cleaning up my lazy edit. As far as taking away cited information that is not a good idea. There is virtually no information on Zeitgeist by reliable sources beyond several article so it really is scraping the bottom of the barrel sometimes to find information. I assume the I.P. above is another person from the Facebook group that directs their members here to edit. If that is the case one suggestion is that you get a Wikipedia account and then take some time to learn how the basic guidelines read. Then you can edit away, back up your information and learn about consensus and N.P.O.V neutral point of view. Its o.k. that you are a single purpose account created to edit this page and no doubt your great belief in the Zeitgeist material is sincere [] and you are a serious person, but there are a bunch of guidelines for editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mr. King, thank you for responding and for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia the amazing resource it is. I apologize, I am ignorant of many Wikipedia editing guidelines, but I assure you all of my edits were 100% NPOV-compliant. I was certain none of my edits would be controversial. I don't know what facebook group you're talking about. No one sent me :). I am interested far more in the mission of Wikipedia than that of any political group. To be very clear, I only removed certain text because it aleady appeared elsewhere on the page. This was not to censor, but to organize (like movie critique goes in movie section). No unique text was deleted—please see my edit summaries and also see Quotations which states, "Where the same quotation has been used elsewhere in the article, avoid duplicating it, which is regarded as poor style." With your permission, I'd like to re-contibute my edits. I will surely grab a username if I decide to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Will you agree not to undo my edits again? I'd hate to waste my time twice. Thanks. 68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Earl King Jr, even after our conversation here you have made yet another sweeping blind undo! This diff shows you ignoring 9 revisions from 2 users (not counting yourself). Some of the edits you blindly reverted clearly improved the article, but you don't seem to care, as you summarized your paranoid accusations, "Last neutral edit. A combination of Meat and Socks and edit warriors here now from Facebook websites, see talk.". This is in clear violation of Revert_only_when_necessary which states, "Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing." Please follow Wikipedia guidelines. This is not Earl-opedia. –68.7.95.95 (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning
There is an ongoing effort by Zeitgeist members to influence in a conflict of interest way the article, to conform with their Peter Joseph FAQ's material. This is an example


 * Melarish Ish Been trying to edit the criticisms to end the association with Zeitgeist: The Movie. Not going too well. I can't edit any more or I might be banned so I'm continuing the argument on the Talk page. Source from Zeitgeist end quote from the Global Zeitgeist Movement Facebook

Yes this is the same person that is demanding citations for non starter items like who is the leader. It is pretty well known that Peter Joseph invented the movement, controls its information and has directed, produced, narrated, etc, etc, the content and 'script' of what they are. I don't mind that Malarish is a Zeitgeist member/advocate, but I do mind that he edit warred the article and is trying to extend the Zeitgeist orgs. information to encompass the Wikipedia information. Conflict of interest. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Another example of how people pour into this article from the large number of followers generated by Zeitgeist and try to influence, by directing people to come here and edit, the article to be in synch with the Zeitgeist movement promotional information It might not be a bad idea to further protect this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The official site, and the members themselves, deny any subject matter relation between the movement and the first movie. Saying it has reminds me, and I can't help smiling, of the bridgekeeper in Monthy Python's Holy Grail: What's your favourite colour ? - Blue ! Auuuuuuugh ! - No, it's yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.6.64.112 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Call to Zeitgeist members to come here and edit
One of many on their websites but out of the two million hangers on they command no doubt some are going to try and rewrite again and again and over and over the same stuff of their FAQ's material. Long term page protection? Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the link and one of the things they do is mention your biased editing. Not only are they correct, but your continued disruption of this subject matter has been going on for over a year. From what I can see, the only reason you've been able to continue your ownership of this material is because so few editors care about this content, which in the end is very unfortunate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Look S.D.S talk the neutral editors know that you are pro Zeitgeist and edit with The Devils Advocate and support the call to arms by the Zeitgeist group Probably not a bad idea to get rid of the section on the so called movement because mostly its such a pain because of the POV editors from Zeitgeist but as far as notable it is the advertising arm of Peter Joseph and that is about it. It was written about a few years ago but nothing recent. I suppose it is now the Angry Birds of today. Big for a while and then faded out. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think this is the action of a neutral editor then you need to re-examine our policies.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea to get rid of the whole zeitgeist page, zeitgeist isn't a "subject" it's a scam, a documentary movement to make peter joseph money, solutions involving a fantasy utopia, largely related to communism, shit looks good on paper, doesn't work. the reason why there are so little sources and mainly "self-sourced" is because zeitgeist desperately wants to give you the impression it's "for real", when it's general existence is brought into question. This needs to be cleaned up into a page on internet scams/false advertising..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We got your point about 10 of your posting ago En. Account. Please stop using the talk page to discuss your inner angst about Zeitgeist. For the serious editors and no that does not include 'the devils advocate' or ' some different stuff' that edit usually with the socks and meats from the Zeitgeist [] is it about time to remove the movement heading and information from the bottom of the page and put some little segments at the top of the page as an addendum to the first movie, or spin off of the first movie? Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There should be a decent-sized section several paragraphs long detailing the movement. Right now the movement section consists mostly of talk about the movies despite the cited sources discussing the movement in detail.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What movement?--MONGO 04:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The one mentioned in numerous reliable sources.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Right now the movement section consists mostly of talk about the movies despite the cited sources discussing the movement in detail:The Devil's Advocate. Its pointless to discuss this with two editors here, The Devils Advocate and Some Different Stuff. Despite the request for comment from The Zeitgeist Movement page that very solidly supported that there is no real distinction of movement from movies, those two are editing with the Zeitgeist folks who believe the message of Peter Joseph, that the two are unrelated. I guess all I can say is that supporting Zeitgeist Faq's material is your choice but probably the best course is to revert those two editors on sight now. Even despite posting the links to Zeitgeist webpages where they make a general plea to edit Wikipedia according to their information they continue to edit with the sock puppets and meat puppets. So, is it now time to get rid of the Zeitgeist Movement big section on the bottom of the page and put some but not all of that information on the top of the page under the first movie, Zeitgeist the movie area? Originally the idea from the request for comment was to consolidate the articles into one, and then consolidate the movement into the body of the article. Just because some paper like the NewYork Times reported on that group years ago is not enough for a separate entity of information in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Point me to a single reliable source that actually states there is no movement, preferably by including a quote of the relevant material from said source supporting that statement. There are many reliable sources discussing the movement, not just The New York Times, so you can just pick one of them.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is now time to get rid of the zeitgeist page of wikipedia, the movement, the movies, it doesn't matter it's all bullshit..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * .Encyclopediaccount In case you have not noticed nobody cares what you think on this subject and your redundant presentation is old, so please stop if you are just saying the same thing over and over. The Devils Advocate, you did not get at the question. Its time to now consolidate the article more as was agreed previously. I think putting info. on the so called movement into the movie where Peter Joseph announced it would be appropriate and that means taking out the bottom section. Oh and Encyclopedia-account please go elsewhere to make your comments like some hate site about Zeitgeist instead of here. Any case you have is neutered by your hostility and lack of any reasonable alternative. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Movement article into movie article
So, the Zeitgeist Movement article was moved into the film article a few days ago, this article. Should we consolidate the information more or is it about the way it should be? Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This looks like a copy-paste move. Was attribution made for the previous edits, and where? Elizium23 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a request for comment, which closed a couple of days ago, on the Zeitgeist Movement talk page that overwhelmingly suggested moving The Zeitgeist Movement page into the film article page. Beyond that I don't know. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read Copying within Wikipedia. With this edit you copied in over 8k of text from the other article. But that article has its own edit history with contributors who must, under Wikipedia's license, be attributed for their contributions. I will repair this problem now, but please be more careful in the future to always provide attribution. Elizium23 (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that and my apologies for not knowing better. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Consolidating
Why was the consolidation necessary? Seems like a movement consisting of 149 chapters (directly from http://tzmchapters.net/) globally warrants it's own article. There seems to be a link between the entities by Peter Joseph, however the themes of the film "Zeitgeist" hardly resemble anything anything from the community published document "Zeitgeist Movement: Defined" that the movement uses as a guide. (source: http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/orientation#faq1). Pknu (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us just assume that you are another loyal Zeitgeist follower led here from your Facebook site to try and improve the article according to the party line, your Faq's and Peter Joseph commentaries.
 * Number one it is customary to put your comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. Number two you are a single purpose editor that perhaps has been here before or what we call a meat or sock puppet at least for now. If you want to edit Wikipedia try to learn the methods of doing so. For instance we can not use the article to advertise or promote your information like your link, that is called a primary source. Has someone else notable written about that document? I guess not. There has been a lot of debate on the old article about Zeitgeist movement and Zeitgeist movies and their connection. The movement, which translates to Peter Joseph tries to disassociate the two things, but we do not advocate for the Zeitgeist Faq's. Probably Peter Joseph made a big mistake associating the first movie and the later movement he invented. But, the consensus is that the so called movement is pretty much a blogging platform for Peter Joseph's ideas and possibly an internet driven conspiracy cult. You follow me? That is what our reliable sources tell us. Sorry but there is not conspiracy here, just guidelines for editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent question. The answer lies here: Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement. In short, the Wikipedia community was invited to comment on whether the criticisms of the films should appear on the movement page. The community majority response was to solve the dispute by merging the pages. And here we are.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Since several articles are being put into this article page, the new information needs better presentation. Also looking at blocks of un-sourced information, I removed some of that un-sourced possible o.r. information in the newly expanded article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, you certainly appear hostile and full of assumptions. Would it appropriate to briefly introduce myself in this space? Long time wiki user, first time contributor. I read a bit of the debate in the old article and since I'm familiar with the movement I thought the article could use some cleaning up. Are you the primary editor of this page? It appears you've unfortunately dealt with those who would attempt to remove neutrality from the page in the past. I can assure you I'm not a "sock puppet" and if necessary an admin could probably verify this via my IP. Honestly, I'm new to wiki as an editor so I would appreciate your guidance in clearing up inaccuracies in the article, and so I don't make further mistakes! Anyhow, it's my understanding that wikipedia accepts primary sources in the absence of tertiary sources. I'm sorry that you felt I made assumptions about conspiracies, however my questions, statements, and edits are clear. Could you please walk me through how the consensus was reached that the movement is a blogging platform for Joseph, and an internet cult instead of a real world movement with real world activities (which appear sourced several times, but mentioned mostly for linking back to the original film, which is not associated with the reason the movement exists, the resource based economy idea) I also see mention by other editors that it is a scam, but where is the basis? Forgive me for being skeptical of you due to reversing simple and accurate edits I made, I'm just looking for some clarity because I've seen their events in local event pages and they don't ask for money. That's more directed at encyclopedia-user. I do see that this a controversial page due to moveme advocates apparently skewing the page, but the inverse also seems to be true of users with a preference for moving the entirety of the page to a footnote under conspiracy. This is equally odd, as all available movement materials discuss a scientific worldview as a goal, and media irrelevance is not equal to inactivity. Thanks for taking some time with me Earl. Pknu (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Learn to indent your talk page comments. Go to this page and read the whole thing and also the archived parts of it Put a Help thing on your talk page. Ask for help from people here, there is a method for that. People will show up on your talk page then to assist with basic questions. Assuming good will is a basic thing here but I do not believe your missive above. I do think you are from the FACEBOOK site and are only here to cause trouble, other wise you would not have shown up to do what you are doing. Also you do not understand that the movie and the movement are just promo blogging sites to sell DVD's on Amazon and such? Can not help you with that. Probably better if you just go back to FACEBOOK and tell them they have guidelines and things on Wikipedia and Zeitgeist being mostly a self promoted primary source group that is no longer in the news, it becomes difficult to influence the article with yourself and your Zeitgeist friends. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Sun Times
In the Critical views section I see Chicago Sun Times instead of Chicago Sun-Times. Please correct it since the article is protected. Also, there's no need to wikilink the newspaper there since it has previously been linked. Thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This article needs an image (preferably free)
If this article does not need an image, remove the prompt at the start of this talk page.

