Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement

The education of a newbie

Ankh.Morpork, thank you for the feedback. Could you please explain exactly what is meant by 'more POV gobbledygook' and your objection to the resources I cited. I believe the resources are reasonably reliable. They contain articles in the NYT and the Huffington Post, and interviews in Russia Today (RT) and on the Larry King TV show in 1974. The references also contained books by Jacque Fresco and James S. Albus, a US government engineer and prolific inventor and author. As regards the reference by Elbus, I clearly articulated he does not mention TZM in his book, and I mentioned there are differences between Elbus's solutions and TZM's proposed solutions, but I also I explained that there are significant similarities between Elbus's views of the problems of the current global socio-economic system and the views of TZM. So respectfully could you please explain why these resources are considered 'unreliable.' I realize they are not peer-reviewed articles in academic/ professional journals. But the vast majority of resources in the vast majority of wikipedia articles are not peer-reviewed articles in academic/ professional journals. Why apply a different standard to this TZM article? Or am I wrong on this or missing something?

This may be an issue of Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. If I'm an inclusionist and another editor is, say, perhaps a deletionist, does the wholesale removal of my edits imply that the deletionist must prevail? Is this some sort of power play? Not sure.

But perhaps the most disturbing thing that happened is that all my edits were reverted wholesale, without a single edit remaining. This included not only the wholesale reversion of my attempts at trying to explain the basic principles of TZM/ RBE (since several previous readers commented on this talk page that they still don't understand the basic principles of TZM/RBE), , using what I believe was a reasonably neutral tone (and considering it is probably impossible to maintain a perfectly/ ideally neutral tone on such articles, because the subject matter is considerably out of the mainstream consensus). But perhaps just as disturbing is the wholesale deletion of my other edits which were only minor and moderate corrections of typos, modifications to clarify (but not significantly modify) existing sentences that existed on the page previously to my edits, and other similar minor to moderate edits that did not contain any POV (unless one applies a very liberal definition of POV)... all these edits have been censored, without exception, even those edits that had nothing to do with quoting sources (whether 'reliable' or 'unreliable') .... respectfully please explain. At the present time, these actions are very disquieting and disturbing. Best regards and thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is you that is doing the explaining: as has been pointed out multiple times, Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on the opinions of contributors. Find an article (or a TZM webpage, since it is their views you are writing about) which explains TZM's politics, cite it, and base your contributions on that. And please stop making allegations of 'vandalism' - the revision was clearly nothing of the sort. Regarding minor edits, fixes etc, it is best to do those separately to major changes that are likely to be problematic. It is easier to revert only the contentious material then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop fly-tipping inappropriate sources and links into this article. It appears that you are arbitrarily sprinkling around various sources throughout the article which hold little direct relevance to the content that they purportedly support. For example, you readily agree that James S Albus made no reference of the TZM, yet he is adduced twice to support material relating to TZM. A source is not simply an abstract academic text; it must directly and objectively support the material in the article, without personal interpretation or idiosyncratic delusions.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I believe we should not ignore the fact that the views of Albus on the problems with the current socio-economic system do indeed directly and objectively support the views of TZM on the same issues. In my view it may be better to expose the reader to an important, well-written and well-supported book such as (for example) that by Albus and let the reader decide for themselves whether there is a connection between the Albus book and TZM (even if it is only a partial connection, as they disagree on the solution, but they seem to agree on most important aspects of the problem(s)). And then, once the reader determines whether there is (or is not) a connection, they can read further and find-out for themselves the nature of the connection (if any). 2. This is also part of the reason why the 2 external links were included in the 'See Also' section. The Technocracy.org website does not mention TZM, but their views - on both the problem and the solution - are very similar (although not exactly identical) to those of TZM. And the freeworldcharter.org (FWC) website, which says it is independent of TZM, also holds very similar (almost identical) views to those of TZM, and it even mentions TZM (please see the free world charter Q & A). However, I admit to having made a mistake here. From reading WP:SEEALSO I now realize that external links do not belong in the 'See Also' section - the section is reserved for internal links to related Wikipedia articles; thus I apologize for my oversight for including external links there. But I do believe these two (external) links are relevant to the topic (TZM) and probably belong elsewhere on the TZM page. Please note that WP:SEEALSO states: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant...." 3. I am curious - why were the following references removed (I'm referring to the sources that were included in my prior edit, not today's edit)? (a) the two interviews with Peter Joseph on RT (Sept. 14, 2011 and Dec. 2, 2011), and (b) the interview with Peter Joseph on TheMarker. The removal of these references is surprising in view of the fact that there is already an existing reference to (another) RT interview with Peter Joseph on this (TZM) wiki page. Having access to the two additional RT interviews (and the TheMarker interview) could allow a reader of this TZM wiki page to gain further knowledge on the views/ ideas/ proposed-solutions of TZM, esp. considering some readers' comments alluding to the fact they still don't understand what TZM is all about even after reading the TZM wiki page. If the already-existing RT reference is relevant and acceptable, why aren't the two proposed RT references (and the TheMarker reference) also relevant and acceptable? Thanks and regards. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In answer to (1), what you believe is irrelevant. Unless you can provide a reliable source that makes the link between Albus and TZM, his book doesn't merit referring to. As for links, see WP:ELNO: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid... Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming". And the article need not contain repetitive links to multiple sources that aren't actually being cited for statements. If people want to find out more about what TZM's position is, we have already provided a link to their website. Given the failure of anyone to actually provide a useful published source for what TZM thinks, it is hardly surprising that our article is inadequate in that respect - but that is down to the fact that such sources appear not to exist, and until they do, we cannot report on it. This is an article about TZM, based on published sources. It is not TZM's article about themselves. That is the way Wikipedia works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully I probably disagree on almost every point. (a) I agree we should not link to a petition. (Although the FWC is a charter, thus I'm not sure the authors of WP:ELNO would classify it as a classic petition.) But please note that WP:ELNO also states that "one should generally avoid: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I think I established above that the two external links are relevant resources and thus there would have been a high probability that the two external links would be included in the article if it became a featured article. (b) I'm not sure what is meant by 'repetitive links'. The references/ resources already provided on this TZM wiki page and the three additional articles I proposed (two interviews with PJ on RT, and one print article published in TheMarker {Israel} offering a relatively detailed analysis/ study of the key ideas/ positions/ proposals of TZM, based in part on an interview with PJ) are not 'repetitive'. Yes, I agree that all interviews/ articles on TZM (including those already listed on the TZM wiki page e.g. the RT, NYT and HuffPo articles) have some areas of overlap/ repetition, but that is only natural because in each public/ TV/ newspaper/ media appearance/ interview, PJ (or any representative of TZM) is asked to repeat the key ideas/ key positions of TZM. But all the aforementioned articles and interviews on TZM are also distinct and each offers some thing(s) the others don't, and together, collectively, they contain more information/ insights/ knowledge/ analysis of TZM than any subset of the same articles and interviews (the sum is larger than any part). Arbitrarily limiting the access of the readers to a subset of the larger possible set of articles and interviews deprives the reader of readily-available further insights/ perspectives/ knowledge of the ideas and positions of TZM.... Anyway, thanks for providing feedback and for your time and effort. I'm looking forward to reading all answers and comments on these inquiries. Warm regards and take care, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review your amendment for examples of 'repetitive links'. You have cited in one place seven references and in another, eleven, some with the most tenuous of connections. It is irrelevant that they "collectively... contain more information", their inclusion is dependent upon them directly and objectively supporting the material in the article. This has already been explained to you previously.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edits

"... The movement campaigns against the "monetary-market" economy which they argue should be replaced with a resource-based economy in which money would serve no purpose. The movement is critical of fractional reserve banking ..." This is confusing. Isn't the latter part of this quote somewhat redundant? Fractional-reserve banking is a subset of banking, which, in turn, is a subset of a monetary-market economy. Since the movement advocates against the monetary market economy - the superset - and argues for its replacement with an economy without money, then the movement automatically advocates for the abolition of subsets such as all forms of banking, including sub-subsets such as fractional reserve banking... I propose shortening the above to: "The movement advocates against the "monetary-market" economy which they argue should be replaced with a resource-based economy in which money would serve no purpose." Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Zeitgeist Movement was inspired by Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum,[2] the latter of which described The Venus Project as a possible solution." I'm confused by the term 'the latter of which'. What does 'the latter' refer to? Does it refer to the latter portion of the film, as opposed to the former portion of the movie? Or does it try to distinguish between Peter Joseph and his film? I think the sentence would be clearer if the term 'the latter of which' was removed entirely. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The descriptions/ analysis from Globes, TheMarker and the NYT are provided by the journalists; these citations cite the journalists, not TZM members. They cite what the journalists reported to their readers, not what the TZM members told the journalists. Also note that in the RT interviews the journalist (Lauren Lyster) makes specific allegations/ challenges (for example challenging the TZM member on utopia, technological unemployment, etc.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why were my additions to 'See Also' removed? These links to wiki pages satisfy wikipedia:see also. No explanation was provided for this arbitrary removal of valid material. This was not a proper action. A careful reading and close study of Anarchist communism, Communalism (political philosophy), Direct democracy and Technological unemployment would reveal that these come very close to describing TZM's ideas/ positions. So why were they removed? By the way, they were added separately originally, in a separate edit from, for example, the citing of journalistic sources. So even if there was an issue with the other edits, there's no excuse this time to delete these additions to 'See Also'. One cannot escape the thought that perhaps these wiki pages were not read at all (or perhaps not read properly, maybe there was a comprehension problem?) before a quick, convenient, easy reach for the 'delete' button.... Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that editors please study the materials carefully, go over them a few times to improve comprehension and understanding. Further study could help the reader realize that the citations are valid (verifiable). Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the allegations that the edits are 'promotional' and that the edits suffer from a 'sourcing problem' are absolutely ridiculous. These characterizations of the edits are baseless, unjustified and unsupported by the facts, since these published sources are independent and verifiable, and since these sources contain both a description of some of TZM's positions as well as severe criticism of these positions. And please see my comment above regarding the edits to 'See Also.' If anything, the rampant censorship on this page is promotional and problematic - promoting the POV of the censor(s), which deleted valid, verifiable citings from reliable indep. sources. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing 'rampant' with this article is the endless bullshit coming from the supporters of TZM. Frankly, if they are representative of the movement as a whole, it is unsurprising how little attention the movement gets. Endless whining about 'censorship', ludicrous conspiracy theories, and a complete inability to grasp the concept that this isn't TZMs article seem to me indicative of rampant lack of clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is fully agreed this should not be TZM's article about themselves. That's why I would like to read a careful explanation on why the edits were removed/ deleted. I think we would all also agree that dismissing citations from independent (non-TZM-affiliated), published, verifiable sources (The NYT, Globes, TheMarker, RT) by simply characterizing them as 'bullshit', 'promotional' or 'problematic', does not constitute a valid explanation as to why these citations were removed. The citations from these four sources satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. At least one editor of this page is/are still awaiting a rational, clear, convincing, well-supported explanation to justify why, exactly, these citations were removed. (And similarly, a convincing explanation is also needed for the removal of the links to wiki pages that were included under 'See Also' -- please see my longer comment above regarding the 'See Also' issue). Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why were 'see also links removed'? "A careful reading and close study of Anarchist communism, Communalism (political philosophy), Direct democracy and Technological unemployment would reveal that these come very close to describing TZM's ideas/ positions". Once again you are adding material based on your own opinion. Find sources that make the link between 'Anarchist communism' etc and TZM and we can consider their relevance. AS for the sources you'd cited, the question has to be, what were they being cited for? If this [1] revert is the one you are referring to, it seems to me that the sources were being used as a cover for yet more badly-written, unencyclopaedic promotional fluff. And does TZM really think that it invented the phrase "international bankers"? If proper sources are provided, anyone of reasonable competence should be able to explain what TZM stands for, from the sources themselves. And if such sources can't be found, the article cannot be justified. As I've already pointed out, published TZM material can be used to some extent - but only for what they explicitly say. If TZM claim to be anarcho-communists, for instance, we can quote them on it - as a statement of their claims, rather than as a factual assertion. Otherwise, nothing belongs in the article that cannot be verified from proper sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Regarding the issue of 'See Also', please note that your requirement to "Find sources that make the link between 'Anarchist communism' etc and TZM" is not part of wikipedia:see also. Instead, wikipedia:see also states: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." I'll be happy to provide such annotations, if necessary. Please also note that wikipedia:see also additionally states: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages." Based on all this, (as well as on wikipedia:Use common sense) I have still not seen a convincing argument on why the aforementioned links don't belong in the 'See Also' section.

Regarding the second issue, that of the removal of citations from verifiable, independent, published sources, it is claimed that "it seems to me that the sources were being used as a cover for yet more badly-written, unencyclopaedic promotional fluff." Again, this does not constitute a coherent, rational, convincing, fully-justified reasoning not to include the citations. As already indicated several times over the last 4 days, these citations cite what the journalists are reporting to their readers and not what TZM is telling the journalists. (By the way, TZM members are also quoted at length in these published articles, but none of the citations that were provided in the edits to this TZM page were based on quotes from TZM members; the edits were based strictly on what the journalists were describing or analyzing to their readers, in the journalists' words [not TZM's words]).

I'm not sure how I can respond to the allegation of 'cover for...' Is the editor indirectly accusing another editor of not acting in good faith, or is the editor making some another accusation of having some other ulterior motive? Or something else? Not sure.

As for the allegation of 'promotional fluff', may I refer the editor to Wikipedia:FLUFFYBUNNIES. (a) The published sources that have been deleted are independent of TZM, and (b) the descriptions and analysis of TZM's positions/ ideas provided in the deleted citations are verifiable. Both (a) and (b) negate the empty allegation of 'promotional fluff'. It is legitimate for an editor to have a POV of TZM's positions/ ideas that disagrees with the description and analysis provided by these particular independent journalists. If that is the case, this is not a sufficient justification to delete/ remove the citations from these verifiable, published sources; instead, any editor who has a different POV from the analysis and descriptions provided by the quoted/ cited journalists should, as editors have indicated many times on this page, find his/ her own verifiable, independent, published sources that present contrasting, differing sets of description and analysis, and cite from these sources.

Next, I don't know how to respond to the allegation of 'badly written' except to characterize it as an attempt at a personal insult that does not contribute to this conversation. A more constructive form of criticism or feedback would be to actually study the aforementioned verifiable, published sources and employ the editors' writing skills to improve upon any text which an editor may consider to be 'badly written'.

As for the allegation of 'unencyclopaedic', this is an extremely vague and generalized feedback/ criticism --- could the editor please be more specific (unless by 'unencyclopaedic' the editors means 'trivial fluff', which was addressed above).

Next: "And does TZM really think that it invented the phrase "international bankers"?" Um ... I'm not sure how to respond to this question, but I'll give it a try. As far as I know, no, TZM does not think it invented the phrase. I've seen the phrase used in the "Zeitgeist" film series. However, what I know about TZM's usage of the phrase is, of course, irrelevant - the only relevant issue is the words used by the journalist when he reported on the usage of the phrase. I'll gladly go over the original article, and over the citations from the journalist's description/ analysis of TZM, and try to re-ascertain and clarify what the journalist wrote, exactly, regarding the usage of the phrase 'international bankers' and how the phrase was used by the journalist vs. how the phrase was used by TZM, and I'll definitely consider the feedback provided here to improve the clarity and readability of the usage of the phrase to try to reduce/ eliminate any potential misunderstandings or confusion regarding 'international bankers'. I'll be happy to go several more times over the edit where the phrase is mentioned, and write a brief summary of my research on this talk page.

Next, the editor writes: "If proper sources are provided, anyone of reasonable competence should be able to explain what TZM stands for, from the sources themselves. And if such sources can't be found, the article cannot be justified. As I've already pointed out, published TZM material can be used to some extent - but only for what they explicitly say. If TZM claim to be anarcho-communists, for instance, we can quote them on it - as a statement of their claims, rather than as a factual assertion. Otherwise, nothing belongs in the article that cannot be verified from proper sources." Yes, I agree with all of the above. But is the editor implying that the sources listed above (NYT, Globes, TheMarker, RT) are improper, or that they are unverifiable? Not sure. If indeed it is implied the sources are improper or unverifiable, can the editor please explain why these sources are improper or unverifiable for this wiki page?