moving forward behind the scenes.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zeitgeistitalia/4937847345/in/set-72157624833196082

film poster

https://www.facebook.com/ZeitgeistMovement/photos/pb.554063961331603.-2207520000.1421735701./724799764258021

Makecontribution (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed
The Zeitgeist movement's ideas are presented through local and national chapters and online release of media.[29] Zeitgeist holds an annual event, Z-Day, in March.[citation needed] Z-Day 2014 was held in Toronto, Ontario.[citation needed]

will this source do?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/announcing-the-6th-annual-global-zeitgeist-day-2014-symposium-main-event-toronto-on-saturday-march-15th-2014-245823051.html Addingtothetalkpage (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a press release service. We need a secondary source. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Copypaste from Globe and Mail
The Reception section contains a block of text copied from the Globe and Mail, more than is permitted by law or Wiki policy. True, the article is able to express contempt for the Zeitgeist film by quoting these words in a way that would not be possible otherwise under WP:NPOV. But expressing contempt is not one of our mandates on the Wiki, even for events or publications for which we feel personal disgust. Since copyright violations can endanger the Wiki project, this material should be removed. I have put the copypaste tag on the page, but User:Earl King Jr. removed it immediately. Therefore, I have copied offending text here to enable the above tool to work:

"The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular.... It's a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when convenient. The film ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it's compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort."

Moreover, the original article is an opinion piece, not news. It makes no pretense of being objective. WP:NPOV.

The second Reception section also uses a longish quote, again from an opinion article, not from a scholarly or news source. A film critic's political opinions do not meet the bar. The is also WP:NPOV. Film critic Bill Stamets for the Chicago Sun-Times characterized Joseph's source materials as "disparate," writing: "At times, Peter Joseph skirts with esoterica. Never as kooky as 'visionaries' Lyndon LaRouche and L. Ron Hubbard, he nonetheless partakes in science worship, sci-fi mind-slavery metaphors, and a global banking obsessions [sic]."[26]

The link cited is no longer accessible. Slade Farney (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC) edited Slade Farney (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote is blocked quoted and adequately attributed. I'm double checking the second quote now.--MONGO 16:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the second mention quote due to dead link.--MONGO 16:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Slade, you wrote: "Moreover, the original article is an opinion piece, not news. It makes no pretense of being objective. WP:NPOV."
 * You are wrong on both counts because you still don't understand our NPOV or content policies, even though they've been explained to you. You need to drop what you think policy means and accept what more experienced editors tell you. NPOV does not mean our content is neutral, but that editors edit in a neutral manner, IOW they don't take sides. They just document all the significant non-neutral sides and issues. The content does not need to be neutral, and we use plenty of opinion pieces. They are part of the "sum total of human knowledge" which we are supposed to document. Without non-neutral content and opinions this encyclopedia would be blah, meaningless, and a fraction of the content would remain. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That explanation sums it up pretty well. It probably is a mistake to think that reported information is also put there to influence people beyond a broad or general understanding of some topic. No doubt there are p.o.v. pushers that do try and include some party line of some belief construct, but the idea is to gather and report pertinent information for understanding something and let the chips fall where they may. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Brangifer, MONGO: Nevertheless, this is a large body of copyright text copied to Wikipedia in violation of copyright and Wikipedia rules. In support of your argument that copy-pasting text into wiki pages is just fine, can you point to other articles that Huckleberry this quantity of copyrighted text? Slade Farney (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't address that aspect, since your motivation for raising this issue obviously was not a copyright issue, but you chose to attack the copyright angle as a means to an end. Whatever. Wikilawyering isn't totally illegal here.
 * I know that lots of articles do use quotes that large. That may or may not be right. It depends on the situation. I'm not sure how far fair use laws can be stretched here, but I know that they are very flexible, especially when it comes to criticism, commentary, parody, etc.. Authors cannot use "fair use" as a means to quash criticism and public debate. You should try the WP:Copyright problems noticeboard. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to delete the entire thing since the "movies" are not notable. However we could trim the offending material to just a couple sentences even though as it sits now it's not a copyvio since its blockquoted and attributed.--MONGO 02:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sfarney, the quote in question meets policy...see this.--MONGO 00:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Internet Cult
it's been known by ex-zeitgeist members that zeitgeist is a cult headed by peter, to say it's simply an "informal group" is misleading as my experience is basically peter owning all the major facebook and youtube accounts associated with zeitgeist and anything which peter simply disagrees with you're blocked, and ostracised by other zeitgeist members.

An internet cult effect is nothing as severe as Scientology, I'm not talking about what TZM even advocates, this is more about how the zeitgeist brand is owned by peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theikiaccoun (talk • contribs) 05:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, and what's your point? Did you want something changed in the article? Talk pages aren't meant for chatting about the topic of the article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if I agree, we have to cite mainstream academic and journalistic sources for such claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Cult" comes from the same source as "culture," and only in recent decades is it used as a bad word to demean the beliefs of other people. In modern speech, it has the same value as "heathen," "pagan," "infidel," and "gentile" from times past.  Use of the word indicates, in short, a personal point of view with little objective reality. Slade Farney (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * what are examples of things Peter disagrees with? Curious.

Possible refs
Possible refs:


 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-walter-donovan/the-zeitgeist-movement-en_b_501517.html
 * http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/campaigners-angry-austerity-hold-first-8843184

Jonpatterns (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonpatterns, are these references for the "documentary-style" tag or for the "informal" tag. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, neither. They reference events held or attended by TZM - refuting the claim that it is entirely online movement. The discussion on informal and documentary-style are above. Qucik links:
 * documentary-style
 * informal


 * Jonpatterns (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post thing is a blog. It can not be used. We took it out of the article formerly. JohPatterns it might be good for you to read the talk page history on this article and the zeitgeist movement article also to see the ground already covered. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of quoted mission statement
The article lacks integrity in the "movement" section due to a poorly defined purpose provided by the "views" section. To present an updated summary of the movement, the official mission statement was added to the section under proper quotation. This was promptly deleted under the false accusation of copyright infringement. The segment was properly quoted and directly sourced from content published under creative commons attribution. Explanation was provided and a second revert was conducted under the note of "Promo". The mission statement is not advocating recruitment or advertising any products or services as defined by WP:PROMO. Many non profit articles utilize the mission statement of the organization under primary citation in order to provide an accurate presentation of the organization's views without necessarily promoting them. MADD for example follows this format. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving

Follow up talk also used the primary citation criticism while primary citation is permissible if it is directly quoting the organization specifically. (See MADD)

Additional criticism came under WP:UNDUE, while wikipedia is no place for bias, none of the criticisms were removed and the quoted mission statement was not amplified by any promotional commentary.

This article should not promote the views of the zeitgeist movement, however it should accurately present them for readers to have an accurate understanding of the organization. The official Wikipedia editing guidelines for organizations states: "While a list of the notable services your organization provides might be appropriate, such a list should only include those that are a part of the primary mission and are necessary to adequately describe the organization." WP:BFAQ The properly quoted and cited mission statement of TZM is considered valid and permissible under this clause.

Can anyone provide any valid reason to keep the mission statement of the organization off the article? Or at least develop a way to present the views of the organization without promoting them? Thanks!


 * Cutting or pasting something from Zeitgeist is not suggested. If someone of note talks about them in reference to what they are doing fine. There are very few sources in the article because Zeitgeist is not really popular now or has not been written about for years as a notable group or organization. Putting more first party sources about them in the article is not a good idea otherwise the article looks like advertising or promotion or an attempt to educate the public without critical thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything in the Zeitgeist movement section is sourced from secondary sources, I really think it'd make sense to allow them at least one sentence to say how they describe themselves as long as we write it in a neutral tone (and include the primary source/reference where we took it from). (I don't know what they're up to these days so I'm not volunteering to write that sentence.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I literally suggest adding one sentence exactly, just adjusting that section somehow to make it more descriptive, and using a primary source if we have to. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah but what? Certainly seems fair to put a link of theirs in but what? For one thing there does not seem to be a direct thing you could ascribe to them since its not really an official group that is particularly notable outside of Youtube internet buzz from a few years ago. It gets into promo territory very easily because they sell their paraphernalia like the movies online and the whole thing seems to be run by one person as a for profit. Is it really even a movement? Its media created but I suppose a lot of things are. They are not a registered group non profit or otherwise. There is zero information on them as to members etc. I see we have their information in its entirety by having their webpage in the information box at the top of their segment. Maybe that is enough since anyone interested can get the link from us to explore all of their material. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The assumptions of it not being a real organization or "official" are unfounded as they just held a global conference in Berlin. Nothing in the mission statement was attempting to "sell any paraphernalia" so the promo claim is not valid, check the link to the Wikipedia promo policy I left above.  The membership is quite apparent through the organization's forums and presence through out many social media sites, so to marginalize it have "zero" information on their members would not be a factual or relevant claim.  They even go as far as to list all the chapters around the world and who to contact to get involved for each one on their website.  The problem with giving "one sentence" to describe the organization is that there is more to the organizations goals than can be accurately described in one sentence.  The RBE is not the only focus, "applying the scientific method for social concern" has been the focus of their more recent publications.  Again, the very nature of the mission statement is entirely permissible to copy and paste both by the creative commons nature of the primary source and the wikipedia policy permissions of primary sources for a mission statements for organizations.  "While a list of the notable services your organization provides might be appropriate, such a list should only include those that are a part of the primary mission and are necessary to adequately describe the organization." WP:BFAQ
 * Jnav7 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I specifically clarified that I didn't literally mean "one sentence". What I was trying to say is that it's okay, according to policy, to use a primary source to show what the organization says about itself, and we have used only secondary sources in the Movement section now, so no one can say that we've given too much space for primary sources. But if you're still trying to copypaste the entire mission statement here then that would definitely be too much. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeraphine, you removed my edit (15:24, 14 March 2015‎) that was expanding on the outdated "views" section by paraphrasing their recent directive by adding a single sentence of neutral tone. Your claim was copy write which was unfounded.  You are now acknowledging that such an edit is entirely permissible yet you still removed it under a false copy write claim.  As far as the mission statement is concerned, the organization has a wide scope of positions and approaches which are adequately summarized in the mission statement.  I have provided the wiki policy that allows for such an edit WP:BFAQ however I have not seen a policy forbidding such content inclusion.  To accurately represent this social organization, it would only make sense to include their properly cited mission statement in addition to the secondary criticisms.  As a cyberanthropologist, the Zeitgeist movement represents a very interesting case study on how social media and activist organizations function in our modern world along with unconventional views of economic systems.  People who come to this wikipedia article would be best served by seeing brief info on the films, the story behind the movement, the mission statement of the movement, a brief description of the movement and the relevant commentary of secondary criticisms.  Jnav7 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion right now on that sentence you added to the Views section, with this edit that you're referring to I intended to remove the huge copypaste of their mission statement. I assumed it was a copyright violation because that page doesn't clearly say what the license on that text is, there's only a "© Copyright 2008-2011 The Zeitgeist Movement ®. Portions Licensed under the Creative Commons License." in the bottom right corner, which doesn't explain clearly enough what the license is for that text. But in EITHER CASE it is just too much copied text from them and we can't allow that kind of thing. One reason is its tone and non-neutral point of view. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Is cyberanthropologist what Zeitgeist members are calling themselves now? If we are to follow the example of the MADD' article that Jnav7 was citing earlier, that would allow for a single sentence, clearly noted as only their mission statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I just left some advice about this on Jnav's talk page. -- Biblio worm  22:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Earl here is right, nothing about zeitgeist is even real.Theikiaccoun (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And for several reasons, that statement has nothing to do with our work on Wikipedia. First, without any personal offence intended, your POV is not relevant.  Second, no one's idea of reality is relevant.  Wikipedia is not in the business of arbitrating truth.  Wikipedia is about producing the best and the clearest statements on each subject, whether that subject be the Zodiac, Zoology, or the Zorah, Of course each of us would like to advise the world about the personal truth that each of us holds dear.  But the Wikipedia has a higher charter, yes?  The realities and unrealities of Christianity, the Dow Jones Average, EST, and football are utterly incidental to the project.  And when you think about it deeply and honestly, that fact makes the job a whole lot easier. Slade Farney (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are getting at Sfarney but the point I was making is that it is an adhoc group with no formal organization. Joseph holds the keys basically since the websites are his. It is not a company. It is not registered anywhere. It is not a non profit or for profit. Basically it is an internet business that sells DVD's of several movies that Peter Joseph made. Hence it is about as informal as informal gets. You understand my point? What do you mean by arbitrating truth? Not the point. Just trying to get the article to reflect the information available through citation material. Most of the editors here I think are trying to make the article balanced and reflective of the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.  Not a church, not a corporation, not a group, just a name for someone's personal activity.  It is sort of a phenomenon, like miniskirts, and only if enough people are involved is it noteworthy. Slade Farney (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Top of the article summation
Currently April-15-2015. It is an internet thing with no formal group at all. They meet sometimes at coffee shops maybe and hold a big meeting once a year. It is not an actual documentary either it is a pseudo documentary, so just saying documentary like might be overly kind to the Zeitgeist members that have been trying to force the article recently again and this  source are now in the top piece. Caution Zeitgeist supporters please do not try to influence the page with Zeitgeist FAQ's material. We have to stay neutral and just give out our reliable sources. If you can document it in any other way please do. But, you can not because the group is basically an internet chat group. There is no formal group. Its not an organization. Its not registered, its not an NGO or a company of any kind. It is a few websites and Youtube videos. Can you prove otherwise? Is it listed anywhere in the real world as a registered group? Did they pay tax's for instance or do they have a charter connected with anything legal? No. So it is basically an informal group unless proven by citation not to be. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * O.k. had to revert another editor at the top summation Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs He added a bunch of tags about the information. Would this editor please discuss this as I have made this section after I added the last couple of references to the top summation? Threatening to go to some drama board seems a bit much. Its a marginal content dispute if that. It is in the citation from Goldberg that it is an internet based group by Peter Joseph. So, why the controversy and multiple tagging. I might remind S.D.S that his editor that backed him before, who was also a Zeitgeist sympathizer in their editing is now blocked from editing articles like this one and blocked from editing so called drama or Admin. boards. Warning editors for being 'edit warring' for copy editing and finding citations for information seems very boomerangish as a possible outcome if it goes in that direction. The edits speak for themselves. They are just an attempt to make things more clear about the group and they are sourced to reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just found your reply to document-style - not under the RfC. The reference you give says it is a pseudo documentary. If the majority of the sources state that, then it should be called a pseudo documentary, not documentary-style. I've provided references above that state it is a documentary.
 * Regarding informal, you seem to be using synthesis - group is not registered, therefore group is informal. We need sources to back this claim up.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding informal it is in the source that it is an internet group, sometimes being called an internet cult. As far as registered unless it shows up somewhere as a company or an official group it does not have to be proved otherwise. There is zero information in regard to Zeitgeist being any thing other than an ad hoc internet presence, and its not up to editors to prove its not. Information available says it is not a formal group just an internet meetup site that has long chatrooms or blogs about their information and occasional, once a year big events which have a ticket cost of fifty dollars as I remember. If you want to call it a pseudo documentary in the critical section and have sources then do it, but please do not try to slant the article in the pre introduction. There is no reason to call it a psuedo documentary there, go to the critical section if you want to do that. Goldberg says its the worlds largest internet cult. That more than documents that its an informal internet group that anyone with a computer can drop into. Your edit The accuracy of the information contained in the first part has been questioned by Mark Andrejevic I am afraid is a little ridiculous to put at the top of an article. Please look at the 'style' of Wikipedia articles. Your edit is really bad in that sense [] You can not just hit people over the head with that information at the top of the page. It completely puts the article in to a very dark light at the beginning, with a very negative take. That is the wrong approach for an encyclopedia. As a member of the movement and a person called here to edit the article from their blog it seems doubly odd that you would do that unless you are a disgruntled member. We all know the 'call to edit Wikipedia' given by Zeitgeist on their blogs. Your talk page comment above also did not reflect the edit you actually did. Not at all. You changed it to documentary not pseudo documentary anyway. Paraphrasing sources is o.k. as long as a clear idea such as documentary like or style can be gotten at. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one who introduced the reference to Zeitgeist being a pseudo documentary in the Lede, presumably to back your claim that it is a 'documentary-style' diff. Also, their is a RfC above in progress to discuss how to describe the documentary, which you did not respond to. I'm going to move the discussion below for easier navigation. Please respond rather than just editing the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Reception
Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didily-Dias:

Hm. It appears that every source on the section "Reception" is negative. I'm sure in a big continent of millions of people, there are some who loved the movie--I'm definitely one of them...at least the first "Zeitgeist"...I didn't like the other two very much. I would suggest including at least some positive reviews of the first "Zeitgeist." Otherwise, it's blatantly obvious to me as a reader that this article is biased towards all those who believe in religion, the tragedy of 911, and the money system. Since you all know who I am, you can include my review as a five out of five review.

Saludos,

70.72.45.131 (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure we know who you are for sure. Thanks, but us gatekeepers here are all card carrying members of the New World Order and we can not allow people like you to run wild on the article. Its against our religion and if we want to retain control of the sheeple we have to keep them from accurate Zeitgeist information because the Zeitgeist is really the key to life and liberty and happiness for nearly 100% of the ordinary people. On the other hand maybe you could start a really good blog and not bother coming here since you are not really interested in accurate information, you removed parts of the article, you gave no real edit summaries, and you appear to be another meat or sock puppet from the group. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Saying people who have views that are not-negative of tzm must be based supporters of tzm and is a very poor editing practiceUnesco2015 (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone is more than welcome to google a reliable source and add additional citations. Just please remember to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines like WP:RELIABLE and WP:SOURCE. – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WOW Negative POV and Biased Sourcing Constant [2015]
It's sad to see how Wikipedia is being abused by people who wish to pollute this article with as much negative spin, cherry-picked neg sources that support the worst and incorrect views of the subject(s) Is this what Wikipedia has become? Apparently, if any article on the internet has been written to say something like "The films support demon spirits interested in eats the brains of young snurfs" this statement is allowed to be placed in the opening section of the article.