Next, the editor writes: "... from the sources themselves ..." This is confusing. Is it implied that, in general, wikipedia pages should restrict themselves to only providing links to (verifiable, of course) references, but refrain from providing relevant summaries/ descriptions/ analysis of the subject(s) of the wiki page, as discussed by the author of the source (in this case, the journalists)? Not sure if that's what is implied. Or is this implied only in particular, i.e., only regarding this wiki page, in a departure from the general?

"If such sources can't be found ...." But they have been found: they are listed above, and were included in the edits which have been removed/ deleted.

"... published TZM material can be used to some extent - but only for what they explicitly say. If TZM claim to be anarcho-communists, for instance, we can quote them on it - as a statement of their claims, rather than as a factual assertion." I'm in full agreement. (a) Again, please note the independent, verifiable, published resources listed above are definitely not published TZM material. (b) Yes, I fully agree we must make a clear distinction between a statement of TZM claims, as opposed to a factual assertion: we always must make this distinction abundantly clear. That's why, in my edits, I included, in addition to the independent, external, non-TZM-published material listed above, a citation from a TZM published material (The YouTube lecture by Jason Lord entitled 'Visualizing a System's Approach.') Based on both this lecture, as well as by TZM's response to a question in the RT interviews, I carefully wrote " ... the movement claims it does not believe in utopia and that, instead, it believes in a continuous, emergent, never-ending process ....'. The same applies to all my recent edits. I was very careful to use a neutral tone and include terms such as 'the movement claims,' 'TZM claims', 'in their view', 'they believe', etc.

But please also note that it can become extremely cumbersome, repetitious, tiresome and clunky to begin each fragment of a sentence, or even each sentence, with some variation of 'they claim that' or 'in their view'. Thus some sort of trade-off must be reached: Once an editor clearly, unequivocally, unambiguously establishes that the subject under discussion is what the movement believes, in subsequent sentences they should continue to make it clear they are describing the view of the movement, but the editor should also strive for clarity, readability, lack of "clunkiness" and the avoidance of tiresome, repetitious phrases. Here, if I may, could I make a suggestion. If a different editor feels that, at a critical point (or points) in the text, a qualifying phrase such as 'They believe that' or 'in their view', etc., is missing, then it may be a good idea, he/she should feel free to re-edit the text to insert the missing phrase. But that's very different from removing/ deleting the entire sentence, the entire paragraph and the entire citation/ description/ analysis, including all resources, leaving no trace of the originally contributed edit.

In summary of this lengthy response, at least one editor is still, four days later, waiting for a coherent, rational, well-supported, well-justified explanation as to why these citations (and 'See Also' links) don't belong on this wiki page. Thanks and warm regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Rather than writing long-winded screeds here that nobody is going to bother to read, how about giving us a short list of published sources which we can use to determine what TZM's politics are, so we can look at them for ourselves, and then come to a consensus as to how best to summarise them. And no, untranslated sources in Hebrew aren't much use. And we don't use copyright-violating links like the YouTube one appears to be as sources either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone just could not resist the temptation to lob yet another attempt at a personal insult ('long-winded screeds that nobody is going to read'). Again, this incivility does not contribute to the conversation (except in a negative way). The above lengthy post deconstructed every allegation/ complaint/ criticism provided, and, out of respect and compassion for the editor who posted the allegations/ feedback, and for the larger group of editors of this page, the above lengthy post attempted to fully address and respond to each and every item, point by point. Yet the response to my attempt at a comprehensive, in-depth, careful discourse was an insult.

OK. Now, regarding your specific suggestion: you already know perfectly well what the short list of sources would contain -- they are all the sources that have been removed/ deleted from the page over the last 4 days, and are fully listed in the link you provided in your previous post here on this talk page. Regarding the Hebrew articles, any editor can easily use a free online translation service (such as google translate, for example) to translate to english, and/or use Wikipedia:Translation to gain access to other potential translation sources. In the next few days, I will post the translations of the 2 Hebrew articles here on this talk page. (If any editor is aware of a more suitable location/ space on wikipedia to post such articles, please comment below.)

Moreover, I'm not sure what you mean by "copyright-violating links like the YouTube one appears to be" -- are you talking about the Jason Lord lecture Visualizing a Systems Approach? If that's the case, why do you think it appears to have violated copyright? Please provide some details. By the way, all YouTube videos that I sourced (Jason Lord, and the two RT interviews with TZM [which are also available on the RT website]) adhere to Standard YouTube Licenses - Creative Commons.

Finally, I am open to the suggestion of formally providing a short list of verifiable sources and using it to try to build consensus. But before I commit to formally agreeing, I would like to invite all editors of this page to comment on any and all aspects of this suggestion. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia pages before linking them, Wikipedia:Translation relates to requesting translations of articles of foreign-language Wikipedia articles into English: "Note that this page is not for requesting translations of copyrighted sources outside Wikipedia". As for copyright issues regarding YouTube, Wikipedia cannot take the declaration by the person submitting the video to YouTube that it doesn't violate copyright as sufficient evidence that it is legitimate - if there are any reasonable grounds for doubt over this, we don't link such sites. If you wish to cite a YouTube video in an article, you will almost certainly have to provide better evidence regarding its copyright status. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Andy's proposal is a good idea and I am glad that you are receptive to "providing a short list of verifiable sources" that you wish to include in the article. Large amounts of information are being added, sometimes poorly attributed, along with a host of links and sources which are not all suitable, making it difficult to isolate and preserve the positive additions. As a side note, you might find this article useful.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on the copyright issues and on paragraphs. (I've now broken my original lengthy posts into shorter paragraphs to improve readability).

And you are right, Wikipedia:Translation is not the right page. Sorry, my mistake. I believe the correct page is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (section on Foreign-language quotations). According to this page, if I understand it correctly, only direct quotations from our two Hebrew sources should appear in English translation. How would you prefer to proceed from here? We have two options: (a) Would you like to view the translations of only those sections that I used in my original citations on April 27, or (b) would you prefer to have access to the translations of the full text of the two Hebrew articles? My own preference would be for the first option, since translating the full text of the articles is very time consuming, and since the full text contains lengthy statements by TZM members, statements which might be pointless to translate because we ignore them, since we are not citing them on this page. Please advise as to your preference. Best, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at what Google translate makes of the article, I'm unsure what particular use it really is anyway. The paragraph it was used to source is basically repeating the statements of TZM supporters, rather than any actual analysis by Globes itself. Why de we need an article in Hebrew to source this? More to the point, doesn't TZM publish anything itself which actually explains its politics? We don't need secondary sources which tell us what TZM supporters advocate - we can cite the movement itself for this. There also seem to be contradictions between the views of TZM as described in Globes, [2] and those in the NYT article - [3] the latter seemingly portraying a world where "machines would control government and industry" (which incidentally hardly fits in with suggestions that TZM advocates anarchist communism). And both appear to be discussing the Venus project as being central to TZM - which as I understand it is no longer the case. Again, we need sources which clarify such matters. Maybe I should see if I can find some sources myself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A good resource to learn about TZM positions is the TZM Q&A (a link to which already exists on this wiki page). However we cannot rely on this Q&A page exclusively, because per wikipedia policies I believe we need to avoid self-published sources. In contrast, the Globes article and the TheMarker article are the kind of sources wikipedia policies prefer: verifiable and independent of TZM (non-affiliated with TZM). These are mainstream-media publications (in Israel), and again wikipedia generally prefers mainstream media sources. Globes is a financial/ politics journal mostly geared towards older, white, male, high-income, affluent readers. TheMarker is also a a financial/ politics journal but it is mostly geared towards younger, more ethnically diverse, both male and female, engineers/ scientists/ doctors and other professionals/ skilled workers/ etc., middle- to-higher-income readers.

From quickly browsing other wiki pages on policies regarding citing references/ sources, it seems the kind of potential contradictions you outlined are not rare --- they seem to be normal, a somewhat expected and relatively common occurrence. Please read my translation of the Globes article, it may actually show that the contradictions you alluded to may actually be much smaller than it seems. Regarding anarchist communism, from studying the TZM Q&A it seems TZM has a good deal of overlap with anarchist communism, but the two philosophies are not identical, which is one of the reasons anarchist communism was included in the 'See Also' section and not under, say, 'Activities' of TZM. Regarding the issue of the Venus Project, I suggest we not worry about the issue of the differences between TVP and TZM as it is not critical to the understanding of TZM's ideas: focusing on the differences, rather than the similarities, between TVP and TZM could potentially distract us from focusing our editing efforts on providing (verifiable) descriptions/ analysis of more important TZM positions/ ideas. For example, it may be more important to relay to the reader the fact that a resource-based economy is essentially the basis of both organizations. Best, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"A good resource to learn about TZM positions is the TZM Q&A" No, unfortunately not. Not because it is a primary source (which is perfectly acceptable in this context), but because it seems to consist of the same shallow and repetitious sloganizing that other sources have already reported. An encyclopaedic article about a political movement needs more than jargon about 'resource-based economies' and the like to actually pass on meaningful information to readers. As for your comments about what is and what isn't "critical to the understanding of TZM's ideas", says who? Yet again, you are trying to tell us what the article should be about without providing any sources to back it up. Why should we take the word of an anonymous contributor on this? We don't. If TZM are incapable of explaining their politics in plain English (which from my research seems to be the case), then Wikipedia isn't going to do it for them. Can I suggest, that as a TZM supporter (which I presume you are), you suggest that they find a literate supporter to actually explain in some sort of publication (without buzz-words and jargon), what it is that the movement is trying to achieve? So far, all I seem to be able to ascertain is that (a) they don't like the existing capitalist economic system, and (b) they want to replace it with something else based on 'the scientific method', and technology - but the form this 'something else' would take seems to veer from 'a dictatorship of the machinery' to anarcho-geekist utopianism, without ever actually being explicitly defined. Until TZM tell the world what they stand for in comprehensible language, Wikipedia can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"... the form this 'something else' would take seems to veer from 'a dictatorship of the machinery' to anarcho-geekist utopianism, without ever actually being explicitly defined. Until TZM tell the world what they stand for in comprehensible language, Wikipedia can't."

In the sequel, I'll list a large number of sources. Before rushing to respond that these sources are not verifiable and should be disqualified from citing on this wiki page, please note that I'm not implying that all, or any, of these sources should be directly cited on this TZM wiki page. I'm providing these sources/ references as part of my response to the comment above to help the editor find his own answers to his questions, not necessarily as a suggestion for inclusion on the page available to the general public. (End of Disclaimer.)

From spending many tens of hours (a) viewing the dozens of TZM lectures, documentaries, presentations, town-hall meetings, Q&A sessions (post town-hall meetings, post-presentations, etc.), (b) reading the materials on the TZM website (including e.g. their Q&A, the TZM blog postings, their newsletters, their weekly audio podcasts, etc.), (c) studying the references which were deleted from my April 27 edits, (d) translating the Hebrew articles into English (the translation of the TheMarker article will be posted in a few days), (e) studying the materials on The Venus Project website, (f) studying the book by Jacque Fresco, (g) and more, from a careful study of all these sources, it seems TZM does not claim to have all the details of all the solutions to all the world's problems. They seem to admit, in several different places, that the solutions they advocate are general, big-picture in nature. The movement seems to believe that its proposed solutions are more of an overview of the solution, a general description of the outline of the solutions, than an attempt to provide explicit details. They seem to claim they are an educational/ awareness organization that, at least up to date, has seemingly focused, they claim, mostly on trying to articulate what they believe is the problem, why they believe these are problems, what, in their view, is the impact of these problems on humanity, and a general overview of what they believe is the solution.

They seem to claim that the fine details of their proposed solutions, the more explicit details, should be worked out by qualified people --- engineers, scientists, physicians, skilled workers, teachers, artists, etc. --- and not by filmmakers (such as the creator of the Zeitgeist film series), not by supporters of TZM or TVP, and not by politicians, lawyers, bankers, corporate CEOs, etc. The movement seems to advocate that only people who have specific, proven, verifiable knowledge and skills in specific areas should contribute to these areas. TZM seems to claim that the process of providing the necessary details of the solutions should be the domain of the creative, innovative forces within humanity itself - and not the domain TZM. They also seem to believe that this process will be continuous, evolving, emergent, never-ending, without a finality. They seem to believe that the process of solving humanity's problems will be an adaptive process, always adapting to new innovations and new discoveries in science, technology, the arts, education, healthcare, etc. They seem to believe that, as a result of all of the above, nobody can provide the explicit details, indeed that nobody should provide the details; they seem to believe that it would be futile, impractical, impossible and a waste of time to attempt to articulate, at this time, the details of the solutions, because, as already mentioned above, they believe that the scientifically correct - i.e., scientific-method-based - solutions need to emerge naturally and evolve and adapt to rapid changes, as already mentioned above. Moreover, they seem to claim they believe in a flat (horizontal) method of decision making (similar, they seem to claim to believe, to an adhocracy, wikipedia, BSD, bottom-up decision making, etc.) and thus it seems they believe that it would be against their core principles to advocate for imposing, from above, any precise details of the solutions (for example, the precise details of the role of machines in decision making).

In summary, TZM seems to believe that they are trying to tell the world what they stand for in a comprehensible language (although they claim they are open to feedback in order to continue to improve the comprehension of their positions/ ideas). However, at the same time, TZM seems to believe that their solutions cannot be - moreover, should not be - too explicitly defined: they seem to believe that it is best to leave it up to you, and everybody else you know, and indeed everybody else in the world, all working cooperatively and in solidarity, to decide, in a truly democratic fashion, (but without the interference and limitations imposed, in their view, by financial considerations, or imposed by any form of top-down decision making, or imposed by any movements, including TZM), on more explicit definitions of their (currently more generalized) proposed solutions.

I hope this helps. But please note that, as explained above, an attempt to pin-point precisely, with almost-infinite precision, the explicit details of TZM's solutions, i.e., an attempt to remove all ambiguity and individual interpretation and individual understanding of TZM's solutions, is doomed to fail from the start, by definition, and would only result in further lengthy delay of the development of this wiki page. Wikipedia pages are not written to accomplish the impossible dream that each and every reader of the same page must reach the same exact understanding, insights and comprehension of the subject. Fully uniform understanding/ comprehension of Wikipedia subjects does not seem to be a goal of Wikipedia. Instead, from quickly browsing wiki policies/ rules/ regulations regarding citing references/ sources, it seems the kind of potential contradictions, potential lack of full comprehension of the topic, potential lack of full understanding of the subject, potential lack of full (100%) clarity, are not rare in Wikipedia. In other words, it seems that some reasonable level of potential ambiguity in Wikipedia subjects is normal, a somewhat expected and relatively common occurrence, and should not be used as a reason for wholesale, easily-accomplished, quick deletion of valid citations from verifiable, independent, published sources, and removal of valid additions to the 'See Also' section.

As I already mentioned, in the next few days I will post the translation of the TheMarker article. After that, in an effort to move the editing process forward instead of continuing to spend enormous amounts of time on responding to comments, I would like to invite all editors to propose specific citations and quotations [of the journalists, not TZM members] from our numerous existing verifiable sources for inclusion on this TZM wiki page. (I'm referring to the verifiable sources which have been deleted wholesale from my April 27 edits: the translations of the Globes and TheMarker articles, the NYT article, The HuffPo article, the 3 RT interviews, etc.)

Best, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to add to the article based on this translation? Bear in mind Andy's previous observations of apparent contradictions between sources, that this describes the position of the Venus project from which TZM has separated (so I am uncertain as to its current relevance), and that correct attribution will be necessary.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll soon propose a specific addition to the article based on the translation of the Globes and TheMarker references, at which time, editors are welcome to provide feedback. For example, if you wish to do so, you could, for example, insert some sort of qualifier regarding what the editor perceives as an apparent contradiction between sources, and/or, for example, some sort of qualifier regarding what he perceives as an apparent issue w.r.t. the Venus project. And yes, I agree, correct attribution will be necessary.