All positive and moderate views of the films and the movement have been sidestepped to show extreme interpretation, overt dishonestly and general marginalization. A total re-write is needed here and the decision to put the zeitgeist movement's page within this crazy sea of bias towards the films need to be discussed as it is clear the malicious intention by the core writers of this article. Unesco2015 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well most of the editors like myself work for the New World Order and have lizard blood in our veins so its difficult to get Peter Joseph and his crew the genius status that they deserve because that would blow the whistle on all that stuff which he thinks is true. That aside your opinion and blog interpretation and my rejoinder should probably be removed. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We need to go by the sources. It would be helpful if you could list the sources that categorise Zeitgeist as a documentary, or otherwise. Sources for the second two films would be especially useful. It seems to be a controversial topic. It may be useful to build consensus about the lede and other parts of the article on this talk page - to prevent edit warring.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I know the first film argues for the World Trade Center controlled demolition theory, among other things. It was filled with factual innacuracies. It should be no shock that reliable sources are critical of it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding See Also section links

 * This topic was split off from, above.

Yes well stop adding stuff like this to the article that is not connected There is zilch connection and though you may wish there was some connection there is none. So stop throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Gift economy
 * Reciprocity (cultural anthropology)
 * Social capital
 * Anarchist communism
 * Technocracy movement


 * According to See_also:
 * If you insist, the next time I re-add these links, I can provide a brief annotation explaining the relevance of each link, but I'd rather you just let it go.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * After a week of no reply from my last comment and in an attempt to compromise, I added a revised list of only 3 related articles in this edit which within hours was again reverted by Earl King Jr. Notwithstanding, Revert_only_when_necessary states:
 * "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse."
 * "Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation."
 * "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text."
 * "Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing."
 * Earl, considering your constant unfounded accusations of sock puppetry, it is becoming clear that your edits are not neutral.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For clarity, here are the revised See also links I posted to improve the article:
 * Gift economy — An economic system similar to the one proposed by The Zeitgeist Movement
 * Anarchist communism — An economic system similar to the one proposed by The Zeitgeist Movement
 * Technocracy movement — A failed social movement similar to The Zeitgeist Movement
 * You'll notice, per WP:See_also, that I also added a brief annotation to each link to explain its relevance. –68.7.95.95 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion request rejected: The request for a Third Opinion in reference to this dispute has been rejected and removed because there has not been sufficient discussion here about this particular topic and dispute. 3O's like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia require extensive talk page discussion about the content matter in question. One of the editors involved in this dispute has only made one post here and one at a user's talk page and the latter was about conduct, not content. Your request can be remade at 3O or some other dispute resolution forum if thorough discussion does not resolve the matter. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been staying away from this and related articles lately (too much POV-pushing all round), but I feel obliged to comment on at least one of the proposed links - 'gift economy'. The simple facts of the matter are that nothing I've seen from TZM amount to a proposal for any economic system resembling gift economics as related in the innumerable anthropological discussions of the concept. In fact, as far as I can see the technocratic centrally-planned common-ownership proposals of TZM are entirely antithetical to a system built around the construction of social relationships and identity through the exchange of material goods. It seems to me that the proposal to include this link is either based on a misunderstanding of the subject, or perhaps another example of the tendency I've seen from TZM supporters to throw in all sorts of vaguely nice-sounding peripheral concepts as promotional fluff. Either way, without a source actually making a direct connection between TZM and gift economies, it doesn't belong in the article. The same point probably applies to reciprocity as a concept from anthropology, though it should be noted that any economic system relies on reciprocity at its root if one applies the term broadly enough. To sum up, if concepts from anthropology are to be linked in this article, we need evidence that they are seen as relevant by those with expertise in the subject, rather than examples of misapplied or misappropriated padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Andy, thanks for commenting. There is indeed a lot of POV-pushing here. I've seen a lot of horrible behaviors from both the pro and anti Zeitgeist sides. Neither of which I am a fan of. It is a terrible environment for a newcomer like myself which is why I created the talk section imploring everyone to refocus on neutrality and civility.
 * I share your thoughts about reciprocity and social capital (both of which I borrowed from the Gift Economy page's See also links). Which is why I didn't mind leaving them out.
 * As I posted above, one purpose of the See also links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics and therefore links may be only indirectly related to the topic. I don't understand the resistance against what appears to me to be a neutral edit inline with Wikipedia guidelines that clearly enriches the reader. Even if a Gift economy is not the same as what the group advocates, it is still a related concept because it enables readers to learn about other possible moneyless economies. This goes for Anarchist communism as well. Finally, the Technocracy movement. I can see no rationale for rejecting this link. When Earl King Jr. reverted these links, he wrote, "Do not read these articles." What a strange thing to say.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It was up to the i.p. user to make a case and they have not. Putting a little ditty behind each concept of their own fabrication does not qualify. Just because you Zeitgeist fans talk about all that on your blog does not entitle it to be presented it as real here. There is no connection to Peter Josephs ideas about the Venus project to the list you made which was removed. Anarchist Communism is not in any way connected nor is technocracy or the other things. Just the opposite. In the Zeitgeist Utopia the lion and lamb lay together in a big love fest of freedom and leisure. No gifting required, no communism either etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Technocracy movement says, "price system-based forms of government and economy are structurally incapable of effective action, and promoted a society headed by technical experts, which they argued would be more rational and productive."
 * The Zeitgeist Movement says, "the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt and inefficient in the use of resources. The Zeitgeist movement advocates transition from a global money-based economic system to a resource-based style economy of the type advocated by the Venus Project's Jacque Fresco."
 * RationalWiki says this about The Venus Project, "Some of these ideas are similar to the earlier Technocracy movement." Still think they aren't connected? —68.7.95.95 (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get dragged back into general arguments over this article - my sole point was that the 'gift economy' article has no sourced connection with the topic of this one. If we are to include anything and everything that one contributor or another thinks has some sort of vague connection we are liable to end up with a 'see also' list a mile long, constantly edit-warred over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Andy, your response suggests that I have not been clear. My point has always been that sourced connections for See also links are not required. There is NO wikipedia guideline that suggests a citation requirement for See also links. I will duplicate the guidelines here with my emphasis added so there is no more confusion:
 * Complete See also section guidelines:
 * If I came here as a person unfamiliar with these concepts, I would love to have these additional articles a click away to allow me to learn about other failed movements and other moneyless economic systems. Continuing to assert that these topics are unrelated is most certainly, obviously untrue to any objective person. I should note also that these links neither bolster nor undermine the efforts of peter joseph or his group. They are neutral links. I'm trying to add something to make this article better. This resistance is completely unfounded.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain (providing such sources as necessary) why "the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic" would include each of the links you propose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, 'The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.' The more tangentially related topics linked, the more comprehensive the article, and therefore, the more a reader can learn from it. I've explained the relevance of each link above. In short: moneyless economy, moneyless economy, similar movement.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, 'The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.' The more tangentially related topics linked, the more comprehensive the article, and therefore, the more a reader can learn from it. I've explained the relevance of each link above. In short: moneyless economy, moneyless economy, similar movement.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate and expand, WP:See also says "tangentially related topics" are acceptable to allow readers to explore. Vocabulary.com says, "Tangential refers to something that's not part of the whole. If you make a comment that is tangential to the story you're telling, it's a digression. The story could still be understood without it. In geometry, a tangent is a line that touches a curve in one spot but doesn't intersect it anywhere else." Here are the 3 links I would like to add and evidence they are tangentially related: Tabletmag.com calls TZM, "a global organization devoted to a kind of sci-fi planetary communism". Here are examples of topics where I can find no relation: The contrast between the related topics and the unrelated topics should be obvious. If there is legitimate objection, please explain it. If you want to accuse me of POV pushing, then please explain how these 3 links express a POV. If you just don't like it, please remember that at Wikipedia emotion does not trump logic and reluctantly give your support. Thank you. - 68.7.95.95 (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gift economy – tangential relation to sci-fi planetary communism
 * Anarchist communism – tangential relation to sci-fi planetary communism
 * Technocracy movement – tangential relation to movements advocating Technological utopianism (a current See also link)
 * Apples – no connection
 * Bears – no connection
 * The Colbert Report – no connection
 * I would support the inclusion of Gift economy, Anarchist communism and Technocracy movement in the 'See also' section. Zeitgeist and these article are all about alternative (to mainstream) socioeconomic ideas, and have at least one aspect in common. The fact there is no direct link almost goes without saying - if there was they would be better incorporated in the main article. At the moment 9/11 conspiracy theories is in the 'see also' section, rather redundant as it is already linked twice in the 'Zeitgeist - the movie' section, and in a related articles footer.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit war discussion
User:Unesco2015 has been censoring sourced information, against WP:NOTCENSORED.

It's pretty clear we've got another TZM WP:SPA trying to whitewash the article again. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit is right, the source only mentions the first movie ("...and “Zeitgeist” another conspiracy theory movie..."); it would be wrong to call the whole trilogy a series about conspiracy theories, if that's not what the movies are about. (If. I don't remember anymore.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede was too based on negative sources before, but perhaps it is too positive now. An extra sentence about first film being based on conspiracy theories according to many sources would even it out. Also, I think the information about the movement should be in a separate sentence. 'Informal' and 'internet group' seem to be sticking points, perhaps people define these in different ways.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wrong Jeraphine Gryphon check the citation. It says a 'series of conspiracy movies' in the information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I checked the Newsone source, which source are you referring to? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The already Infoglut calls the first movie a cited "conspiracy-theory pseudo-documentary." I did not check other existing sources, but looking through Google Books:
 * This source (from Rowman & Littlefield) refers to Addendum as being a conspiracy theory movie.
 * This source (by Michael Barkun, who knows conspiracy theorism) refers to the overall plot of Zeitgeist as a "superconspiracy theory."
 * This issue of the New Yorker says "..."Zeitgeist: Addendum," the sequel to a loopy but slick online documentary, made in America, that endorses familiar secret-government conspiracy theories..."
 * This source (from Columbia University) connects the whole trilogy to 9/11 conspiracy theories.
 * This source (from Palgrave Macmillan) discusses the whole Zeitgeist trilogy in the section "The conspiracy documentary goes online"
 * I'm under the impression that the latter two are not as explicit about conspiracy theories as the first, but make no sense without the conspiracy theory background of the first movie. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should be be referred to as a 'conspiracy theory film' rather than 'pseudo-documentary film', as most sources use that term rather than the later. Also note, some sources simply refer to it as a 'documentary', but that term seems very controversial. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, maybe we can hash this out on the talk page instead of edit warring. Let's see if we can get a policy-compliant lead written. This source, from Routledge, clearly labels the first film a pseudodocumentary, but that seems to be contentious. Part of the problem may be that it only labels the first film. Perhaps this label should be moved to the appropriate part of the article that discusses the first film? Second, there's contention over whether the entire film series is about conspiracies. Back a day or two ago, we had an article from The New York Times in the lead that said Joseph had "moved away from" such claims. Is there a source that labels the entire series as conspiracy-laden? Finally, there's contention about whether it's "informal" or not. I don't see a source for that. Do we have one, or is this original research? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I only skimmed over the talk page, so I didn't see the sources listed (I must be going blind). I moved my comment to this section.  So, I guess we have a few sources for the film series as a conspiracy-related, but only the first film seems to be labeled as a pseudodocumentary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As per sources the trilogy should be described 'conspiracy theory films'. I'm only aware of one source using the term pseudo-documentary for the first film, so that should go in the first films section. The later films are not purely conspiracy theory, but also propose changes to society and economics, somewhat utopian. Maybe this should be included in lede, assuming sources back this. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The latter two are not as explicit about conspiracy theories as the first, but make no sense without the conspiracy theory background of the first movie. It is a franchise that built itself on the first movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Caps
Anyone have an opinion of the the zeitgeist movement being in caps through out the article. It seems like a misplaced idea since the zeitgeist movement is not an actual organization but an adhoc, informal group of fan sites from the movies and it could be argued that Peter Joseph has a set of shadow sites to promote his DVD sales of the zeitgeist movies. I can see capitalizing the title of the section probably because lots of section titles do that or if it is in caps in a new article that would be o.k. but just making caps through out the article seems a bit much. The so called 'group' is not a real organization, none of their information is public, its not a non-profit or a corporation nor is there some kind of charter for it etc, just a FAQ's page on a fanzine site from the looks of it. It just does not seem like virtually anything has been written about it for years either. How can someone announce a 'movement' the guy that made the movies, then basically have an extended blog site with hardly a bit of outside reporting? Can we take it seriously???? in the sense of even giving it its own section in the article?? instead of just having a little something written about it in the section of the movie where Joesph announces it. Just a series of questions if anyone wants to throw in ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl King Jr. (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A couple responses come to mind:
 * The group refers to itself as The Zeitgeist Movement. According to Identifying reliable sources, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves."
 * Additionally, The Zeitgeist Movement seems to be a Proper name and therefore seems like it should be title case. "In languages that use alphabetic scripts and that distinguish lower and upper case, there is usually an association between proper names and capitalization."
 * Some of your other comments may be worth discussing but not in this section as they are not relevant to the capitalization of a proper name.
 * —68.7.95.95 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the name should be in caps as it is the official name of an organization. Whether or not it is an informal organization is irrelavent to this discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article title is in caps. Otherwise it is just an informal group that advertises Peter Josephs movies. I don't think we should capitalize something that is not a real group just an hoc association of bloggers. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As previously mentioned, Earl, opinions on the formality or realness (whatever that is) of the group is irrelevant to capitalization. Informal and fictional groups can also be capitalized. –68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we have consensus unless Earl comes around. In the meantime, according to WP:NOCONSENSUS the following de facto rule applies: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Therefore, since the group name was originally title cased, it should remain that way until such a time that consensus says otherwise. –68.7.95.95 (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS:DOCTCAPS Philosophies, theories, movements, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper name. Zeitgeist is the proper name of a movie. Capital-Z "Zeitgeist movement" is a the proper name of a group of individuals adhering to the doctrines or systems of thought of the movie, even if they are an hoc association of bloggers. Alsee (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * TZM is the name of a group. It's not a term that refers to a "movement" or ideology, it's a name that the group calls themselves. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 'The Zeitgeist Movement' (with caps) is indeed what the group calls itself and is the name trademarked by Peter (Joseph) Merola's company. This is independent of whether, or not, there is a social movement inspired by the film, which could be termed 'Zeitgeist movement' (no caps). This ref refers mainly to the later - social movement, but does also mention the former (albeit in abbreviated form TZM). The article can include both, making clear the distinction.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Restore Deleted Content
The following older version of this article contains content that has since been inexplicably removed: The older version is more comprehensive and easier to navigate than our current version. Many of the section headers have been inexplicably removed (for example, you wouldn't remove the Film content subsection headers from Bowling_for_Columbine). Portions of content have also been inexplicably removed. Some content was removed claiming a citation was needed, however, plot synopses and content summaries do not require citations because the film itself is the source for the summary (for example, you would not delete the synopsis from Capitalism:_A_Love_Story). Other content inexplicably removed includes a list of interviewees in one of the films. Reducing the amount of encyclopedic content obviously only makes an article less comprehensive and therefore worse.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeitgeist_(film_series)&oldid=632010026 - 1 November 2014

Keep in mind that a lot of the current wording has gone through revisions and is likely much improved over the wording used in this older version. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend using an older version of text when a newer version is available. Only the section headers and missing content should be salvaged.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC), edited 68.7.95.95 (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. You need to be blocked for being a single purpose account and POV pusher and ban evader.--MONGO 04:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That pretty well sums it up. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So you both admit to being against building an encyclopedia? Bold move.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My editing history makes it clear that I have been building an encyclopedia whereby yours, even including your previous banned accounts, does not.--MONGO 14:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia editing, and I've been greeted with a battleground. My interest now is figuring out how to end this war through policy and proper procedure so that we can all enjoy civility and encyclopedic content.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning your edit history. I proposed encyclopedic content here. You denied it (based on nothing) and deflected to accusations (also based on nothing). This is not the behavior of a neutral editor who cares about encyclopedic content. You have failed to assume good faith and you cannot point to anything in my edit history to justify your bad faith. If you think your behavior is good for Wikipedia, you should reexamine yourself and the situation.

The older version was not deleted as you phrase it. It was modified to discussions on the talk page and changed through consensus over time. The older version was more information from primary sources and skewed in the direction of the website from Zeitgeist presentation. Read the history of the talk page especially going back in sequence. That may explain a lot of issues about what is appropriate and the consensus of others in the current article. Its best not to accuse people of building or not building. That is a personal attack in this context. You are not talking about content you are talking your opinion of editors motivations. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP, they are not here to help. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why we cannot have a film synopsis and list of interviewees? Neither are original research nor POV. Per WP:Manual_of_Style/Film, "a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT). Since a documentary deals with real-life topics and figures, provide wikilinks to them wherever useful." Even if this content was removed because of a consensus made in the past (of which I can find no record), per WP:CCC, consensus can change. Also, if a consensus is made that contradicts policy, then policy should be followed because it represents a broader consensus, WP:CONLEVEL. Can someone please explain why we cannot have a film synopsis and list of interviewees? - 68.7.95.95 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not make lists it looks like you are back same as before and are going to edit tendentiously again with talk page blog like nonsense. Please do not. As a Zeitgeist supporter called her from your Facebook site you have to be really careful to follow policy and not paste Zeitgeist info the way they advocate it here. The articles are very complete and fair currently. I hope you do not immediately do what you did before your last block again. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure is being followed, ie discussing on the talk page, maybe it would be best to Assume good faith. Regarding synopsis there already is some there, maybe it would be good to state what you think is missing? The interviewees could probably be incorporated in the prose.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The synopses from November 1, 2014 contained more detail and easier navigation via the sub-headers (which also encourages further detail to be added to the sparse synopses). I've written more about it at the top of this section. Yes, prose is prefered, of course, no one is going to know to rewrite the list of interviewees as prose if the list is buried under months of edits never to be seen again. I value the time of the wiki editors who added this content, and I'd rather their efforts not be lost. - 68.7.95.95 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not make lists --> WP:LISTS, WP:EMBED. "If you find an inappropriate or badly written list, insert a cleanup tag at the top of the article. For example, use the tag for an embedded list that would be better written as prose paragraphs." - WP:PROSE - 68.7.95.95 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories
The categories classify these as documentary films, which they clearly are not. The article describes them as documentary-style, which is correct. I propose to remove the misleading categories, per WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.--MONGO 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They are documentary 'like' in presentation. One source calls it agitprop done for effect rather than critical analysis. Removing the categories removed, discussed above, seems appropriate. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on 'Documentary style'
What should the film be described as:
 * 1) documentary-style film
 * 2) documentary style film
 * 3) documentary film
 * 4) something else
 * 5) film (new option Jonpatterns (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC))