By the way, with respect to perception of the TVP issue, any quote or citation from the Globes translation will identify the Hebrew original and clearly state that the (Hebrew) original was published in 2010, which was prior to the separation between TVP and TZM; note the current version of this TZM wiki article states that "... The film described The Venus Project as a possible solution..." "...Until a split in 2011, the movement acted as the activist arm of The Venus Project, and still advocates for a global society where resources are sustainably shared...." Thus, the reader would be able to independently compare the info provided in the Globes reference to the info in the TheMarker reference, which was published in Jan. 2012, (and to the RT interviews in Sept. & Dec. 2011 and Feb. 2012) and the reader would be able to decide, for themselves, independently on their own, the current relevance of the material in the Globes reference.

Thus, I would suggest we consider waiting until I post the translation of the TheMarker article before we discuss the TZM/ TVP separation issue further.

(A minor issue: earlier I promised I'll get back to you on the issue of the term 'International Bankers'. In this case, the journalist was alluding to the fact that this term is part of the spirit of the times, i.e., of the Zeitgeist.)

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Feedback solicited

Feedback is solicited on the following suggested edit.

I propose the following be inserted inside 'Activities', as follows:

Until a split in 2011, the ....

The basic principles, ideas and positions of the movement are described/ discussed in the following sources:

The Zeitgeist Movement stages an annual event called ....

(The spaces between the reference numbers above will be removed, of course.)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the references, but I'm not sure what text you are suggesting be added. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The language is tautologous and should be reduced to "The positions..." If you are proposing insertion of that linkfarm-ish blob into the article for referencing, the 'external links' is the appropriate place for reference links.Ankh.Morpork 22:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Tom and Ankh, to clarify my suggestion above:

Activities

Until a split in 2011, the movement acted as the activist arm of The Venus Project, and still advocates for a global society where resources are sustainably shared, because they view the current economic system as the cause of the greatest social problems.

The positions of the movement are described/ discussed in the following sources:

The Zeitgeist Movement stages an annual event called "ZDay" in March. The first ZDay was on March 15, 2009. The main event in New York City had a sold-out crowd of around 900 at the Borough of Manhattan Community College. The 2010 event took place on March 13. A 6-hour live web cast of lectures from the movement's key figures took place in New York City. The 2011 main event was held in London, and the 2012 main event was held in Vancouver.

However, if I understand correctly, Ankh may be suggesting that the above proposed edit is improper. To address Ankh's feedback, as a next step, I could propose another set of suggested edits. (Of course, all other editors are invited to propose their own edits, if they wish to do so; for example, other editors may choose to [or may choose not to] base their suggested edits on the sources listed in the proposed edit above ...) Best, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The change seems to be the addition of "The positions of the movement are described/discussed in the following sources:" followed by half a dozen links. I don't see a reason for that. There are links to the movement's site in External links. The reader interested in the positions of the movement can follow them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. On a future date, I'll propose another set of suggested edits for inclusion in the 'Activities' section. My suggested edits will rely heavily on citations and quotations from the references listed above. If any editor is opposed to my citations from these verifiable, published, independent, secondary sources (with the exception of the Q&A, which is a primary source), I would like to ask that the editor please provide his own suggestion of alternative citations or quotes from these sources. However, if an editor is opposed to any citations or quotes from these verifiable secondary sources and feels these sources should not be used at all for citations or quotations in the 'Activities' section, I would like that editor to please explain. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Feedback is solicited on the recent WP:BRD cycle: the article has been revised with a suggested set of edits. All citations and quotes in the current set of proposed edits are from the New York Times, and only from the NYT.

[Future proposed edits will be based on citations from the remaining set of secondary sources listed above (Huffington Post, TheMarker, Globes, 5 RT interviews, ...). For now, I'm experimenting with basing each newly-proposed set of edits on citations from one, and only one, additional (verifiable, of course) source. This time it's the NYT; the second set of proposed edits will add citations from a second source to build on top of the first set of suggested edits; and so on.]

Best, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A second set of suggested edits has been posted, containing citations from the Huffington Post. Regretfully the proposed edit contains a citation overkill which vastly clutters the page, but this is done only to help editors (who might be interested in scrutinizing each and every cited word or phrase to ascertain its verifiability) to distinguish between citations from the NYT and the Huff Po (and, in future edits, TheMarker, Globes, RT, etc). The overkill/ clutter will be eliminated in the final version after citations from all (verifiable) sources are included in the article, as per WP:Citation overkill.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A third set of suggested edits has been posted, containing citations from the English translation of the Globes article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A fourth set of suggested edits has been posted, containing citations from the English translation of the TheMarker article.

Regretfully the proposed edit contains a citation overkill which vastly clutters the page, but this is done only to help editors (in case any editors might be interested in scrutinizing each and every cited word or phrase to ascertain its verifiability) to help them distinguish between citations from the NYT, the Huff Po, Globes, and TheMarker (and, in future edits, RT, etc). The overkill/ clutter will be cleaned-up in the final version after citations from all (verifiable) sources are included in the article, in accordance with WP:Citation overkill.

Note that all recent edits have been direct citations, including direct quotes, from verifiable, reliable, published secondary sources. However, in the past (e.g. April 27), after similar (but much smaller scale) citations from the same sources were posted to the article, they have been immediately reverted under the reason of "promotional material that has sourcing problems".

If any editors feels there are any perceived sourcing problems with the NYT, HuffPo, Globes, TheMarker or RT, feel free to discuss on this talk page. But any perceived problem is not a reason to delete the edits.

Additionally, please note that according to Wikipedia policies and regulations, sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.

"It is a frequent misunderstanding of the WP:NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The WP:NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of (Wikipedia) editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content. "

Neutrality - Further information: WP:NPOV "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say."

Perceived lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

"Editors have different ideas about how Wikipedia should look "today". Some want it to be as fault-free as possible, even if that means cutting mediocre content; others think that all but the most serious flaws should be allowed to stand so they can be improved.

"While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.

"Also, determining whether a claim is true or useful, particularly when few people know about the topic, often requires a more involved process to get the opinions of other editors. It's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page or at a relevant WikiProject. Discussing contentious claims helps editors to evaluate their accuracy and often leads to better sourcing and clearer phrasing.

"Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted."

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bob, I appreciate the feedback. I fully believe you have the best of intentions.

Please note that, as indicated in the (long-ish) comment above, deleting whole sections wholesale, without prior discussion, is not "the Wikipedia way". It is much better to discuss first on the talk page.

Did you get a chance to read my comment above before quickly deleting the section?

Yes, wikipedia editors' bias is a reason to delete (sections of or whole) articles, but are you aware that journalists' (perceived or real) bias is not a sufficient reason to delete (sections of) articles? [As long as the (secondary) sources are verifiable and reliable, which in this case they are.]

Could you please provide more details as to the reasoning behind your action, as I don't fully understand your reasoning for arbitrarily removing the 'Criticism' section without debate.

You wrote: "giant copypasta is bad. Giant cherrypicked copypasta is even worse."

Bob, did you even get a chance to read the lengthy discussion in the Talk page (on the Talk page of the TZM article), a discussion which took place over the last few months, and especially over the last 3 weeks, and did you fully read the four articles from which the 'Criticism' section was cited/ quoted?

You were not involved in the discussions on this Talk page at all, at least not over the last 3 (critical) weeks, which implies you may not be aware of the depth, subtleties and nuances of the discussion, and suddenly you show up out of nowhere and delete whole sections wholesale.

If you would have studied the Talk page and the articles carefully, you would have noticed the following:

• The copying and pasting was done because prior efforts to cite from these same four sources, without directly copying and pasting all text, were deleted immediately. So now even efforts to copy and paste directly, which are meant as a starting-point for other editors to go over and edit according to their own choices and editorial decisions, are deleted immediately. It would have been better to leave the section as is and let other editors, including yourself, edit the section and improve it.

• The 'Criticism' section begins with "Several publications discussed or analyzed various aspects of criticism of the Zeitgeist movement:" That is, I'm making it clear that these citations are not simply plain criticisms of TZM, but rather the four journalists' discussion and analysis of the criticism.

• As such, this is not "cherrypicked", because it contains ALL the criticism that I could find in the four articles, including all discussion and analysis of said criticism. Not a single piece of criticism was left unquoted, thus by definition this cannot be 'cherry picked.'

• It would have been much better:
  • if you went over the 'Criticism' section and edited it based on your editorial decisions/ style rather than removing the entire section, which removes the right of (potentially many) other editors to edit the section (a section that's not seen by the public at large is not available for improvement by many other editors beside the very few who seem to be active here)

• • if you would have explained your perception of the problems with the section, followed by calling, on the TZM talk page, for other editors to edit the section to shape the criticism of TZM according to their own insights/ research/ citations/ quotes. Something like this: "Below is the text of the section removed by Bob. Feedback on this is welcome, or, of course, all editors are welcome to go ahead and edit the section based on their own understanding of the four published articles cited below, (or any other verifiable, reliable source) ...."

Below is the text of the section removed by Bob. Feedback on this is welcome, or, of course, all editors are welcome to go ahead and edit the section based on their own understanding of the four published articles cited below (or other verifiable, reliable, secondary sources).

−

Edits (cont'd)

IjonTichyIjonTichy, please don't add these enormous walls of text to the article, or to the talk page for that matter. It might be easier to follow if you just made a small edit, like one simple sentence, and cited the source for it. Then let it sit for a day or two, so people can have a look at it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The page history is really hard to follow with these complex partial proposals, promises of other citations later, citations seemilgly without associated text, and self-reverts. Maybe working on a sub-page in your user space would be more convenient. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Tom, you completely, fully, willfully ignored my request above to discuss before taking any major actions, and instead you proceeded to perform your usual, routine, seemingly favorite, habitual action: easy, quick reach for the 'delete' button.

You also willfully ignored the explanation above that this deletion is in violation of wikipedia rules and regulations, and is not "The Wikipedia Way".

And your request for posting one sentence at a time is incredibly unrealistic, because at that rate, it would take years to add even a single paragraph to the article. Especially considering all your recent repeated, automatic deletions of citations from verifiable, reliable, mainstream, published, secondary sources.

In effect, your actions and your comments (which almost never seem to address the substance of my edits, only the style and other relatively minor, peripheral, marginal issues --- and, furthermore, you do not seem to have contributed any major, substantial, constructive edits [except for that pathetic attempt to cite from a source that redirects to the John Birch Society ]), your actions and your comments amount to nothing more than (intentional or unintentional - it does not matter at this relatively late point in time) delay tactics to prevent, or at least very significantly and unnecessarily delay, the full development of this article.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. If others like your edits, they'll restore them. Mostly it's just really difficult to understand what it is you're trying to do, assuming it isn't simply promote the Zeitgeist Movement. It does seem like working up something in your userspace might be helpful, but don't if you don't want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Feelings have nothing to do with this. My comments above were only based on cold facts and hard evidence. Which are also what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on.

If it's just a difficulty of understanding what it is I'm trying to do, why does it seem that you always take the easiest route - reaching for the convenient delete button? Why not do something more productive and challenging, such as actually read the four newspaper articles cited in my edits, and propose specific, detailed improvements/ enhancements to my edits?

If you have difficulty understanding my efforts to provide detailed comments after each of round of edits, why not ask for help from me, or other editors on this talk page, before deleting the edits?

Why not ask the greater wikipedia community for assistance? There are several ways to seek help on Wikipedia, and there are literally dozens of English-speaking editors, globally, who would have been happy to assist you to comprehend/ understand my edits (and my comments). (See the very top of this talk page for a link to resources providing help.)

Why did you delete the edits, despite the fact that Bob Rayner, --- who, based on his user page and list of awards seems to be a highly accomplished and experienced editor --- decided to specifically remove only a single section (the 'Criticism' section), leaving the remainder of the edits intact? Why did you not consult Bob before you rushed to delete? Bob seems to encourage questions and friendly discussion on his (extensive) talk page. Don't you think you could stand to gain something valuable from a conversation with such an experienced, accomplished editor who seems to love to share his knowledge and expertise - instead of conveniently reaching for the easy (non)-solution?

None of the above is designed to insult or injure you in any way. I'm sorry if I did. But it is important that it would be clearly understood that your actions, at least so far, have not been productive (to put it mildly) to the efforts to improve this article.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable, and that is not up to vote. We do not ever quote so much text from sources. The upper half of the Activities section is too extensive/promotional -- that kind of text goes on their website, not in an encyclopedia. (It's possibly a good start though. I'd vote for putting it in a draft page somewhere to work on it.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeraphine, thanks for the feedback.

Please note that, a few days ago, I tried to draft the first set of edits on this talk page, but the edits were messy, especially the list of references. (Please see the mess prior to the 'Break' section heading above). Also note that I've repeatedly asked for feedback over the last few days and received none (until you and Bob Rayner provided some today.)

What you are proposing is exactly what I quoted in my (long-ish) comment above: "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the WP:NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The WP:NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of (Wikipedia) editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content."

"Perceived lack of neutrality is not an excuse to delete." "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted."

I agree with you that the proposed edits should be reduced to a shorter version. And yes, my intention was to re-start the editing process which has been stalled for, it seems, many months. The extensive copying and pasting over the last few days was done because prior efforts to cite from these same four sources, without directly copying and pasting all text, were deleted immediately.

So I tried a different approach - copy and paste directly as much as possible (please see WP:SOURCEMINE) which was meant to mine the sources as a starting-point for myself (as well as all other editors) to go over and edit according to their own choices and editorial decisions.

I'm continuing to invite all editors to contribute to editing the article and improving it. My own work-plan over the next few days is to

* (a) reduce and shorten the article as much as possible,

* (b) clean-up the citation clutter as much as possible, and then

* (c) leave the GA or FA, etc., to other editors, whether they are currently active on this talk page or not (i.e., the wider community of present - and future - editors).

Since I'm not receiving any constructive feedback from the other so-called "active" so-called "editors" on this page (Tom Harrison, Ankh Morepork or AndyTheGrump), it would be a waste of time to wait until the article satisfies all the (mostly unreasonable and unrealistic) requirements of, say, these 3 "editors". It seems that so far, the only effect (intentional or not -- it does not matter anymore at this late stage) of these people has been to delay (indefinitely) the improvement and expansion of the article from its current miserable-looking, skeletal appearance.

Regretfully, almost all my interactions with these 3 particular editors have been mostly a giant waste of time --- they don't contribute anything concrete and valuable to enhancing the article. In effect, all they do is instantly block all attempts to improve the article, and then waste my time with pretend, empty, substance-free "conversations" on this talk page.

Thus, I anticipate that after I'm done with my work-plan above, I'll probably need to begin the process of dispute resolution. I'm asking for your (and Bob Rayner's) assistance with the dispute resolution process, as I'm unfamiliar with it (but I'm already reading on it).

(Acknowledgement: In the past, I did receive some decent feedback from Bob Rayner, and your own feedback above is also productive. It helped me formulate my work plan above.)

Best regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have completed the editing process. The edited version has been posted.

I'm not looking for perfection - I'm leaving the GA or FA, etc., to other editors. I'll be satisfied with a version that is just good enough to move forward to dispute resolution.

Please advise on the best way to proceed to dispute resolution based on your experience.

Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(updated 14:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

AfD of interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resource-based economic model. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 02:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

^This could really use some attention from editors who aren't on Wikipedia for the main purpose of promoting their views. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 04:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Picture and info-bar

Dear Bobrayner, from the first sentence of our article (and also from the main website of TZM, which states: "Mission Statement --- Founded in 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement is a Sustainability Advocacy Organization ..."), it would seem OK to include pictures of nature. Also, TZM advocates for a resource-based economy, and oceans are considered a resource.

Would it be OK with you if I re-instated the picture?

Was there something else about the picture that was problematic? If you feel it interfered with the text, I'll shift the picture to another location in the article.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits of 'See also', 'Further reading', 'External links', photos and portals

Too much material has been removed from these 3 (relatively non-major) sections, photos and portals. Based on reading the edit summaries, I believe that in some cases, there may be some misunderstanding, as several editors seem to have indicated that some of the material that was removed is not directly related to TZM, or not at all related to TZM, or has zero relation to TZM. Please note that everything that is related to RBE is related to TZM, even if it does not mention TZM explicitly. From viewing the many tens of hours of TZM videos (e.g. on their website and on their YouTube channel) and TZM television appearances, from listening to their audio broadcasts, from reading the posts on the TZM blog and from some of the published independent sources (e.g. TheMarker, Globes, and other sources), it appears that TZM members seem to try to make it very clear that RBE is more important than TZM.

Whenever I have time in the next few days or weeks, or whenever any other editor who may be interested may have time, I would like to re-instate a very significant portion (not all) of the material that was removed from these three sections, all 3 photos, and some of the portals.

For example, the terms 'renewable energy', 'sustainable development' and 'sustainability' appear several times in the article, and each appearance of these terms is supported by references to verifiable, reliable sources. Renewable energy, the natural world and sustainability of resources are key concepts of resource-based economy and thus are among the key defining characteristics of TZM. The natural world is also considered a resource (including, say, oceans). [And note that the logo of TZM, featured on the TZM article, is an image of Earth.] Thus, the 3 deleted photos are valid, relevant and appropriate to the article. The same goes for most of the portals that have been removed. (Ref [1], The HuffPo, mentions renewable (or renewability) 1 time, sustainable (or sustainability) 6 times. Ref [2], RBE - The Venus Project, mentions renewable (or renewability) 3 times, environment 2 times. Ref [3], The Palm Beach Post, mentions environment 2 times. Ref [5], TheMarker, mentions r 1 time, s 2 times, e 1 time. Ref [6], Globes, mentions r 1 time, s 1 time, r 1 time.)

For another example, the 'See also' links Criticism of capitalism and L. Susan Brown were included by previous consensus among several editors on this talk page (Ankh Morpork, AndyTheGrump, Tom harrison, and myself, among others).

As a third example, please note that the 'See also' style manual states:

• "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example: (a) Related person—made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005; Ischemia—restriction in blood supply."
  • Thus, editors who may wish to re-instate some of the links that have been removed should try to provide a brief annotations when necessary.
• "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number."
  • Obviously, I included the links in in the first place based on my editorial judgement and common sense.
  • Editors who may wish to re-instate links should probably consider not re-instating all the links that were removed.
• "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section."
  • Editors should, as a general rule, follow this guideline and check to make sure that in general they do not include links which appear in the body of the article.
• "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant."
  • Again, the fact that the links were included in the article in the first place implies that in the judgement of the editor(s) they were at least peripherally relevant, and the editor(s) wanted to enable readers to explore these topics. This includes links that are (at least peripherally) relevant to RBE (and not only to TZM).

If there are any concerns or other issues, I'll be glad to read your comments.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How about no? The removals seemed all valid to me. What exactly do you plan on reinstating? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The removals and deletions continued after you posted your comment above, so I'm not sure whether all the removals would still seem valid to you. (For example, see my note above on the 3 deleted images.)

In the next few weeks I'll be very busy with other projects and will not be able to contribute many detailed edits (although I may be able to contribute some, and I will continue to regularly monitor this article as well as other WP articles). I would like to invite other editors who have in the past contributed to efforts to improve RBE articles and may potentially be still interested in doing so (Zach Lipsitz? Arthurfragoso? Others?) to consider responding to Jeraphine's "challenge" by proposing specific edits on this talk page to continue to improve this article.

(By the way, if an editor is relatively new to Wikipedia and needs some assistance while continuing to develop this (or any other) WP article, you are welcome to post your questions on this talk page or on experienced editors' talk pages (or you may want to consider asking for help at the wp:helpdesk or to utilize other WP resources, etc.)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy, you are welcome to defend that the Unix variant BSD was linked in "See Also" together with Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. Come on IjonTichyIjonTichy. Defend it. Make my day. :-)

If you don't want to, then you can't treat the removals as a group. You instead need to bring up them one or a couple at a time for discussion. There was 63 See Also links. Personally I only removed those where it was blatantly obvious that the topics did not have even the most insanely remote relation whatsoever. It has been reduced even more since. Possibly the current list may be somewhat short, let's then discuss what you want to add back bit by bit.

"if an editor is relatively new to Wikipedia and needs some assistance while continuing to develop this (or any other) WP article" - Well that would be you, but you have explicitly rejected the help offered (in pretty much the rudest way possible). If you change your mind, I'm willing to help. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"The natural world is also considered a resource [by TZM]. Thus, the 3 deleted photos are valid, relevant and appropriate to the article. " - No. You can not put a picture of horse dung on an the article of a famous horseman, you can not put a picture of two fishes on the article of somebody born in the sign of Pisces, you can not insert a picture of a bus wheel in an article about trains, just because trains and buses are both forms of transportation.

And, you can not put a random picture of a solar power plant in an article about The Zeitgeist Movement, just because solar power plants are environmentally friendly, and TZM likes the environment. This is not a game of word associations, this is not Chinese whispers, this is an encyclopedia. Let's not make this article into the encyclopedic equivalent of word salad. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(Obviously the following annotations are too long and will be condensed in the final versions)

• BSD -- free resource(s); creative, high-quality production without monetary incentive; leaderless, non-hierarchical, flat org

• Anarchism and issues related to love and sex -- in several Q&A sessions following TZM lectures, members of the audience asked questions related to love, sex, LGBT rights, etc., in an RBE

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for your answer, but you are not even trying to explain what relation to the topic these two links have. (And BSD is neither leaderless or without monetary incentive, but there you go). --OpenFuture (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Those sections were incredibly huge and unwieldy. They needed to be trimmed. A large swath was removed. The burden of proof should be on the person re-introducing them. We can't just add in everything that might be tangentially related to the ZGM. For practical purposes it was just too huge and of no use to our readers. Pic the top absolutely most important and go with those.

In regards BSD and Anarchism and issues related to love and sex, those are far too tangential. If someone at one time asked a question about Jacques Cartier, does that mean we should have a link for him under see also? And remember, this article is not about a RBE. It's about the TZM's advocacy of a RBE. There's a huge difference. Criticism sections should be about TGM and their views. Not about the larger issues they bring up. This is the same as any other page. For instance, a religious organization could have a "criticism" sections and include anything that might potentially fall under the broader discussions relating to religion (which could be a lot of things). Same thing goes for Further Reading. If there's a book or article dealing with TGM, then add them. Adding sources that just talk about RBE or broader social or economic issues is too broad. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And shouldn't then the link be to Sex or something? What does anarchism and sex have to do with this? RBE is not anarchism, and TZM are not anarchists. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I vote we go IAR and include a See also link to Sexual intercourse on the next three random articles we each find. Because sex is peripherally relevant to everything. :D And in all seriousness, if there's a lot of relevant stuff then we should just draw a line somewhere, like, say, let's not go over ten See also links. It's not our duty to link to all remotely relevant topics, we should just have a small selection that the reader might find interesting. The list is not supposed to be comprehensive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits of Criticism section(s)

Jeraphine, RBE calls for the repeal of capitalism. That's why I included a (somewhat/relatively extensive) defense of capitalism. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We can't really get into the nitty-gritty of the whole thing, capitalism and its alternatives and all the related stuff are a HUGE topic on their own, we can't make this article into an essay about all this. The best course of action is to ONLY write material for this article based on sources that discuss the Zeitgeist movement (or TVP or RBE) itself -- because that way we know that we're not straying off topic and doing original research and original synthesis. A lot of the stuff currently in the Criticism of RBE section should be removed; of the sources used, most do not mention tzm/tvp/rbe. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive feedback. I would like to continue the conversation with you here, but before I do that, I would like to invite other interested editors to take this opportunity to discuss the recent edits. This way we may involve more editors instead of confining the discussion between you and me. Wikipedia is a community effort; let's use this community component.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A great deal of additional material has been removed over the last 1-2 days from the Criticism section(s) (by several editors). Please note the following from WP:Fringe theories: "... Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear." I'm concerned there may be a risk that the contextual relationship may have become significantly less clear.

Criticism of (various important aspects of) RBE is criticism of important aspects of TZM, even if the criticism does not directly mention RBE or TZM. Based on reading the edit summaries over the last 2 days, I believe that in some cases, it is possible that there may be some misunderstanding, as several editors seem to have indicated something along the line of that some of the material that was removed is not directly related to TZM. Please note that everything that is related to (various key aspects of) RBE is related to TZM, even if it does not mention RBE or TZM explicitly. Note that the second sentence of the lead-in section of this article states: "The movement seeks to provide education concerning their belief that the "monetary-market" economy should be replaced with a resource-based economy (RBE), ..."

From viewing the tens of hours of TZM videos (e.g. on their website and on their YouTube channel), from viewing all the TZM television appearances, from listening to the many hours of TZM audio broadcasts, from reading the posts on the TZM blog and from reading the published independent sources (e.g. TheMarker, Globes etc), it appears that TZM members seem to try to make it very clear that RBE is more important than TZM.

I suggest that (at least some) of the criticisms of (various key aspects of) RBE that were removed recently be re-instated into the article.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

They were not criticisms of RBE or TZM. One section was criticism of egalitarianism. RBE is not a uniquely egalitarian ideology, and nobody is has voiced criticism against TZM or RBE based on it being egalitarian. As such the section is a classic example of a "coat-rack", where the topic of the article is just an excise to discuss something completely unrelated.

In addition it gives the impression that the ideas and theories that TZM reject somehow is non-egalitarian, which of course is complete nonsense. Therefore the section is not only WP:Coatrack its' also WP:POV.

The same is relevant for the other three sections removed. None of them actually contained any criticism of TZM or RBE, and added a bias/POV to the article.

Under the criticism section of an article on The Zeitgeist Movement should be placed actual criticism of The Zeitgeist Movement. Not criticism against something else, just because you feel like writing about it. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's WP:Coatrack. Article should focus on Zeitgeist movement, and not all the tangential issues it raises. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Coatrack begins as follows: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject...." What is the specific tangentially related biased subject (or subjects) in the 'Criticism' section(s)?

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The "specific tangentially related biased subject (or subjects) in the 'Criticism' section(s)" are the topics that were removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RT TV "Criticism".

RT TV has asked loads of very good questions. Sure. But how is that criticism? It's questions. I assume the questions went unanswered, but it doesn't say so. Can that section be rescued somehow? As it is now it doesn't make any sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added the following to the article immediately before quoting the RT TV questions. I posted the additions to the article after you posted your comment, but regretfully I've neglected to come back here and post a comment before the RT TV questions were deleted. At the moment, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with the deletion of the questions. (I'll need some time to think about it.) But Here is my (belated, sorry) explanation of the rationale behind quoting the questions (as I said, I've incorporated this explanation into the article prior to the deletions, but neglected to notify editors on this talk page):

RT TV seems to have challenged RBE on being a utopian vision of society, and on the issue of work incentives in an RBE. (The quote below contains the full set of interview questions and comments, in order to present the relevant situational context): (Followed by quoting the questions)

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That addition does not answer my comment above, and neither did you. The section was still just a list of question. There was no answer and most importantly, no criticism. Your addition say that RT "seems to have challenged RBE". "Seems to"? Did they or did they not? The questions you listed certainly is no such challenge. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

All the RT interview questions were answered by TZM, but I excluded the answers to the RT questions. I was not sure whether it was proper to include the answers or not. And even if it was proper, it would have made the (already long) quotation considerably longer. I thought that, as you wrote, the questions were very good, so I wanted to present the questions and, if the reader of the article would be interested to hear the answers, the reader could watch the interview by going to the resources referenced at the end of the list of questions.

My impression (from watching the interview) is that yes, RT directly challenged RBE. For example, one of the RT questions is as follows: "But it sounds a little bit like (RBE) is a utopic vision of society. What is one example you have seen that you believe (that RBE) will work, because you have seen it happen?" This is, in my view, directly (but apparently gently) alleging that RBE is utopian, i.e., criticizing TZM.

Another RT question: "I don't want to go back to work the land. I love what I do. I'm a journalist. I enjoy it a lot. I'm not just going to give that up. So how do you actually make (RBE) happen?" In TZM's answer to the immediately preceding RT question, TZM stated that in an RBE, many current jobs will be eliminated, not only mundane jobs, but also entire sectors such as banking and advertising. So in this question, RT is (again, gently) alleging that TZM will face very serious difficulties convincing people to abandon jobs and careers that they enjoy.

And similarly for (some of, not all) the other questions in the interview. [Originally I included the full set of questions to maintain the proper context, as a reader might get the wrong impression without the full context.]

The interviewer was a woman (Lauren Lister); it is my impression that her style during the interview was, sometimes, confrontational; but even when she was so, she tended to be gentle, considerate, respectful and not in-your-face aggressive.

In other words, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that from reading the set of questions a reader of our article might not immediately conclude that RT criticized TZM, but, if a reader would choose to view the video of the interview, there is very good probability, in my view, that the reader may agree that indeed RT criticized TZM. Personally, I had to watch the interview numerous times before I convinced myself that indeed RT was criticizing RBE. In an effort to obtain a data point not influenced by my male bias and chauvinism, I asked my wife to watch the interview (without telling my wife why); after watching the interview my wife stated that it was obvious to her (my wife) that Lauren Lister was criticizing RBE/ TZM.

So here you go. Admittedly an ad-hoc, trial-and-error based, un-scientific method of analysis. I understand if you feel this is not a powerfully convincing argument, but I think there is very good probability RT (mildly and gently, but relatively firmly) criticized TZM.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, but to mention it here as criticism, we have to actually be able to present that criticism, and these questions did not do that. I do think we can expand the criticism section from how it looks now, though, but I'll have to look at that some other day. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you fully. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Prolix

This article is full of tedious promotional language like "a sustainable future where humanity is not united by religious or political ideology, but by the scientific method, venerated as the savior that can develop a system of human equality, thriving from the cooperation and balance of technology and nature" and "a world of abundance, where everything is available to everyone, a world where success is not determined by the digits in people's bank accounts." A very limited amount of that usefully tells a careful the reader something about the Movement, but there's far too much. Most of it needs to go, as do the over-long quotes. Also excessive are the external links other than one to the official site. Nor is this page part of a series on Automation, as a template says. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is part of the Outline of automation. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(The following comment is not related to the section titled "Criticism of resource-based economy" in the article. This comment is only about the 'Criticism' section, which used to be called 'Criticism in the mainstream media'.)

Several editors expressed the view that most, if not all, of the quotations in the Criticism section should be removed. I'm proposing the following paragraph, to replace the entire Criticism section:

The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Palm Beach Post, Globes, TheMarker, The Orlando Sentinel, RT TV, and TheMarkerTV discussed various aspects of criticism of the Zeitgeist movement, for example allegations of utopianism, reduced work incentives in an RBE and practical difficulties in a transition to an RBE. (In each case, members of the movement were given an opportunity to respond to the criticism.)

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Anti semitism

Thank you to everyone who contributes to the 'Criticism' section of the article. (Or to any section of the article.)

I would like to ask two questions (although the second question may not belong on this talk page):

1. Does criticism of the documentary Zeitgeist: The Movie belong in this article, or does it belong in the article Zeitgeist: The Movie?

(The following question probably belongs on the talk page of Zeitgeist: The Movie and not on this talk page):

2. Our other sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Palm Beach Post, the two Israeli business journals Globes and TheMarker, RT TV interviews and the Israeli TheMarker TV interview) did not characterize the documentary Zeitgeist: The Movie as anti-Jewish. If the documentary was (reasonably, not to mention widely) believed to be anti-Jewish within the (Hebrew-speaking, or English-speaking, or global) Jewish community, would it not be reasonable to assume that, at the very least, the two Israeli papers and the Israeli TV interview would characterize the movie as anti-Jewish? After all, the lede of our article on Israel states: "Israel is defined as a Jewish and Democratic State in its Basic Laws and is the world's only Jewish-majority state."

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Our other sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Palm Beach Post, the two Israeli business journals Globes and TheMarker, RT TV interviews and the Israeli TheMarker TV interview) did not characterize the documentary Zeitgeist: The Movie as anti-Jewish. Sources do not agree, citations do not always or even sometimes agree. Critical thinking is when different perspectives are sorted together for information, to be balanced and there are many sources that point to the Zeitgeist material and mainstream right wing conspiracy material for instance [4] and [5] , the Zeitgeist group is also based on the movie so it would be appropriate for information on the movie to be in both articles, not one or the other. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Sources do not always agree. I concur with that.