Comment a documentary, even if it is poorly made, incorrect, false and misleading is still a documentary. Starting to call certain films documentary-style could lead to a debate on every documentary article about whether it is a documentary or documentary-style. Tagging style on the end doesn't describe in what way it differs from a regular documentary. The following sources categorise it as a documentary NYTimes The Hindu IMDB. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this interpretation. To a large degree documentary describes the intention of the filmmaker rather than whether the film is factual. So even if they intended to create a false version of history it would be a documentary (but reasonably described in the article as false, controversial, biased, etc., depending on what the reliable secondary sources state). QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the interpretations of Jonpatterns and QuiteUnusual. If we are defining a documentary only as a film that documents something without commentary or agenda, then nearly every documentary in the world would have to be recategorized as documentary-style. Sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy. OnlyInYourMind (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) — OnlyInYourMind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Option 3 - there should also be something in the lede noting that most of the film series is based on specculation and/or indeffinitive proof.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It may be good to add something in the lede regarding the validity of its claims, as a balance. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am unable to view the page, on Google books, for the new reference to 'document-style' (ref). However, the search is for pseudo documentary film, not documentary-style.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Reference Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know - does say pseudo documentary. So I'm to edit the lede as all commenting editors are in agreement regarding removal of style. I will move the ref to a second sentence.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't view the page that says "pseudo(- ) documentary." It seems blocked or something. Danotto94 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It shows up just fine for me here. The link in the citation also works for me. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the link works. The first time I clicked it didn't work, after that it has. Propably an intermittant error somewhere.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Fantasy Fiction I was called by the 'bot. More properly the series should be classified as fantasy fiction, certainly not as "documentary" of any kind. The series falls in to the same arena as the so-called "911 Truth" conspiracy arena which is itself possibly properly classified as dysfunctional human psychology among those who believe the core premis, but is more properly classified as fantasy fiction among the majority of people. Damotclese (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion but please base your future comments on policy and sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory documentary - Per the sources I've presented in the Edit war discussion section below, the other two only make sense in the "light" of the conspiracy theories of the first movie. The second movie is pretty much a call to fight the evil bank conspiracy from part three of the first movie.  The third movie is meant to provide a ideological rationale for the second movie.  If someone wrote a book that said "the Pope is a lizard person," and then the second book (titled as a sequel of the first) called for opposing the Papal office at any turn, and then a third consisting of select quotes from Martin Luther and John Calvin about opposing the Papacy, the series would be classified as conspiracy theorist literature, not just protestant propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * comment A documentary style? What's that but a description of the various stylistic aspects of a documentary or simply another term. It doesn't seem to meet the definition a pseudo-documentary. The nonfiction component seems more important than any factuality. Factuality seems to be important as an intent as opposed the actual case. Documentary style in its variation doesn't have much effect other than indicating that it is a documentary to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * comment, a documentary, even if it is poorly made, incorrect, false and misleading is still a documentary. Starting to call certain films documentary-style could lead to a debate on every documentary article about whether it is a documentary or documentary-style. Not really. It was an art project by Peter Joseph according to him and I don't think he ever considered it a documentary either. Does Joseph even claim to have made a documentary I don't think so according to his account that is source in the article. If the BBC puts out a piece on global warming it is going to be taken seriously. If conspiracy people put out a film about the future saying people are going to be chipped with rfid chips and that George Bush and friends organized 911 and there was no plane that flew into the Pentagon then it may be called a psuedo documentary style film especially with people like Alex Jones as sources for Josephs 'ideas'. Its a little harsh to call it a pseudo documentary though we have sources for calling it that. People can read the information and decide for themselves what it is. A good compromise is that it is a documentary style of film that is more appropriate than calling conspiracy film or cult film or Pseudo documentary. We have to give people some credit for having the ability to distinguish what is in the article from the sources and we do not have to lead people by the hand in the pre lead by saying that much. Its just a very short description which is only there to clear up confusion if people are confused about which article they are on. Its just the basics. Its a documentary style of film. That is not passing judgement on Zeitgeist and we have to be neutral at least in the pre lead and then the citations/sources will actually give information on what it is. Lets keep it neutral. Its not a real documentary obviously but we do not have to say that unless in another section that gets into the particulars. Lets just give information from reputable sources as the article proceeds and let the 'chips' fall where they may. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Documentary-style doesn't help readers know what it is. If the sources say it wasn't made as a documentary, why characterise it as documentary-style. Why not simply characterise it as a film. Also how much weight should be given to each source? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An additional problem is should the two sequels be described in the same way, or have a separate description. As far as I remember the second two have elements of 'solutions', where as the first only looks at 'problems'.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we add a template like weasel, weasel-inline, or definition until this is sorted? Secondly, has anyone considered the definition of Documentary film: The American film critic Pare Lorentz defines a documentary film as "a factual film which is dramatic."[5] Others further state that a documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents.[6] The zeitgeist films seem to precisely fit this definition of Documentary film, and sources agree. That said, nothing is to stop us from also listing, with citations, the other adjectives used to describe these films (conspiracy, cult, pseudo-documentary). The last thing we want to do is make up our own description which may be a WP:SYN OR violation. :-) OnlyInYourMind (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of COURSE it is a "documentary" by the definition[6]. It doesn't matter whether it is documenting somebody's theories, as in "Guns, Germs, and Steel," or speculation about the Kennedy assassination.  It doesn't matter whether the majority or minority of editors (or Skeptic watchdogs) agree that the film is "factual" in the tiny universe of fact that they are willing to recognize.  It doesn't matter whether it is blessed by the Pope, the ADL, or the local chapter of the Fairy Watching Witches of America.  If posited as fact, it is "factual" and meets definition[6]. Wikipedia is not chartered to determine The One True Truth in the Universe, nor to police the line between Orthodoxy and Heresy. Slade Farney (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Jon that you are getting way to tendentious on this. You as a member of that special interest group Zeitgeist have to be neutral and you are starting to harp on points that are not even contentious but you are getting them repeated over and over and trying to rewrite parts of the article to Zeitgeist information. I know you want your presentation but that is not the same as an encyclopedia. I would ask that you stop the redundant posting of the same things in different sections here over and over. It is a waste of peoples time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are baseless.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The accusation is also a little too personal, and not in keeping with the spirit of the Wiki. Slade Farney (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that. How many thread do you intend to devote and how much time must we spend on this non issue? [] It is not a documentary. Maybe its a mockumentary but for sure its not the real thing. So hate to say it and not really trying to offend you but you are not getting it and that is also called tendentious editing when a person grinds the ax over and over and you are repeating all this over and over. Our readers are not helpless people wanting leadership about the meaning of documentary-like. All things in an article do not have to be word for word from a source. English language is used to explain and deduce from the information in the article. It is a super tiny synopsis of the info from the article. Its not even the lead, it is a tiny thing letting people know what the article is. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All I have done is discussed how to improve the article. The only 'tendentious' part is not agreeing 100% with you.  You have accused me of being biased and single purpose editor (baseless accusations). The discussion page is the correct to place discuss how to improve articles. You seem to want to limit any discussion by making personal attacks.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (redacted)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Whether Wikipedia is overall 'Establishment' depends on how that is defined. I would agree there are definitely systemic problems with Wikipedia. I am less pessimistic, probably more native, that these problems can be mitigated to some degree as Wikipedia grows and develops. Hopefully, we can learn to better communicate with each other.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Review of RfC
I've moved this RfC to the bottom of the comments because some relevant discussion has taken place just above. This is my intrepretation and each editor's position so far. Since the RfC began agreed with using option three 'documentary'. As did, but also requested the inaccurately of the film should be mentioned in the lede. thinks option one 'documentary-style' should be used. Is this a fair summary, anything further to add? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pseudo history or propaganda films would be more appropriate than documentary which it is not, or is in a conspiracy theory fringe way but our sources say it is not really a documentary in a classic sense. They say it is an internet cult mostly of bad information. Basically it can all be sourced to Peter Joseph and his LLC company that is involved in social networking on the internet and making media projects that he sells to the public and his selling of clothes T.shirts etc. through his limited liability corporation he controls the whole thing completely. The over whelming critical reviews, the material is of very poor quality but slickly produced. That is according to our citation sources reliable sources. Probably better not to overtly mislead people into thinking it is a documentary. You made an edit that said that JonPatterns. That would be false. A documentary documentes something while Zeitgeist according to our citations is a kind of internet cult fad type of thing though it has influenced many with its conspiracy theory version of world history such as 911 being a contrived thing by the American government etc etc. So documentary style or documentary like is being pretty kind to the film and that is what it says now and has said that for a while by consensus.    Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Documentary-style isn't useful as it doesn't say in what way it differs from a usual documentary. Please could you list the other references that say it isn't a documentary, other than the one that says it is a pseudo documentary. I've listed the NYTimes and The Hindu above which say it is a documentary. Maybe something more neutral than documentary or documentary-style would be 'film'. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't do references for saying what something is not in a case like that. No. We could also say documentary like film It is a propaganda film or a conspiracy film according to our categorizations at the bottom of the page which I had nothing to do with. Overwhelming citations refer to it as such in the critical appraisal section. Its a film yes, but so is Tom and Jerry the cartoon. Probably the current phrasing of it as said is extremely kind to the movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have to follow what the sources say. No source provided says it is 'documentary-style'. 'documentary like film' also doesn't help it say in what way it is like documentary. In fact is it a documentary with inaccuracies. That is what should be in the lede. Many documentaries have major flaws but are still categorised as documentaries. Another potential source categorising it as a documentary is AllMovie.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That would not be a reliable source its some site that sells movies and blogs about movies. Zeitgeist is a self produced, Peter Joseph project that was released on the internet. It never was a real theatrical release. It is documentary like because it is does not document anything except the content of the building being blown up by the U.S. goverment, being implanted with 'chips', A new world order of bankers etc. Its a conspiracy movie or release that probably should not even be tagged as a documentary . Its a company run by Peter Joseph that sells T-shirts and DVD'S. The social movement does not have any real numbers. It might not be real at all but internet conjectured bloggers that meet up at a high cost once a year. Most of our sources consider it a conspiracy cult run by Peter Josephs's business arm. I think you are getting way to picky about documentary like. It is not a documentary. Calling it 'documentary like' is really almost too much credit for what it is. Wikipedia articles have to be written to make some sense and not every single phrase or word has to be cited unless its really controversial. For the record I did not do the edit saying 'documentary like' but it has passed a long consensus here as the page history shows of the talk page. Having seen you change it once to documentary I saw your aim. But, its not really a documentary is it? No Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some sources call it a documentary, like NYTimes and the Hindu. Other call it a conspiracy theory movie, and others still a pseudo documentary. Sorry, if I come across as picky, but the term documentary-style is not very informative.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All mainstream sources have referred to the films as documentary. Only the first film has a "conspiracy" aspect. I love how you people just make things up as you go along. Unesco2015 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal Opinions Regarding Zeitgeist
It has become apparent to me that there are a lot of strong personal opinions on this wikipedia topic. Some people want to use the page to bolster The Zeitgeist Movement by deleting cited criticisms. Others seem to want to marginalize the Zeitgeist films and movement by minimizing article content and de-legitimizing its group by calling them a movie fan club and lower casing their group name and calling it "informal". Whether Zeitgeist is great or terrible, neither of these opinions belong on wikipedia.