The two additional sources (numbered [5] and [6]) are blogs. According to WP policies, they are not reliable sources. Nor are the blogs and websites that write in support of TZM or RBE.

" ... the Zeitgeist group is also based on the movie ..." There is definitely an important connection between the first movie and TZM, but to say that TZM is based on the first movie, or any movie, is not precise. The phrase based on in this particular case can be open to a wide range of interpretations and misunderstandings. Moreover, our sources say TZM was established only after the release of Zeitgeist: Addendum, not immediately after Zeitgeist: The Movie.

" ... it would be appropriate for information on the movie to be in both articles, not one or the other."

The main body of the article already mentions the three Zeitgeist movies, and provides links to the movies, enabling the reader to explore further. From our lede: "The Zeitgeist Movement was inspired by Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum.[8]" (This citation is supported by a number of our sources, not only [8].) And our 'Activities' section mentions the films Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. These links provide information on all three movies, and accomplish the goal of the information being in the articles on the movies, as well as this article.

If we begin duplicating material between the article for the first movie and this article, why stop at the allegation of antisemitism? The article on the first movie has a relatively substantial 'criticism' section. Why not copy the entire 'criticism' section from the article on the first movie and paste it in this article? Then, why not copy the entire criticism section of the other two movies in the series, and paste them in this article?

Then, of course, you could foreseeably have an editor (such as myself, say, or anybody, for that matter) who would insist on copying and pasting all the 'positive things that were said about the three movies in our sources (for example, the NYT and Palm Beach Post, etc., wrote positive, laudatory remarks about the second film in the series).

And so on and so forth. I think you can see where this is going: this process of copying and pasting can continue until there is too much overlap between the four articles (our article, and the articles on the three movies), conflating the articles. That's why any criticism of any of the movies should be included in the article on that movie, not in this article. The fact that we mention the movies in the article, and provide links to the articles on the movies within the lede and body of our article, is sufficient.

There is also another issue. I'm not even sure whether Tablet is a reliable source. Perhaps a more experienced editor than me could comment on the issue of the reliability of Tablet? The Tablet says many negative things about TZM, ranging anywhere from common criticism that is supported by our set of reliable sources (RBE is utopianism, communism, an un-realistic system, ), but also some extremely negative things that are not supported, nor even mentioned, by our reliable sources. Extreme, paranoia-like accusations such as "The Zeitgeist movement is the first Internet-based apocalyptic cult, centered around a doomsday-proclaiming film and an ideology filled with classic anti-Semitic tropes .... A few days later, (a former TZM member) sent me a document recanting most of his charges and claiming that his conflicts with the organization had in fact been his fault. This did not make it seem less cult-like ... a 2007 documentary steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories ... (A very lengthy discussion of how Jared L. Loughner, the disturbed young man who allegedly shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was influenced by the first Zeitgeist movie) .... Others, myself included, have pointed out that the original Zeitgeist film is full of fringe right-wing ideas that have migrated toward the mainstream via the Tea Party [HOWEVER, note that she is lying --- the link she provided does not even mention Zeitgeist] ... a modern gloss on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ... Mullins hated Jews, but his references to Jews in the book are oblique. “It’s bait, written by one of the world’s most notorious anti-Semites to lead people into that analytical model,” says Berlet. Zeitgeist works the same way. Though it says nothing about Jews, its analysis mirrors classic anti-Semitic canards. ... Viewers attuned to anti-Semitic rhetoric would naturally conclude that Joseph was, too. ... The New York Times covered the inaugural Z-Day gathering in Manhattan, which attracted a sold-out crowd of around 900 to hear Joseph and Fresco speak. It was, wrote reporter Alan Feuer, “as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his ‘Imagine’ days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life. [BUT SHE conveniently neglects to include in her quote the next sentence by Alan Feuer of the NYT: "In other words, a not entirely inappropriate response to the Zeitgeist itself."] ... Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement ... a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia. ... "the filmmaker is a person who has a great energy and tremendous ignorance who inadvertently replicated the Nazi view" ... "

If Tablet is a reliable source, then how come none of our reliable sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel, Globes, TheMarker, RT Television, TheMarker Television), which include two Israeli publications and a Israeli TV channel, come even close to mentioning, not to say supporting, these extreme, crazy characterizations of TZM?

And another hint that Tablet is not a reliable source: With our set of reliable sources, in each and every case, members of the Zeitgeist movement were given a reasonable and fair opportunity to respond to criticism, and all these sources printed TZM's responses to critical allegations. Again, the Tablet stands out as an extreme exception: there is no indication whatsoever in the Tablet piece that the publication provided TZM with a chance to respond to these insane, bizarre, deranged allegations, or even that Tablet reviewed the many tens of hours of TZM videos to find counter-arguments to balance Tablet's lunatic, delirious accusations. The Tablet did not have even the basic decency to make an attempt to provide even a semblance of balance and fairness.

In summary, the Tablet piece has all the classic hallmarks of a hit-piece, with a biased and radical agenda, with no presumption of balance or objectivity. Is that the standard we want to lower Wikipedia to?

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Because you are an unabashed active member of the Zeitgeist group you obviously want to have the information look a certain way as an advocate. It is commonly known that the Zeitgeist group relied on information from conspiracy groups that are more or less against certain people that they think have undue control such as the Rothschild family, in other words people mentioned in the Zeitgeist films and especially the first one that has a litany of conspiracy group blame for the current failures of the system.

If Tablet is a reliable source, then how come none of our reliable sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel, Globes, TheMarker, RT Television, TheMarker Television), which include two Israeli publications and a Israeli TV channel, come even close to mentioning, not to say supporting, these extreme, crazy characterizations of TZM? I am now repeating myself. Sources and citations do not have to support one another on any articles. Each brings something to the table. Critical thinking can be used as different opinions and facts are woven together. Its difficult to read through your lengthy talk page comments which read almost like a blog. Could you shorten things please on this talk page? The section in question is a criticism section, and that means there is going to be critical information in it. Long, messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

0. The only reason my comments are long is that the piece in Tablet is very long, and there are many things wrong with it.

1. Please refrain from personal attacks. They do not contribute to the discussion. My two comments above have not attacked any editor, nor do I have any intention whatsoever to attack any editor. The only things I attacked in my comment above (and below) are the specific article in Tablet, and the author of the Tablet article, Michelle Goldberg. She has lied in the article, and she has concealed inconvenient truths, and she has distorted and twisted other truths, as I've shown above (and below). But I have not attacked, nor do I have any intention of attacking, any WP editor(s). On the contrary, I have complemented and encouraged and supported, and will continue to complement and encourage and support, all efforts to improve the 'criticism' section (as well as all sections of the article).

2. Criticism of the movie(s) belongs in the articles on the movies, not here. For the reasons I outlined above: conflating criticism of the movies with this article is likely to lead to serious escalation, edit wars, and all sorts of other highly undesirable consequences.

3. The main body of the article already mentions the three Zeitgeist movies, and provides links to the movies, enabling the reader to explore further.

4. If we begin duplicating material between the article for the first movie and this article, why only stop at Michelle Goldberg's unfounded accusation of anti-semitism? Once we open the door, it would be impossible to close it. Editors could justifiably demand that the entire criticism section of all 3 Zeitgeist movies be copied and pasted in this article.

5. Then, I would insist on copying all the positive things that were said about the three movies in our sources, and in all the sources on the articles on the article on the 3 movies, and pasting them in this article.

6. And so on and so forth. This process of copying and pasting can continue. That's why any criticism of any of the movies should be included in the article on that movie, not in this article.

7. The Tablet article is not reliable. It focuses mostly on extremely negative, paranoia-like criticisms that are not supported, nor even mentioned, by our reliable sources. Michelle Goldberg focuses mostly on wild, un-supported accusations of anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, followed by a lengthy discussion of how Jared L. Loughner was influenced by the first Zeitgeist movie. Michelle Goldberg then lies about what she wrote previously about the original Zeitgeist film, then she compares the first movie to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and she states empty, un-supported allegations accusing TZM of Jew-baiting, and more allegations accusing TZM of anti-Semitism piled on top of additional accusations of anti-semitism.

Goldberg then directly quotes the New York Times' article on the Zeitgeist movement but dishonestly, fraudulently neglecting to include in her quote any mention whatsoever of the following key sentences from the NYT article, because these sentences contradict her deeply biased, distorted, twisted POV:

• "In other words, a not entirely inappropriate response to the Zeitgeist itself."
• " ... some basic themes emerged: modern economics is a fraud; global debt will crush the planet; society itself is dying from the profit motive; and people ought to wise up to the fact that more than legislation — or presidential administrations — needs to change."
• " “Zeitgeist, the Movie” (released in 2007) and “Zeitgeist: Addendum” (released last fall) ... The former may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job” perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population, a point of view that Mr. Joseph said he has recently “moved away from.” Indeed, the second film, the focus of the event, was all but empty of such conspiratorial notions, directing its rhetoric and high production values toward posing a replacement for the evils of the banking system and a perilous economy of scarcity and debt."

Goldberg then piles on even more accusations, again accusing TZM of Jew-baiting, and ending with accusations that TZM holds a Nazi view.

8. None of our reliable sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel, Globes, TheMarker, RT Television, TheMarker Television), which include two Israeli publications and a Israeli TV channel, come even close to mentioning, not to say supporting, these extreme, crazy, fraudulent, mendacious, lie-based, distortion-based characterizations of TZM

9. None of the other criticisms of the first movie in reliable sources (Irish Times, etc.) support Goldberg's fraudulent, delusional accusations

10. Literally thousands of articles have been written in hundreds of highly reliable sources around the globe over the last 6 years accusing Wall Street (and global) bankers of malfeasance. This includes all major Israeli newspapers, almost all major American papers including the NYT, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe, Seattle Papers, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, international papers such as The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Independent (UK), other top newspapers and journals in the United Kingdom, and top papers and journals in France, spain, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Russia, China, and literally almost each and every country in the world.

If Michelle Goldberg's analysis is a reliable source, then the authors of all these articles in reliable sources are anti-semites and Nazis. And so are all the participants in Occupy Wall Street, etc.

11. Unlike all our reliable sources, Michelle Goldberg has conveniently neglected to provide TZM with sufficient opportunity to respond to Goldberg's insane, bizarre, deranged allegations; she has not even reviewed the many tens of hours of TZM videos to find counter-arguments to balance her lunatic, delirious accusations. She did not have even the basic decency to make an attempt to provide even a semblance of balance and fairness.

12. The Tablet piece by Goldberg has all the classic hallmarks of an un-supported hit-piece/ attack piece/ hack job, with a biased, fraudulent, dishonest and radical agenda. It is a clear attempt to profit from shrill, paranoia-based fear mongering and hate mongering, with no serious attempt at journalistic balance or objectivity.

13. Is that the standard we want to lower Wikipedia to?

I invite other editors to comment. And I re-iterate my compliments, respect and support for all WP editors.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As commented before endlessly repeating the same things in a lengthy rhetorical style goes in circles and makes the talk page difficult. 11. Unlike all our reliable sources, Michelle Goldberg has conveniently neglected to provide TZM with sufficient opportunity to respond to Goldberg's insane, bizarre, deranged allegations; she has not even reviewed the many tens of hours of TZM videos to find counter-arguments to balance her lunatic, delirious accusations. End Quote IjonTichyIjonTichy There is a problem here because, as an advocate member of Zeitgeist wanting to portray information in a certain way, it becomes one sided advocacy instead of just balanced information. Being unabashed in your endorsement of the abstract ideas and program of Zeitgeist does not make for a balanced article. There are hundreds of sources that say that Zeitgeist is based on far right principles from the original movie. The original movie is the source of the movement. That can be in the critical portion of the article. In 2009 a German social networking site, studiVZ, did ban Zeitgeist groups because of what they characterized as their implicit anti-Semitism. That was a news story at the time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. They do not contribute to the discussion. My two comments above (or below) have not attacked any editor, nor do I have any intention whatsoever to attack any editor. The only things I attacked in my comments above (and below) are the specific article in Tablet, and the author of the Tablet article, Michelle Goldberg. She has lied in the article, and she has concealed inconvenient truths, and she has distorted and twisted other truths, and she has broken other rules of journalism, as I've shown above (and below). But I have not attacked, nor do I have any intention of attacking, WP editor(s). On the contrary, I have complemented, encouraged and supported, and will continue to complement and encourage and support, all efforts to improve the 'criticism' section (as well as all sections of the article).

I do not have a problem with the following sentence and source: "In 2009 a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of what they characterized as their implicit anti-Semitism." I support the inclusion of that sentence and its supporting source (Zeitgeist Australia) in the article.

I have a problem with Michelle Goldberg's piece in Tablet. It is not a reliable source, for the reasons discussed in great detail above. The piece in Tablet should not be used as a source in any WP article, including this one, including the articles on the three Zeitgeist movies, and including all of Wikipedia.

I hate anti-semitism, racism, fascism, homophobia, fear- and hate-mongering against ethnic minorities, and any and all forms of discrimination. But the piece by Goldberg in Tablet does a dis-service to millions of people around the world fighting against anti-semitism and fascism and discrimination, for the reasons I outlined in detail above.

I invite other editors to comment. And I re-iterate my compliments, respect and support for WP editors.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate anti-semitism, racism, fascism, homophobia, fear- and hate-mongering against ethnic minorities, and any and all forms of discrimination. But the piece by Goldberg in Tablet does a dis-service to millions of people around the world fighting against anti-semitism and fascism and discrimination, for the reasons I outlined in detail above.

Just because you are an advocate of Zeitgeist and disagree with some one who is a respected journalist is not reason to turn the talk page into your personal blog. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of large amount of material

user 66.183.104.162 has vandalized the article. (The vandal, 66.183.104.162, wrote in their edit summary: "Dear god, what the? This is 99% directly copied from, or a minor re-phrasing of, the movement's official website.) (Tag: section blanking)" This edit summary by the vandal is not supported by any sources. All the content that was removed by the vandal is fully supported by our set of reliable sources, as was agreed by consensus. (This does not mean that the material the vandal deleted could not be further improved. For example, see the discussion in the section titled 'Prolix' above on this talk page.)

After I revert the vandalism, I'll try to restore the further edits that were made by editors following the vandalism.

By the way, I disagree with some (not all) of the edits that were made post-vandalism. But first, I will try to restore the edits that were made post-vandalism.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

They did not vandalize the article. Stop tossing around terms like spam, vandal, censorship. Because you are a member and advocate of Zeitgeist you are ruining this article with cut and paste ideology. user 66.183.104.162 did a good job of getting rid of the copy paste material you brought in. He improved the article. The article loses any reality when a member of the group itself just does party line pasting of information on it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

From the edit summary, that is exactly not vandalism. The anon specifically said in his edit summary that he was removing promotional language, overly close paraphrasing, and "inane" statements. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am the one who made those edits. I did not think I was work the effort to attempt to salvage the section I removed, as it was overwhelmingly, if not entirely, TZM party-line in TZM approved language, and I recognized it as what I've scanned over on the official website. I do not think my further edits can be considered controversial either. IjonTichyIjonTichy, I find it difficult to assume good faith when you are essentially conducting yourself as a TZM spin doctor. You to like using a lot charged words without actually backing up your assertions. I don't think I'm being uncivil in pointing this out, forgive me if I am, but I feel I have fair grounds. Zazaban (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the feedback from Tom harrison, it seems I was wrong to label Zazaban's edits as vandalism. My apologies. I changed the title of this talk-page section accordingly.

Thank you Zazaban for the feedback. An enormous amount of material was removed from the article. You explained that "I did not think I was work the effort to attempt to salvage the section I removed ..." However, from reading the talk page, it seems that, prior to your removal of the section, a large number of editors on this article have in fact formed a consensus that the section was indeed worth salvaging. (Each and every statement in the deleted section was verifiable and fully supported by reliable sources.) That's why there was a discussion in the 'Prolix' section on the talk page above. You can see from my comments in the 'Prolix' section that I did not express any objection to Tom harrison's numerous suggestions. (Except that I provided proof that the Automation template should remain.)

In fact, in the Prolix section, among other things, Tom harrison expressed his view, which was also the view of several other editors, that the quotes in the 'Criticism' section were overly long and needed to go. I responded to Tom's comment and removed all the quotes. After I removed the quotes, there was further discussion on the talk page, resulting, it seems, in a consensus that my removal of the quotes was OK.

I agree with Tom, and with you, that the article can be further improved, for example, as you seem to suggest, to improve the tone, style, neutrality, etc, and to remove prolix. I only disagree about the method of deleting an enormous amount of material which was well-sourced, fully verifiable and fully supported by reliable secondary sources.

I will restore the material that was removed, then I'll incorporate the edits that were made post-removal, then I suggest that both you and I sit back and let Tom harrison edit the article based on his comment in the 'Prolix' section. After Tom completes his edits, you and I can respond to Tom's edits on this talk page. How does that sound to you? I hope this is agreeable to you?

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

By the Prolix section, you mean where he says "Most of it needs to go"? I don't see any comment up there were anyone supports the huge copy-paste from the website. Also, I'm not entirely sure how the criticism section relates to what we're discussing. Zazaban (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Tom is referring to the Prolix needing to go. I don't think he means that most of the 'Mission' section is Prolix. (If he means that most [i.e., more than 50%] of the 'Mission' section is Prolix, I would disagree with him, but I am still open to having Tom edit the 'Mission' section. Tom, could you clarify your intentions?)

There was no copy-paste from the official TZM website, nor from any website. Everything in the 'Mission' section is verifiable, and fully supported by reliable secondary sources. (Only one primary source was used, the Venus Project page on resource-based economy. And everything in that TVP page on RBE is, again, fully supported by the secondary sources.) Each and every term, phrase, sentence, and paragraph is fully and directly verifiable to our collection of reliable sources: NYT, Huff Post, Palm Beach Post, TheMarker, Globes, Orlando Sentinel, RT TV interviews and TheMarker TV interview. Generally, the TZM website is not a reliable source. (Except in some exceptions; for example, prior to my involvement with this article, there was a consensus among editors to make some limited reference to the Q&A page on the TZM website.) I was very careful about that when I developed the 'Mission' section from a skeletal, un-encyclopedic version to something much closer to an encyclopedic version, because I received a great deal of guidance and direction in my edits from Ankh Morpork, AndyTheGrump, Tom harrison and BobRayner. I did not even look at the TZM website over the last 3 months. Why would I want to copy-paste from the TZM website, or any website, when these 4 editors were relentlessly breathing on my neck, watching each and every edit I made, and made it abundantly clear to me that, were I to copy-paste from primary sources, my edits would immediately be reverted?

Take a look at the history page of the article starting in mid-April 2012. You'll see that the 4 editors above have thought me a lesson over and over again, until I finally learned my lesson(s), and started to base all my edits, without exception, exclusively on citations from reliable sources. Once I was satisfied with my edits (all based on citations from good sources), I posted my edits to the article on 02:11, 27 May 2012. Following this, BobRayner, Jeraphine Gryphon, Tom harrison, OpenFuture, and Harizotoh9 made significant improvements to the article. After all these editors were done with their edits, we have apparently reached a wide consensus about article. (Following that, Earl King Jr. added some material, and I am currently engaged in a discussion on a disagreement on parts [not all] of these edits.)

Thus, Zazaban's very large deletion has removed a huge amount of material that was agreed to by consensus among a large number of editors: Ankh Morpork, AndytheGrump, Tom harrison, Bobrayner, Jeraphine Gryphon, OpenFuture, Harizotoh9, Arthurfragoso, and IjonTichy.

Of course, this does not mean the material could not be improved further, for example per Tom's suggestions.

(I only mentioned the 'Criticism' section because, in the Prolix section on this talk page, when Tom refers to the long quotes that need to be removed, he is referring to the long quotes in the 'Criticism' section. I removed the long quotes, so this is not an issue anymore. I brought up this example to prove that I'm open to feedback on all issues related to article revision and improvement.)

(By the way, two of our sources are in Hebrew. You probably already know the relevant WP policies regarding using quotes and citations from foreign-language sources in the English wikipedia, but just in case you are not yet familiar with these policies, you can find them on my user talk page.)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I went back to the consensus version, but also incorporated most edits that were made post the enormous deletion by Zazaban. For example, I included most of the edits by Earl King, but I did not include any attempts to delete verifiable citations from our set of reliable sources, and instead of these citations use references to the miserable, ugly, skeletal, un-encyclopedic page so-called Resource-based economy. Also note that the definition of the term 'Zeitgeist' in the first sentence of the lede is identical to that of Wikipedia itself. And regarding the term 'sustainable development' where Zazaban requested a clarification, I provided a clarification, and removed the clarify tags.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That does not get to the heart of this. You are using the article as a promotional platform with exactly the same party line that Zeitgeist uses and exactly the same syn. of original research they use, the same abstract ideology, etc. The talk page now is filled with huge circular arguments that are impossible to ponder because if an elaborate rationale that makes sense for members of the Zeitgeist group is the underpinning of the presentation then the presentation looks silly

IjonTichyIjonTichy it appears that as a dyed in the wool member of that group it is then shooting yourself in the foot by making the article a sing-song parody of Zeitgeist official website information and harming the article not helping. Critical thinking is absent and neutral presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

"Consensus version by Ankh, Andy, Tom, Bob, Jeraphine, OpenFuture, Harizotoh9, Arthur, and Ijon." -- I don't appreciate my name being used in such manner, I haven't specifically said that that version was fine by me. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The same goes for me. I haven't had time to look at this article properly yet. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Per above comments I have re-removed the additions. Zazaban (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeraphine and OpenFuture, you can see from my comments above that my use of the term 'consensus' does not imply that the article is fine, fixed and should not be edited further. I made it clear that the article could be improved further. I proposed to Zazaban to let Tom harrison edit the 'Mission' section, to remove what Tom termed prolix. I used the term 'consensus' to show that the 'consensus' editors I mentioned above (including both of you) could have easily removed all the material in the 'Mission' section during the same period of time that they (incl. you) edited the article to remove several other (large) portions of the article, but they did not remove the 'Mission' section in its entirety, although they could have. And to show that they (incl. you) had a much more cooperative approach. They (incl. you) were ruthless and brutal in their edits, but also fair. That is why I did not revert even a single edit of any of these editors. And to show that they (incl. you) did not use the removal of large portions of the material as an excuse to completely destroy the article by removing verifiable citations from highly reliable sources (especially in the lede) and turning the article into its current, skeletal, un-encyclopedic version. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet again you invent your own interpretations of policies or practices, in this case the term "consensus".

I don't think there is a consensus version of this article, and I neither support nor oppose this version. Your revert is not something I neither support nor oppose. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That I didn't revert it doesn't mean I support it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As a unabashed pro Zeitgeist editor IjonTichyIjonTichy that just reverted The Zeitgeist Movement article against all consensus and I do mean all consensus, I think you are not improving the article and some intervention about your editing the article should be made since as a type of spokes person for the so called movement you are only interested in special interest group edits and have ruined the objectivity and neutrality of the article over and over by returning information that is against consensus.

Sorry, but that is the pattern which is holding holding and holding and no amount of reasoned consensus on the talk page seems to dissuade you from edit warring your own Zeitgeist party line view of things. If any Admins or interested party's know a procedure to prohibit this to continue please start the process, because no amount of logic or suggestions is stopping IjonTichyIjonTichy from doing his thing here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Zazaban, I posted a version of the article for your review (I immediately reverted my edit). I removed material from the 'Mission' section to try to address your concerns (and Tom's concerns regarding prolix). Let me know what you think about my proposed edit. (Please try to be as specific as possible in your feedback so that I can continue to revise the article to try to reach a compromise with you.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on my latest edit from Jeraphine, OpenFuture, Tom Harrison, Arthur Fragoso, Reinventor098, 82.153.143.237, and Night of the Big Wind. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

user: 72.28.82.250 has removed my edits. In their edit summary, they stated there was a consensus on this article. However, from the recent discussion on this talk page, it seems abundantly obvious that at this time, there is no consensus whatsoever.

I'd still like to receive feedback on my latest edit from Jeraphine, OpenFuture, Tom Harrison, Arthur Fragoso, Reinventor098, 82.153.143.237, and Night of the Big Wind. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's long, promotional, and has too much empty rhetoric. The version from 13:27, 6 June 2012‎ is better. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Tom. I have revised based on your feedback and re-posted. Jeraphine, OpenFuture, Arthur Fragoso, Reinventor098, 82.153.143.237, and Night of the Big Wind, would you like to add to Tom's feedback? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Tablet

Tablet is not a reliable source. The full magazine is available online free of charge, and readers can receive it in their email-box daily. There are no advertisements. Who or what funds this so-called "magazine"? This is the link to Tablet's 'About Us' page. Next, the website of Nextbook Inc is very skeletal. It claims it is a non-profit, but it does not offer information about their funding source(s). I could not find any indication they have the kind of reasonably high journalistic standards demanded by Wikipedia as described in WP policies and guidelines (such as employing staff persons responsible for fact checking, dire consequences for employees if the paper loses its reputation, journalists who can lose their livelihoods if they don't adhere to high standards, etc).

Another (big) hint Tablet is not a reliable source is my point-by-point analysis of Michelle Goldberg's Tablet hit piece/ hack job/ hate- and fear-mongering job, given in my detailed comments in the 'Antisemitism' section on this talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a news magazine like any other. Michelle Goldberg is an established journalist. Tablet Magazine itself and Nextbook have been the subject of coverage in The Jerusalem Post, Newsweek, and The Boston Globe. Goldberg's article can be used as a reliable source, and should be more completely summarized here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Goldberg's piece is not good journalism, as explained in great detail in my comments in the 'Antisemitism' section. And I raised other issues - such as the source(s) of funding of Tablet, and whether they adhere to WP policies (employing people responsible for fact checking, etc). There are two issues here: the reliability of Tablet, and, even in the unlikely case Tablet is deemed reliable (say, by WP:DRN or by WP:RSN), the issue of the reliability of the particular piece by Goldberg on TZM. Antisemitism (and racism, etc. as I mentioned above in the Antisemitism section) are real, serious, and grave problems. But Goldberg's piece is nothing more than an ugly attempt to use TZM and the 3 movies as a coat-rack on which she hangs her effort to profit from blatant, obvious hate- and fear-mongering.

In fact, the current skeletal, un-encyclopedic version of this article is basically a coat-rack for all sorts of present (and future, as you are proposing) criticisms of TZM, based on unreliable sources such as Goldberg's disgusting, revolting, nauseating piece. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Your 'analysis' has been ignored out of embarrassment for you. It is a television-pundit-esque rant filled with cheap slander and excessive adjectives (I.E. "Goldberg's disgusting, revolting, nauseating piece," and "Goldberg's insane, bizarre, deranged allegations.") It is laughable almost to the point of self-satire. I would kindly suggest you stop referring to it as it can only possibly make you look worse. P.S. Why is a spokesperson for an anti-capitalist movement citing non-profit status and lack of advertisement as evidence of non-reliability? Zazaban (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-profit status and lack of advertisement are not necessary, nor sufficient, evidence of non-reliability. The only reason I mentioned them is because I was looking for the source of funding for the magazine, and I was articulating my thought-process. It turns out the source of funding is a private foundation set-up by the wife of a wealthy Wall-street investor who passed away. The more important issue is that I've not seen any evidence that Tablet adheres to the journalistic standards described in WP policies (fact-checking, etc. etc.)

By the way, I posted a version of the article for your review (I immediately reverted my edit). I removed material from the 'Mission' section to try to address your concerns (and Tom's concerns regarding prolix). Let me know what you think about my proposed edit. (Please try to be as specific as possible in your feedback so that you and I can work on this to try to reach a compromise.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy is not going to let up, if history is an indicator and continues go against consensus. A topic ban is appropriate since the aggravating and annoying insistence (edit warring) of using information against consensus and tailoring the article to be a non neutral 'arm' of Zeitgeist information, does not seems to change, no matter what. The same arguments he uses over and over and over whether people agree or not and restates in the article the same anti consensus material. I am clueless of how to topic ban works, and do not want to initiate that, but am making the suggestion now that it be done since the talk page seems to be IjonTichyIjonTichy's blog now and arguments of one thing or another, do not work on this person, or have not. Its a pity because the last good version of the article did a good job of the history and information of Zeitgeist, much better than the IjonTichyIjonTichy's version which is almost comical in its party line spokesperson attitude. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are embarrassing yourself with this baseless rant. Tablet Magazine is obviously as an reliable source as any of the other journalistic sources used in this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion on RSN, Tablet is indeed reliable. However, reliability is only a necessary condition - it is not a sufficient condition for inclusion in the article. The Tablet article's extreme accusations are not supported by any of our reliable sources, including 3 Israeli sources. Thus, the Tablet piece represents not only a minority view on TZM, but an extremely small minority view. Per WP policies and guidelines, significant minority views should be at least mentioned, without giving them undue weight; but the inclusion of extremely small minority views that are not supported, nor even mentioned, in other reliable sources, should, generally, not be included in the article.

Until this issue is discussed and resolved in full, any and all claims in the article supported by the Tablet fear-mongering piece have to be tagged with "undue weight" tags, at the very least. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate Goldberg's concerns with the associations between anti Semitism and anti NWO because the two notions have been married before in the past. Theories of the illuminati or elite controlling class have often been pointed at the Jews for hateful, untrue anti-Semitic purposes. It’s also likely that there are a number of ALEX JONES fans or 911 truthers who are fans of this paradigm.

However even if the origin of these movements were founded in early European anti-Semitism or in the case of the 911 conspiracy more recently with certain anti-Zionist groups, it seems to me that most of the Z'ers do not have anything more to say about Jewish people than any other demographic. It seems to me they're humanist in philosophy. My impression is they are people terrified of a fascist tyrannical situation, not completely unlike Nazi Germany, developing within the western power structure fueled by the global corporate/ military/ prison/ surveillance industrial complex. Now that technology has increased our ability to move information it seems to be just as much a frontier of openness freedom and hope as it does seem, to many people, a possibility for massive pervasive control over masses of humans.

It seems that the difference here is that TZM's notion of new global socio-economic system vs the globalist one-world government is that in the view of the movement, the one-world global system is achieved out of coercion and social stratification as groups continue to fight one another calling themselves socialists, repubs, dems, Muslims, or Jews rather than unifying under their common humanity and same needs for self sustaining ecology. It seems that TZM is more about pointing out how humanity could live much better if we all had each other's backs instead of living in a rat race. It seems to argue that resources can and should be utilized in a scientific way. It also argues that a civilization that hands out scholarships with one hand and holds the chains to some pit bulls in the other is not civilized at all. These are the concerns of a generation growing up into ecocide and corporate imperialism; the movement does not seem to be about anti-Semitism. That's why anti-semitism was not even mentioned in any of our reliable sources.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of The Zeitgeist Movement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored in the future. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

After skimming this page I get the impression it's just the way he talks. Zazaban (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement supported by this source does not form a view at all. It makes a factual statement: That TZM has been criticized for a perceived antisemitism. That's not a view in any ordinary sense. The statement isn't that TZM is anti-semitic. That *would* be a view, but this case isn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits

The statement supported by this source does not form a view at all. It makes a factual statement: That TZM has been criticized for a perceived antisemitism. That's not a view in any ordinary sense. The statement isn't that TZM is anti-semitic. That *would* be a view, but this case isn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

1. I agree with OpenFuture fully. The statements relating to allegations of anti-semitism are factual statements. Question: What about the importance of the factual statements, i.e., their prominence? Is the fact that they are factual statements only a necessary condition for inclusion in the article, or both a necessary and a sufficient condition for inclusion in our article? If it is not a sufficient condition, do we need to remove the factual statement from the article? The factual statements are not prominent; they are not supported by any of our reliable sources (NYT, Huffington Post, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel, Globes (Israel), TheMarker (Israel), 5 RT TV interviews, and a TheMarker TV interview), including three Israeli sources. Until this issue is discussed and resolved in full, any and all claims related to serious allegations of anti-semitism (or other serious allegations/ controversies) in the article have to be removed, or, at the very least, tagged with "undue weight - discuss" tags.