Let us remember that Wikipedia's mission is to characterize topics from a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). This is one of Wikipedia's Five pillars. If we all focus on this pillar, there is no reason why everyone can't get along and work together by adding verified content and enriching this article for all.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Let us remember that Wikipedia's mission is to characterize topics from a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). Yes the topics that are notable. Zeitgeist seems to be border line. It appears to be an advertising arm of Peter Joseph who recruits people through his websites to come here and claim that Zeitgeist is something special and problem is though, it has not been seriously written about for years. There is a real lack of interest in the media about it. It could be because of Joseph's background as a Wall Street money broker and Madison Ave. worker bee, that get some media thinking it is not much of anything except a self generated advert for Joesph's projects. He did announce it after all, and who 'announces' a movement? Usually they actually announce themselves by appearing. Since many of the followers of Zeitgeist were called to come here from their blog sites it becomes problematic also to sort through their contributions because of their cause mentality. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Earl:
 * First, claiming that Zeitgeist's notability is borderline is a personal opinion. That is exactly the thing I created this section to neutralize. The fact is, according to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Therefore, it is a demonstrable fact according to the independent, reliable sources cited in this article that Zeitgeist is notable under Wikipedia's General notability guideline and is deserving of an article.
 * Second, Wikipedia does not require the topic of an article to be currently popular in order to keep from being deleted or its content from being marginalized.
 * Third, again, to Earl and everyone, please try to put your opinions aside and accurately characterize this topic, focusing on Wikipedia's pillars, especially neutrality and civility.
 * – 68.7.95.95 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I am shocked at how many biased comments the Earl has been allowed to get away with. Impartiality is a fickle thing, especially with such a controversial topic/movement. The Earl has got his knickers in a twist about the man Peter Joseph. In the rush to debunk one man, the whole article attempts to deflect from the inevitable fact that the movement is an adoptive ideology that has taken a hold in the minds of millions of people. They are an 'advocacy initiative', which is why you may not see much 'action'. The mainstream media coverage of the zeitgeist movement is not a reliable source for impartial reporting, nor is the lack of it, and means nothing to note in any case. The ideology didn't just go away, simply the media coverage. Supporters, in the majority, aren't deluded sheep but intuitive and fed up oppressed citizens looking for an answer to why capitalist society has failed, for them.

I can agree that the ego of Peter Joseph, coupled with the self-observed truth that until we can transition from money-based economics we are all 'agents' of the system, inevitably marrs the overall message for the average skeptic who fails to look past the vessel to read the message. Yes he does sell his DVD's because he lives in a capitalist culture that endorses it, and so he is finding his niche in that regard, but as the current social paradigm dictates to the aquisition of currency to trade for our daily needs, I'm not quite sure why this is continually asserted as a contradiction to his words. It is an admission he makes, and professes to wish to move from it.

To summarise my thought, it's belligerent to continually assert your opinion as fact, and if I were to guess, it isn't productive towards the education of what the zeitgeist movement is as a whole and actually means to the people who support its message. Anybody would think you were activily attempting to persuade people to look past it and not take the messages within seriously. You are partaking in personal propaganda on wikipedia's time, that which you are accusing supporters of doing by complaining about all the re-edits.. correcting your bias no doubt. The crux of the zeitgeist movement (even if not all of the films) is centred around a cultural shift of ideology and values. Not even mentioned. Not one posivite assertion is really made on its behalf, which is why you may have made so many supporters unhappy. You have, essentially, reported on nothing that you assume to understand. That is obvious, or you would have made an extended effort to be impartial in your reporting on the article. Is there any way that all the other regular editors can boycott Earls edits, and anyone else who is clearly lacking the capability to be purely objective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.5.244 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume you are from the Facebook group . Not really sure what to tell you. The overwhelming notable information on Zeitgeist related things is mostly self generated primary information that the media has not reported on for years. As far as your comment, there may indeed be millions of people involved but they do not keep any records, the group is not registered anywhere except on Facebook as a 'company' or business. Facebook is not really a reliable source for sourcing the number of people involved. I see that according to your edit history you have the single edit above on Wikipedia, 15:25, 10 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+2,748)‎ . . Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) ‎ (→‎Personal Opinions Regarding Zeitgeist) and assuming you want to learn the 'ropes' of how to edit I suggest you get a user name, read some of the articles and guidelines, edit a few articles and get the hang of this operation. Making an emotional appeal on the talk page is probably not going to do anything because it is forbidden or frowned on to make the talk page blog like. Learn how to edit and if you want to make changes in the article you may if they pass muster with the other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm with you here Earl, Zeitgeist is nothing more than a self-promoted, self-sourced internet cult, false advertising campaign.

Really it should be given that status on wikipedia in a list of NWO conspiracy theory internet scams, alex jones, david ike, "what the bleep do we know?" etc

Zeitgeist should be deleted and if even put back on wikipedia, put under such a status..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

the next step is deleting this page.Encyclopedia-viewer (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC) — Encyclopedia-viewer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For what reason? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because zeitgeist is stupid, it lowers wikipeida's standards.Encyclopedia-viewer (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC) — Encyclopedia-viewer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * That's called WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that bullshit zeitgeist doesn't belong on wikipedia..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As you point out, that zeitgeist is dead, this page should be deleted I mean it should never have been made, leave it to conspiracy theorists to pay tribute to it. Nothing would be lost by Zeitgeist being deleted from wikipedia, wiki would be better without it. I assure you, it would not be missed..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's mission is to characterize topics from a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV), not to delete topics you don't like. See Five pillars —68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist cannot be given a neutral POV, since it isn't a topic, it's a scam. The flood of zeit-cult defenders on this talk page shows how wiki is being used an advertising platform for this cult. Best to have it deleted to make room for real topics or a very brief mention in the NWO conspiracy article..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

a bunch of conspiracy theorists can hang around on Facebook or their forums for all I care, there's really no reason to have a zeitgeist wiki page, it provides Nothing of value to anyone since the subject is bogus in itself.

This zeitgeist page doesn't belong on wikipedia, it should be deleted. Period..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a scam and there is no doubt about that, but we can have the article and present the information in a neutral nonpartisan manner. There are enough references to justify an article about the movies, but the movement itself no, not enough references or notability to justify an independent article.--MONGO 16:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist should be deleted from wikipedia, there's no doubt about that. Maybe it should be added to the NWO conspiracy wiki article among all the other conspiracy scam nonsense, alex jones, esoteric agenda, david ike, reptilians etc. But it's own page? I completely disagree..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's mission is to characterize topics from a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV), not to delete topics you don't like. See Five pillars —68.7.95.95 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if this zeitgeist page was deleted it would not be missed, that doesn't mean zeitgeist shouldn't have a very small mention on a list of conspiracies but it's bullshit, nothing legitimate about it,.Encyclopedia-account (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The concern should be removing the whole article, not simply "parts" of it, zeitgeist is quite overdue for deleting for something so bullshit..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes well we should stop with the "editing" of this page and get to finally deleting this whole zeitgeist page. It belongs on youtube, facebook, forum groups, but not wikipedia.

I'd say the best thing for this page would be deleting it..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a page for zeitgeist since neither the group or the movies are real..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Earl, but, well it doesn't just "appear" to be an advertising arm of PJ, it is. Giving zeitgeist a Neutral POV is impossible, it's an internet cult group. If I make up a bullshit conspiracy video, it gets followers, "likes", and gets borderline popularity, naturally that should not deserve a real wikipedia article, so why does zeitgeist have one? Maybe on a list of "cults", but not as anything which shows it as something real. NWO conspiracies, cults, false advertising campaigns, that's where zeitgeist belongs, not it's own article. .Encyclopedia-account (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point there, since there's zero being written about zeitgeist, it shouldn't have a page it should be deleted. Maybe a little mention on a conspiracy related page, but not its own page..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Long-term Page Deletion - They can't edit a zeitgeist page if there isn't one, I suggest a brief mention on the NWO conspiracy page or if there's a list of conspiracy theory fringe groups, but not it's own page. There's so little to be said about zeitgeist that I think giving the group it's own page gives it too much credit for what it is..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not delete sourced material because of vandalism. This is an encyclopedia and what we do is present sourced information to readers, irregardless of whether or not we like the subject matter. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's about time to remove the zeitgeist page completely, it's the only rational thing to do considering zeitgeist is bullshit..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Only saying the truth Earl, this Zeitgeist page would be better deleted, not kept, edited etc. Peter Joseph has taken a massive shit onto the internet, and it would be better if it was flushed away. I only wish you were able to see that..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We have tried to explain Wikipedia process to you but you refuse to listen. Now you might get blocked from editing for stuff like you are saying above. We are not prudes but making your negative swearing points ten times in a row and not actually doing anything beneficial to the article or editing constructively has pretty much wrecked your credibility and you are probably about a hairs breath from being blocked. Maybe if you respond positively like saying you are sorry for wasting our time and that you will learn a little about the guidelines, maybe, they will give you a chance, but more of the same bellicose nonsense and you will no doubt be history soon. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a joke right? I mean zeitgeist is a joke you're asking the impossible. There's nothing positive/constructive about zeitgeist to say which is why the page should be deleted..Encyclopedia-account (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope social media sites come to their senses and ban the zeitgeist scam, earl is totally right zeitgeist movies/movement is just a bunch of blogging sites to sell conspiracy DVDs and shirts.Pear-Jack (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said Earl, zeitgeist is a dead movement, since it is maybe it's probably best locking this page away, where no further discussion or edits can be made on it? Something I'd prefer seeing.Pear-Jack (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Due to the zeitgeist defenders causing trouble on this Page, this page and it's talk page should be permanently locked so only experienced editors can make edits. Zeitgeist should not be given a positive tone by it's members (more like brainwashed cult followers) since it is a malicious internet scam, really any defenders should be deleted/blocked right away because it's becoming too many to even count.Pear-Jack (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's not mix up fiction with fact, a moneyless economy movement's goal or TZM is unattainable therefore zeitgeist is a scam. More like the "See also" should include "scams".Pear-Jack (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Earl is right about this, zeitgeist is not a real group, and the zeitgeist movies aren't real either, maybe it should be made clear that everything zeitgeist is fiction to avoid any confusion that this is something that should be taken seriously.Pear-Jack (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Earl is right, Zeitgeist isn't really notable, it's a fringe internet cult which advertises Peter Joseph's movies and sells DVDs and shirts. It's no secret that the group recruits and brainwashes its victims by their websites, lectures, movies etc. Similar to Scientology, zeitgeist members will say zeitgeist is special and that their numbers are booming, but they have no numbers, maybe a handful of people creating FB groups, websites, and blogs, nothing serious, it's all peter joseph's doing not a movement.