2. An increasing number of Zeitgeist movement members are moving away from using the term RBE, including some of the main spokespersons for the movement. For example, in several recent lectures, presentations or conversations over the last 12 months, Peter Joseph stated he is moving away from the term 'resource based economy' and instead using generic terms such as 'a new global system', 'an alternative system' etc. Please see my most recent edits of the article. You'll notice they do not contain the term 'resource-based economy', nor its abbreviation, RBE.

3. From WP:LEDE: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects .... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview ....". The most important aspect of TZM is this: "A holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet.". This phrase must be included in our lead, because this is the most important core idea, the most important fundamental principle of TZM: that, for example, Tom harrison "owns" all the resources on the planet, making him an enormously wealthy person. The only condition is that he share this wealth equitably with everyone else on the planet, making everybody else on the planet also enormously wealthy. Any WP editor can choose to laugh at this idea, ridicule it, think it is delusional nonsense, think it is promotional hype, and think it is empty rhetoric. The thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions of all WP editors are valid and important. I recognize and acknowledge thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions. But this is the most important aspect of TZM, and thus it must be included in the lead of our article. It is the basis of everything TZM stands upon. Everything else about TZM follows from this key idea, is based upon this idea and builds upon this idea. This central idea is verified by the following quotes from our reliable sources:

From The Huffington Post: "... the world's resources would be considered as the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples ..."

From The Venus Project: "... a holistic socio-economic system in which ... all resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few ..."

From the Palm Beach Post: "... In this world, we all are equal because the planet's resources belong to everyone, not a select few ..."

This is the most important aspect of TZM because, in TZM's view, once everyone on the planet "owns" everything on the planet equitably, there would be no need for money, class, or different countries/ states. That's why in my lead, the most important aspect of TZM is followed by the following paragraph, which is, again, based on verifiable citations from our set of reliable sources: "This system would be a moneyless, classless, and stateless global system in which money, debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive would be eliminated. Human needs would be supplied for everyone. Resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through the technological potential of sustainable development." [I added the explanation "economic development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" only later, to satisfy Zazaban's request for clarification. This clarification may not be needed, since readers can find it in the article on sustainable development ].

The next paragraph in my lead continues to build on the most important core aspect of TZM (again, everything based directly on verifiable citations from our reliable sources): "This global socio-economic system is based on the movement's belief that the intelligent application of advanced science and technology can provide a high, and sustainable, standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants. The movement believes the current general practice around the globe is based on rationing resources through monetary methods; thus, in the movement's view, this practice is irrelevant and counterproductive to humanity's survival."

If there is any phrase or sentence that you feel should be modified, please comment, and please try to be as specific as possible, so that I can continue to improve the Lead of our article.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article IjonTichyIjonTichy. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. As a member of the Zeitgeist group your view and your edits are promotional and use the same original research and syn that the group in question uses. Just because you belong to Zeitgeist does not mean you have to use their point of view to present them. That destroys credibility of the article. That also is how it is that your edits are rejected on the talk page and on the article. I think it is fair to say that your going to be reverted because your edits are not improving the article and conflict with neutral presentation. It seems like any strategy including making up personal attacks is part of your editing process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_behavior_by_Earl_King_Jr. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

Based on my cursory review of this Talk page and the article, and the discussion at ANI, here are my suggestions. First, editors should focus on content, not on each other's conduct. That is particularly true for Earl King. Second, posts should be shorter and not as repetitive. That is particularly true for Ijon. Third, it is less important what TZM says about itself than what secondary sources say about TZM. The WP article is not a platform for TZM to gush its views. With that point in mind, I am going to revert Ijon's latest changes to the article, which seem to me to violate that point and to go against the consensus on this page. Finally, if editors cannot agree on the content of the article, take it to WP:DRN or some other content-based forum in WP:DR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems there is no consensus on this page. Several editors expressed objection to the assumption of consensus. Please see the 'consensus' section above.

In my last comment above I supported the changes with quotations from the Huffington Post, The Venus Project, and the Palm Beach Post. So my edits were neutral, verifiable by citations from reliable sources.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for your changes above, Ijon. I suggest that any substantive changes be made in smaller increments and examined here on the Talk page before they are made to the article. I would start with the body of the article as the lead is only supposed to be a summmary of the body's highlights.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair Bbb23. The edit that you restored is the last best neutral version of the article that has been, if not endorsed, at least left by other editors and commented positively on, because of its neutral presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In my view the first place to start is the Activities section. As a reader, I have almost no idea what it means. The first two sentences are marginally comprehensible, but the last sentence is meaningless to me. And even the first sentence begins as if the reader knows the history of the movement. There needs to be some material pre-2011 that describes what the "ideas from The Venus Project" are - a wikilink isn't good enough. Then, something can be said about the "split" and what it means. The Z-Day subsection is mostly a piece of fluff and isn't helpful to understanding what TZM does.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree Bbb23 with your suggestions. But the reason the Activities section is unclear and confusing is exactly because the Lead section is not good (see my detailed comment above on how to improve the 'Lead' section), and because everything I wrote in the 'Mission' section has been deleted. The 'Mission' section contained the material that you alluded to from pre-2011 that describes the ideas. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's try not to refer back to previous discussions. Not that they aren't necessarily relevant, but it's too confusing and rehashes things. So, forget what you think the Mission section was supposed to achieve. Forget the improvements to the lead for the moment, which can come later. Just focus on the Activities section and think of it, not as event-driven, but as an historical and "current" view of what TZM is. So, if you have material you want to add/change to that section, put it here first and others can look at it. Remember, although some non-controversial material about TZM's views can come from TZM itself, the best is for TZM to be presented through the eyes of reliable secondary sources. And don't give lots of reasons why you think your version is good, just let people look at it. BTW, Ijon is not the only editor who should be suggesting changes to the section. Others can and should do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

All the edits I discussed on the talk page and/or posted to the article were always, without exception, supported by reliable secondary sources. Regardless, almost all my edits have been deleted -- with the exception of my contributions to the 'Criticism' section, none of which were deleted. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I placed "undue weight" tags in the 'Criticism' section per discussion above and per discussion on DRN; Copy-pasted explanation of 'sustainable development' from WP article on same, in order to remove the 'clarification' tag; and contributed several minor edits. My edits have been deleted by Earl King Jr. I reverted his deletion. In his edit summary he claimed there is consensus. Please note that based on the discussion in the 'Consensus' section above, the only consensus is that there is no consensus at this time. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No so. There is consensus that the Tablet and Michelle Goldberg are reliable sources. There are lots and lots of other sources for that information [[6]] [[7]] but its probably best not to over cite that material Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Earl, the issue is not reliability. I have indicated a few days ago that I accept that Tablet is reliable. And the two sources that you linked to in your comment are blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources. And besides, for every blog that you can provide that criticizes TZM, I can provide a counter-blog that is very supportive of TZM and that provides a rebuttal of the criticism in your blog. But, as I said, all blogs are unreliable. For example, I could site the Tablet readers' comments on Goldberg's Tablet piece. Most of them disagree with Goldberg's accusations against TZM. But again these readers' comments are unreliable.

The issue is weight. WP policies clearly state that views (or statements of fact that point to the views, etc.) that are (or represent) a significant, substantial and a prominent minority should be considered for inclusion in the article. But extremely small, marginal, insignificant, minority views (or statements of fact, etc.) should not be included. Accusations of anti-semitism do not have sufficient weight for inclusion. The NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker regularly and extensively report on overt and covert anti-semitism around the globe, helping expose the ugly disease of anti-semitism, rooting it out and attacking it. If anti-semitism was of substantial minority significance to TZM, these reliable sources would have discussed it in detail. But they did not even mention it.

Also, Jesse Walker's criticism of the movie belongs in the article on the movie, not here. It is redundant here, because PJ's inane, childish, silly 9/11 conspiracy theory is already discussed in the NYT, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, etc.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the movement and it's opinions are largely based on the movies, I think some criticism of the fundamentals of the movie remains relevant to this article. It should of course remain short and to the point. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've added a response from the Australian website about the 2009 German ban. And, Ijon, I suggest you strike your allegations about the Jewish readership of various publications. It's offensive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean it to be offensive. I'm Jewish, and I lived in Israel the first 22 years of my life, including 3 years of military service. I frequently read these publications, as do many members of my extended family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. I was simply stating the well known fact that New York and Florida have relatively high concentrations of Jewish people (relative to other states in the US and Canada) and many of them read the NYT, Huff Po and Palm Beach Po.

If despite of this comment you still feel I should strike let me know and I will. I trust your advice. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I still think you should strike it. Without actual evidence to back it up, you shouldn't say it. Similar comments have been interpreted as antisemitic. It also has at best marginal relevance to anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I replaced it with this alternative explanation: The NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker regularly and extensively report on overt and covert anti-semitism around the globe, helping expose the ugly disease of anti-semitism, rooting it out and attacking it. If anti-semitism was of substantial minority significance to TZM, these reliable sources would have discussed it in detail. But they did not even mention it. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it's a bit over-the-top, but it avoids the inference of antisemitism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

YouTube citations

YouTube citations are problematic and rarely a good idea to use as sources. Some are probable copyright violations. Unless the copyright holder has an official channel, they can't be used. Others are just unreliable. Thus, the two YouTube cites used by Earl for Fresco and for Joseph were posted to YouTube, not by either of the alleged speakers, but by others. There is no way to authenticate such material. It's the equivalent of a personal blog using YouTube as the communicator. Also, as an aside, in terms of the last edit by Earl, Fresco comes out of nowhere. Material has to have enough context so the reader can understand what is being said.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K. Maybe the same information is out there in video but with more clear authorship and context in the other case. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Video would probably have the same problem as audio with static pictures. Can't more traditional secondary sources be found for the material? I know you're trying to help but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In this day and age people relate and make video information more than say written essay information especially in internet 'movements', or so it seems. That may be a sign of the times, so maybe it would be harder to find written comments by those people. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How about you see what you can find and then run it by here first before adding it to the article? Otherwise, it will look like we're edit-warring, which isn't good for either of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No way are we editing warring. Your probably right that the Youtube stuff is not a good citation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward (Continued)

In response to Bbb23's suggestion on the DRN, my previous 'Mission' section was based on extensive verifiable citations from the HP piece, as well as citations from our other sources. I invite editors to very substantially and very deeply revise this section for neutrality, substance, and whenever and whatever you feel needs revision, with the ultimate goal of inclusion of the (vastly, brutally) revised version in the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In numerous comments on the talk page I indicated my previous 'Mission' section was something like a rough draft. The only good thing about it was that it was based on verifiable citations from the reliable sources. That's why I invited editors to edit it and I suggested that editors be brutal with it and edit it mercilessly. I fully anticipated that the final version would be very different than this rough draft. It was part of a (clumsy, perhaps) attempt by a newbie editor (me) to move the editing process forward, after the process has not progressed for years (I'm not exaggerating, take a look at the history page of the article). At least this (ugly) edit helped attract a bunch of new and talented editors to the article, who are now, under the guidance and suggestions of Bbb23, helping bring our article closer to an encyclopedic entry. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this 'Mission' section? (Of course, the new section title would not be 'Mission'.) Automation seems to be highly important to the movement. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing something new. How about you start at the beginning (2008) and proceed forward. Explain who founded the movement and what its original intent was, and then how it evolved. Also, some mention should be made of the different subchapters around the world and whether the organization was or is centrally run or whether it's splintered. Don't start with the 2011 split. Make it chronologically linear.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to Bbb23's suggestion, I'm proposing the following very rough draft. I suggest editors not waste their time, or mine, attacking me for this draft -- instead, redirect your energies to vastly, broadly and deeply improving this first rough draft.

"History"

After Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus Project, viewed Zeitgeist: The Movie in 2007, he reached out to the film's director, Peter Joseph, and turned Joseph's attention to some of Fresco's books that center on the idea of a new global economy. Within that idea, Joseph felt he had the ability to answer the questions his film posited. In 2008, Joseph released Zeitgeist: Addendum, featuring The Venus Project, at which point Zeitgeist grew into a full scale movement. Joseph released the movement’s third film, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in January 2011. As of 2011, the movement has hundreds of thousands of members worldwide in hundreds of branches operating independently and autonomously in tens of countries around the world.

"Structure and Processes"

"Chapters "

The movement says its chapters are regional member groups, organized in tiers: International—(countries), State/ Province—(regional distinctions within a given country), and City/ Town—(regional distinctions within a given State or Province). Chapters enable communication among its members, along with other chapters. Periodic meetings are conducted in live and/or virtual (online) settings along with taking part in regional or global events and actions.

"Teams"

The movement says teams are groups of members working with specific projects. Teams generally take two forms: global teams and regional teams. Global teams work on central movement projects which relate to the entire global organization, such as liguistic team, press release team, technology team, lecture team, etc. Regional teams are typically independent of global assessment and are created by the chapter.

"Projects"

The movement says any task of relevant interest agreed upon and set forth by a team, either regional or global. These often include newsletters, events or charity actions.

"Coordinators"

The movement says these are organizers/ representatives for each chapter or team, the point people and basic operation oversight organizers who work with a chapter or team on communication and any related administrative issues. They are not leaders or authorities or decision makers. They are equal in relevance to other members of the respective chapter/ team. They volunteer their time for the sake of relaying consensus information from and to their chapter/ team, along with often taking the initiative for respective projects. Global team coordinators are also not decision-making authorities but, again, volunteer helpers to make sure the processes of each team are going smoothly.

"Fundraising"

The movement says it operates on the basis of time dedication, and not monetary dedication. No chapter is allowed to take donations. Overall, the movement deliberately operates on a personal contribution, volunteer model. However, there are several basic exceptions, discussed in .

"Activities"

TZM views itself as a global grassroots movement in the continuum of social change. The movement says it is trying to point out that what society is doing is not sustainable, and needs to change. The key idea is to share all the world's resources equitably among all the people, and basing all decisions initially on resources while learning to maximize the efficiency of resources through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development (economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come). In the movement's view, automated labor would be perfected on a mass scale, eliminating mundane jobs when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively. The machines will do almost all of the work and humans would oversee the process and supervise the machines. According to the movement, the answer for a corrected, civilized society lies in science and technology which would enable abundance.

Until an ideology split in July 2011, Zeitgeist promoted ideas from The Venus Project. Both groups continue to advocate a world society where resources are sustainably and equitably shared. Zeitgeist members advocate the issues discussed in the films Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, including their view that the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt.

The movement sponsors an annual event, "Z-Day", in March. It was first held in 2009 in New York City. The 2010 event also took place in New York, with "337 sympathetic events occurring in over 70 countries worldwide." London and Vancouver hosted the 2011 and 2012 main events respectively.

---

• For the 9th time, there is no consensus;
• The dispute on anti-semitism is only beginning, and is nowhere near ending. Thus I restored the "undue weight - discuss" tags, because they must remain until the dispute is fully resolved (by arbitration if necessary);
• I restored the Bbb23 edit on Jesse Walker conspiracy allegation;
• I restored the lengthy, wordy TheMarker TV reference. References of foreign-language sources are wordy and lengthy in order to strictly follow WP policies on translations from foreign-language sources. (If an editor is interested, they may want to refer to my user talk page for a discussion of the relevant WP policies on translations.)