The lack of interest by the media about zeitgeist could be because zeitgeist is a boring subject, except RT which will still sometimes interview peter on and call him Jesus. so it's no wonder they haven't been written about in ages with any real zeitgeist comeback, the members don't even care anymore. It is his advertising project because it was announced at the end of addendum, who announces a movement?

Probably permanently locking both the article and talk page would be the best course of action then zeitgeist members who are told by peter to come edit here won't have any effect.Pear-Jack (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well really there are no sources for zeitgeist as Earl said, it all just leads to peter joseph and his movies, and the media only briefly covered it unaware it is simply an advertising gimmick like KONY 2012. Internet conspiracy scam. Plus simply no-one cares about zeitgeist anyway, probably this page will fall into obscurity and in time be completely forgotten, the movement website, people who make the anti-zeitgeist websites, probably good to see them gone eventually. Likewise the so called millions of zeitgeist follows which are probably only a handful to make zeitgeist groups, blogs, videos on social media sites.Pear-Jack (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the subject of "brainwashing" is a pseudoscience, utterly impossible for professionals in clinical settings. The MKULTRA project would drool to know everything the people at Zeitgeist know -- the CIA tried and failed for 20 years to brainwash people with drugs and extreme coercion, while (according to Pear-Jack) Zeitgeist is able to brainwash people with a few words over the Internet.  But to return to reality, the people in this Talk section should be more careful in their accusations.  Fiction does not become fact by asserting "it's no secret ..."  Regardless of personal taste, fact is fact and fiction is fiction. Slade Farney (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed
In the text it says, "The informal group was founded by and is directed by Peter Joseph.[39]" but citation [39] doesn't say anywhere he directs the movement. Is there a reliable source to say he directs the movement? If not, it should not say this. --Melarish (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

He invented the term Zeitgeist Movement, he announced the formation of it at the end of one of his movies. He is the ostensible leader. No doubt someone can document that when they get around to it. Problem is that their official FAQ's info. says the so called movement has no leaders, so really you can not win on this type of article. It is all concocted though by Peter Joseph for better or worse. Its pretty obvious without original research that he is the leader, director, spiritual god father... etc. etc. Did you do a search on that? Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting having unsourced information in the article because you personally think it is obvious? --Melarish (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Often lead segments that are obvious do not need citing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason lead segments do not always need direct footnotes is because they are supposed to summarize the article, where the references can be found. "Obvious" isn't really a threshold that applies here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Joseph is the leader of the Zeitgeist movement. It is his baby. As the leader of the movement and their official unofficial spokesperson he gets to say it is a 'leaderless movement', so do you want to parrot that or do you want to do some research and actually get at what is going on in an encyclopedic fashion? Do you want to quote their FAQ's material like the members of Zeitgeist who repeat what they are told by Peter Joseph because maybe they think he is Guru like or do you want to actually report what is happening in a meaningful way and not an idiosyncratic Zeitgeist presentation? He funds the website. He made the movies. He funds the movies. He collects the donation to his pocket. He announced the 'movement'. He made the plaintive remark that people asked him what to do so he founded the Zeitgeist Movement. Now Zeitgeist members show up and edit war relentlessly for their preferred presentation. Most get blocked after a week or two and then their meat and sock puppets show up. Melarish previously edit warred for the Zeitgeist movements faq's material. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then do it in an encyclopedic fashion and provide a reliable source for your claim. If Wikipedia's standard of a reliable source is a tabloid journalist then I'm afraid this "encyclopedia" has gone down the drain. No wonder no one considers WP a source worth citing. --Melarish (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source and not considered even reliable by Wikipedia standards. Mostly it is a website that has a bunch of affiliated websites where it makes money and it pretends to be a 'higher purpose' above the fray thing. It probably is a good source though for all the lazy minded people that do not have the time to actually learn anything. Wikipedia is mostly a scam site, its true for its other related endeavors that make money. However in some ways its pretty good. Since you are a dyed in the wool Peter Joseph acolyte and probably believe in the whole thing he is proposing you probably think the world is against you and its part of the conspiracy but the reality is that it appears the Zeitgeist is a dead movement and lived its life, kind of like Angry Birds or any other internet fad. My opinion only and probably should not give it but since you are attacking the basic thing here, that is my opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of 'informal'
The reference given does not state it is an 'informal' group, it stipulates rules for membership (citation used). Jonpatterns (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonpatterns, I looked at the sources in the body and there is no mention of "informal" which makes this is a WP:OR violation. We can leave the tag in place for awhile and then remove "informal" if it remains unsourced. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How long as "awhile?" Danotto94 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Danotto94, it's common courtesy to give it a few days. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * can we now? Danotto94 (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, user:Danotto94 and user:Jonpatterns! It has nearly been a month, so I'd say it's safe to say no source will be found to support the informal claim. :-) OnlyInYourMind (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Grammar/syntax problem
Earl King Jr., your latest edit is unintelligible. No doubt it is a simple error, but only you know what you intended to say, so we would be grateful if you corrected the wording. Here is the text: The information related advocates transition from the global money-based economic system to a post-scarcity economy or resource-based economy.[41] Slade Farney (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Boldly taken care of :-) OnlyInYourMind (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

New lede - TZM trademark
The phrase 'Zeitgeist franchise corporation', isn't quite right if its using this ref. The trademark is 'The Zeitgeist Movement' belonging to Gentle Machine Productions LLC, registered by Peter (Joseph) Merola.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Limited liability company which I assume he did for tax purposes and control of the information. So, should be changed from corporation to company Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not exactly how I would have phrased it, but correct in a round about way.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What is a Zeitgeist franchise company? The reference only says the trademark THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT is owned by Gentle Machine Productions LLC and that the contact person for GMP LLC is Peter Merola. That phrase is rather ambiguous. I think we should move it out of the lead and word it more accurately. OnlyInYourMind (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, its accurate. It is a company he owns and is a franchise that turns out a certain kind of product. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If "Zeitgeist" is not the name of the company, it is not accurate. As Google shows, Zeirgeist is an ordinary English word with broad usage.  If you shorten the name of a trademark or company (like shortening "The Los Angeles Times" to "Los Angeles"), your message may loses clarity.  Do you see any harm in using the full name? Slade Farney (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree the wording is not very clear at the moment. Also, strictly speaking the company is Gentle Machine Productions, The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark. Although, some may refer to Gentle Machine Productions as 'the Zeitgeist company' that is not a clear and could be confused with the separate Zeitgeist (film company).Jonpatterns (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems we have some consensus. Found a primary source claiming PJ owns GMP. http://www.gentlemachineproductions.com/about.html OnlyInYourMind (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know what a "pre lead" is? I can't find this concept in wikipedia. Can anyone explain what means by tiny intro before the intro? Thanks. :/ OnlyInYourMind (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cracked.com source
Just an FYI. I checked the RS/noticeboard and consensus is that Cracked.com is only suitible for a Response or Reception section. As you were. :) OnlyInYourMind (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Doubtful that its suitable. If you read on it says ''Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92

content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites 259 KB (36,930 words) - 20:43, 24 August 2011'' It is not a good source. It is a user generator advertising site. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not suitable for use here in the least.--MONGO 13:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Opening is violation of [NPOV] Wikipedia rules
The title of the article is "Zeitgeist (Film Series)" and should introduce the three films, not what appears to be only "conspiracies" for the first film. It is a violation of neutrality. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits violate WP:NOTCENSORED. The second and third films are addressed in relation to the conspiracy theorism of the first film, and the second and third films make no sense outside of the conspiracy theorism of the first film, as was already mentioned above.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ian, that is the most biased POV assumption I have ever seen. You could remove the first film and the other two films stand on their own perfectly. This is literally a made up idea you just presented. There are no censor issues here. This is about neutrality. That said, you cannot decree that the whole series is about conspiracies when the vast major of content is about a new social system. Literally the entire third film is about economics and the environment.186.64.176.133 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It may appear that way to one of Joseph's shills, but for those of us who have not been blinded by the light, it's pretty clear that the series is meant to be viewed together -- or else there'd be more sources of TZM members decrying the ludicrous stupidity of the first movie while affirming the politics of the later movies. As it is, the most the TZM and Joseph's shills bother with is trying to draw attention away from the first movie, as you tried to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian is right on that. Its a trilogy of conspiracy films and we have sources that say that. Lots of citations in the article say that it is a conspiracy pseudo documentary. Shill might be too strong a word Ian. Perhaps brainwashed is more suitable with less baggage or inculcated but basically you are close enough to being right in your appraisal of the current situation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)