---

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. More synthesis. Until TZM manages to express clearly what it is, and what it stands for without needing the interpretation of a Wikipedia contributor, we won't express such ideas for them. IjonTichyIjonTichy, your explanations of what you think TZM 'supports' are based on nothing more than your own selective interpretations of multiple sources of questionable merit. You may well be right in your interpretation, but this is irrelevant. If contributors have to concoct an explanation from multiple sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If TZM are incapable of coming up with a coherent description of their ideology, it isn't our job to do it for them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy here on his thesis. I also copy edited, again, the article for neutrality and removed the weight tags on some critical information that an editor restored against consensus. There is no argument about whether the sources are good except by one editor and another editor that flames through here occasionally till they are blocked. Here is the diff. [8] IjonTichyIjonTichy your interpretation of what has weight or neutral presentation has been rejected. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Andy generally on Ijon's proposed draft. The substance of the first part (History) isn't too bad, although I don't like the way it's worded. I think we have enough secondary sources to say some of this. After that, though, it falls apart into a whole bunch of "The movement says" sections, all cited to TZM's website. We might as well just become the website. That is unacceptable. Earl, your comments are again unnecessarily inflammatory (literally, actually), even when I agree with the substance of what you say. Ijon, I agree with Earl on the weight tags. As far as I can tell, you are the only editor who believes they should remain, so I am removing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who opposes the anti-semitism accusations. Two other editors (Reinventor098 and 82.153.143.237) have been trying to delete the entire anti-semitism paragraph over the last few says, as you can see from the article's history. I do not agree with their tactics - I would prefer they join the conversation on this talk page and explain why they oppose the paragraph, instead of deleting the paragraph. But the fact they are deleting implies I am not the only editor. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That's misleading, Ijon. 82 did not remove the tags - the tags weren't even present. They removed the material completely. Similarly, Reinventor, yet another WP:SPA, removed all of the material, and the tags went along for the ride. In any event, I am unwilling to ascribe unstated motives to other editors who don't contribute to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually my comment states that they "have been trying to delete the entire anti-semitism paragraph". IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted yet another major edit by Earl King Jr.:

• EKJ's changes of all 'should' in the article into 'could' is major POV-pushing. Based on all our reliable sources, TZM does not say society could change the global socioeconomic system. Based on all our reliable sources, TZM is saying we (global society) must implement major change - they're saying we (humanity) are committing slow suicide if global socioeconomic system does not change in a direction directly opposite to that of capitalism
• EKJ continues to refer to 'consensus' in his edit summaries. For the 10th time, there is no consensus.
• The dispute on anti-semitism is only beginning, and is nowhere near ending. I intend to take the dispute to higher resolution processes, as high as necessary.
• I restored EKJ's obsessive reversion of Bbb23's edit on Jesse Walker conspiracy allegation;
• I restored EKJ's repeated, obsessive, disruptive removal of lengthy TheMarker television reference. References of foreign-language sources are wordy and lengthy in order to strictly follow WP policies on translations from foreign-language sources. (See my user talk page for details.) EJK's repeated, obsessive removal is in violation of WP policies on translations, and will be reported to ANI.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you really thinks its a good idea to call me obsessive and disruptive on the talk several times, when most all of my edits are supported by consensus or if changed, just modified for improvement as to copy editing? That is mostly a rhetorical question, so you needn't actually answer. Threatening another ANI,,, if the edits are not going your way? I assume now that you are going to leave those weight tags off, correct? It is the overwhelming consensus and has been for days. You say the dispute on anti-semitism is only beginning, and is nowhere near ending. Actually it ended. O.K.? Neutral presentation is the goal of the article on this and every article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I try to advise editors neutrally when they stop focusing on content and comment on behavior. Ijon, I agree with Earl. Your comments and your threat are wholly inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My comment does not mention the tags at all. After the issue was explained and clarified, I did not re-insert the tags anymore. When I said 'the dispute is only beginning' I was referring to the fact I reserve the right to take the dispute to higher level(s) of dispute resolution (e.g. administrative, etc). This has nothing to do with the tags.

EKJ claims "most all of my edits are supported by consensus or if changed, just modified for improvement as to copy editing ... Neutral presentation is the goal of the article on this and every article." EKJ changed all the 'should' in the article into 'could'. This is not a correct representation of TZM's ideas. In the specific context of this article, there is an enormous difference between 'could' and 'should'. Based on all our reliable sources, and the many tens of hours of TZM videos and other TZM materials, TZM does not say society could change the global system. Based on all our reliable sources, TZM is saying we (global society) must change immediately, because otherwise the consequences for humanity are terrible.

I have not modified the article in any substantive way in the last couple of days, except to revert EKJ's edits. In response to Bbb's suggestion, I listed all my proposed substantial edits on this talk page and requested feedback from editors. I suggest that it may be a good idea for an editor who edits the article in a way that may potentially result in a substantial modification of the tone and substance of the article (e.g. by changing all 'should' into 'could'), to perhaps consider requesting feedback before, not after, making the edits.

I would like to ask EKJ to please explain his motivations behind (a) changing all 'should' to 'could', and (b) removing the wordy TheMarker Television reference, which explains to readers that the interview is in English, and translating to English the very brief introduction, which was in Hebrew. In EKJ's view, how did his edits contribute to the encyclopedic content of this article?

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In the specific context of this article, there is an enormous difference between 'could' and 'should'. Based on all our reliable sources, and the many tens of hours of TZM videos and other TZM materials, TZM does not say society could change the global system. Based on all our reliable sources, TZM is saying we (global society) must change immediately, because otherwise the consequences for humanity are terrible. End quote IjonTichyIjonTichy Why should we present Zeitgeist from the Zeitgeist official presentation page, beyond the basic information they have on it, why is their rhetorical bombast so important? How is it that you are using we here at all? Critical thinking means neutral presentation. Also, putting too much information in a citation area is just over kill. Making the article sound like a Zeitgeist advert is not a good idea. Using flowery terms that may mean next to nothing fails to convey much except like an advert type of jingoism. Unless edits are neutrally made edits will not hold up because repeating the groups perspective is not really critically presenting them. Then there is no overview of what they are and where they came from. The other issues you bring up are simple word choice issues for neutral presentation like could or should. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As I already explained before on the DRN and on this talk page, when I'm using "we" I mean humanity, the global society. Not "we, TZM."

"... "monetary-market" economy can be replaced ..." takes NPOV to ridiculous extremes, and not only neutralizes the tone of the article, but also neutralizes the essence of the article. The word "can" in this context does not represent what the movement stands for based on our large number of reliable sources (NYT, Huff P, Palm B Po, Globes, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, 5 RT TV interviews). The reliable sources do provide an excellent overview of the movement's ideas, and none of them say that the movement says we (humanity) "can" change, they all say we (humanity) "must" change. Our article explicitly says that Zeitgeist believes the current socioeconomic system is structurally corrupt. This is based directly on our reliable secondary sources, where the movement also says we (humanity) "must" change (to the system proposed by the movement) in order to eliminate the corruption (in their view). "Should" is a softer version of "must", and suitable for inclusion in WP articles. Our goal is to correctly represent what the reliable sources say; NPOV is extremely important and we must always make sure our article is NPOV, but we cannot take NPOV to such a ridiculous extreme where we neutralize the essence of what the reliable sources say to the point where the article is not a correct representation of the essence of what the reliable sources say about TZM.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral presentation is not going to an extreme. Its just the preferred method and the article can not be presented like it is a part of the official Zeitgeist information site. That prevents critical thinking. Zeitgeist thinks they can do something. Its a big thing. It is their rhetorical view that they should do it. That does not make it gospel that will destroy the value of the article if not done that way. The article is a lot better now because of increased neutrality in it. Neutrality makes for built in consensus.

Another issue for the beginning and the 'critical' section is the claimed non violence of Zeitgeist, but their affinity for attracting violent people, and a fairly recent incident of someone inspired by the movies that tried political assassinations [[9]] Jared Loughner. This site also claims there is a huge undercurrent of violent action within Zeitgeist because of its either/or take on their way or the highway type of belief in conspiracy theory [[10]] Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your efforts look increasingly like an apparent attempt to possibly use this article as a coatrack by conflating the first Zeitgeist movie and the Zeitgeist movement. It seems that apparently you first may have hanged anti-semitism on the coatrack, then 9/11 conspiracy theories, and now you may be suggesting to hang violence on the coatrack. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No so. I just want to see a neutral article with all elements of Zeitgeist. I did not make up the information of the shooter from this article http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-shooting-jared-loughner-stopped-authorities-hours-shooting/story?id=12597092&page=3#.T9aOKJgVJ3w on the ABC article. It appears that being a conspiracy theory oriented movement that vilifies certain groups of people, that Zeitgeist can attract a violent crowd as that link demonstrates and the Zeitgeist site chat indicates also. 911 in the movie and from Peter Joseph is said to be a plot by the U.S. government, done by them, and anti Semitic conspiracy folklore is common to Zeitgeist and written about in reputable news reports. Those things are just things in the Zeitgeist orbit which can be included to balance the article presentation and have already met consensus except for yourself. Obviously without the movies there would be no Zeitgeist movement, even the name of the movement comes from the movies. If the movement is fairly presented in its aspects people then can decide about the issues you are bringing up. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus right now on this article. In order to not break that consensus, I proposed all my edits on this talk page, instead of editing the article against consensus. You'll need to do the same, and obtain consensus before hanging what increasingly appears to be yet another of your coats on the coatrack. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Moderate your tone IjonTichyIjonTichy. You can not order people around. You can make suggestions. Neutral presentation is not going to an extreme. The violent under current of Zeitgeist is a reality in the mainstream http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-shooting-jared-loughner-stopped-authorities-hours-shooting/story?id=12597092&page=3#.T9aOKJgVJ3w and its not up to individual Wikipedia editors to promote or demote ideas in news stories that are cited. Neutral presentation is just the preferred method and the article can not be presented like it is a part of official Zeitgeist information. Critical thinking is a good rule of thumb. I reject your thesis also of multiple coatracks It is not so. The things you listed are not pointing to that. Your using an inflammatory means of communicating, threatening, and using the word consensus when convenient and vehemently denying their is consensus where it is not conventient. All Wikipedia articles are subject to change and the editing process usually happens as people slowly improve articles for clarity. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it is the policy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You should try to moderate your own tone before blaming others. You are the one who deleted another editors comment, not I; you are the one who had a complaint against him on ANI for disruptive behavior on this talk page, not I. :::: For example, when I posted my proposed edits, I specifically recommended that editors not attack me, but instead direct their energies to improving the proposed edit. Instead, you used the opportunities to attack me. And this is only one example out of many of your disruptive behavior.

Almost all of your comments on the subject of this article are highly inflammatory, and show a deep hatred of anything related to Zeitgeist. You constantly blame me for POV, but it is evident that it is your own comments which have repeatedly demonstrated not only a very strong anti-TZM POV, but actual deep hatred of TZM.

Almost all of your edits to the article involved adding material to the 'criticism' section. Your edits have contributed almost nothing to improving the rest of the article.

All the material you added to the criticism section is based on conflating the first movie and the movement, and you are continuing to push hard for ever-more conflating (e.g. violence), despite the fact, of which you are well aware, that the official TZM website denies any direct connection between the movie and the movement, and despite the fact our other sources (e.g. the NYT, the two TheMaker sources etc.) also strongly deny any direct connection.

And your additions to the criticism section are always one-sided and unbalanced - your edits never present TZM's response to the allegations that you cite. For example, it was Bbb23 who provide the TZM response to your Studio-Viz anti-semitism issue, and it was me who provided the TZM response to your 9/11 conspiracy issue where I quoted the TZM website saying there is no connection between the film and the movement. If you were truly NPOV as you repeatedly shout in every comment on this talk page, you would have provided this balance yourself and you would not have waited for other editors to do it. It is well known on WP that those that shout NPOV and "critical thinking" the loudest are likely to be strongly pushing for their own POV.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason that you make lines on the talk page like the one below all the time?

---

It distracts from discussions, and I think its probably against talk page policy because its confusing. Also I admit that in Zeitgeist: Addendum which I have seen snippets of, I was uncomfortably reminded (Fresco) of the leader of the UFO cult Heaven’s Gate, Marshall Applewhite (aka Bo and Do) who died in the cult’s mass suicide in 1997. I think the article should have some mention of Zeitgeist as a cult or as cult-like and there are many citations than could be used for that. Jacques Fresco does have UFO cult connections – he was ‘bestowed the title of Honorary Guide of the Raelian Movement‘ in October 2008 when he was part of Zeitgeist, the Raelian movement being by far the biggest UFO cult on this planet. As for hating Zeitgeist, no I think they are mostly comical and personally do not take them seriously one way or another. I just am here to balance the article if possible because I noticed how bad it was before. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I only added the long lines to clearly distinguish (i.e., to separate) my suggested/ proposed edits from the rest of my comment(s), under the assumption this would help the discussion. In consideration of the fact you find it confusing, please suggest some other method to distinguish/ separate comments on this talk page, and I'll gladly consider using your preferred method.

The suggestion of including allegation of cult seems possibly like yet more coatrack by apparently continuing to conflate the first movie with the movement.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider that no one else uses the lines

---

and that other people separate things without making the page idiosyncratic. Its confusing. Zeitgeist as cult? Ample reports and verifiable citations for that, so many that it is not even much of a question whether they are or not but more to what level of a cult they are [[11]] and [[12]] and [[13]] and [[14]] and [[15]] and [[16]], so as Wikipedia project members we just report those things by incorporating into the article. Something to think about. If you over use the word conflating it begins to sound silly. The movie obviously spawned the movement. It does not matter really critically thinking wise what Zeitgeist says on that except noting it but critical judgement, the movie started interest, that started the internet movement and more movies. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Constant Biased Vandalism

It is very clear that this page undergoes constant, perpetual vandalism is of a subtle nature, colored by controversial and entirety irrelevant posts. Wikipedia is supposed to inform the public about what an org in about and doing in this context. Comparing the event, history actions of The Zeitgeist Movement form actual press, their mission statement and their global actions, there is almost nothing relevant in this article and what is being haphazardly thrown in is only done so for the sake of "flaming" and is clearly biased. Every section is misleading or deficient.

It is a truly sad to see the level of dishonestly here and disheartening to see how malicious many of your controlling parties really are. Reinventor098 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Precisely what WP:RS material do you suggest including to rectify what you see as the article's deficiencies? (Please don't repeat the accusations of vandalism and dishonesty etc.) Writegeist (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Controlling parties?" :\ Zazaban (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:-) . R098 now blocked again, so unable to reply. Writegeist (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following for editors' consideration, including Reinventor098 (when his block expires). This is the same as the last rough draft I proposed a couple of days ago, except all the quotes from TZM's official Q&A website have been removed, and thus the new draft is based exclusively on verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources. As always, I suggest editors not waste their time, or mine, attacking me for this draft -- instead, redirect your energies to improving this first rough draft.

---

After Jacque Fresco, founder of The Venus Project, viewed Zeitgeist: The Movie in 2007, he reached out to the film's director, Peter Joseph, and turned Joseph's attention to some of Fresco's work that center on the idea of a new global economy. Within that idea, Joseph felt he had the ability to answer the questions his film posited. In 2008, Joseph released Zeitgeist: Addendum, featuring The Venus Project, at which point Zeitgeist grew into a full-scale movement. Joseph released the movement’s third film, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in January 2011. As of 2011, the movement has hundreds of thousands of members worldwide in hundreds of branches operating independently and autonomously in tens of countries around the world.

TZM views itself as a global grassroots movement in the continuum of social change. The movement says it is trying to point out that what society is doing is not sustainable, and needs to change. The movement's key idea is to share all the world's resources equitably among all the people, and basing all decisions initially on resources while learning to maximize the efficiency of resources through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development (economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come). In the movement's view, automated labor would be perfected on a mass scale, eliminating mundane jobs when they can instead be relegated to machines that will act more precisely and productively. The machines will do almost all of the work and humans would oversee the process and supervise the machines. According to the movement, the answer for a corrected, civilized society lies in science and technology which would enable abundance.

---

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The tone is still far to much from the movement's prespective. 72.28.82.250 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Please feel free to make the tone more neutral, and post your revised version (or your own version that may be independent of my draft) below. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I reject that IjonTichyIjonTichy version also as it reads like a flowery tribute to Zeitgeist and its brilliance and is not only non neutral but promotional. Its way too touchy feely and has no critical examination, just endorsement of vague concepts. The current version is looking ok. That is also the consensus version. Lets tweak that one and not make the article so p.o.v. of the Zeitgeist group itself. Again critical thinking and neutrality is best. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources

As I mentioned at the reliable sources noticeboard, there are two scholarly articles that mention this movement and discuss its context. One of them even actually focusses on the "anti-semitic" issue. These academic articles are exactly the high quality sources that should be snapped up by serious editors and used to source and determine weight issues. For example, the fact that there is a scholarly article about the antisemitic issue would likely have a significant impact on the question of inclusion here. In case you missed it, here is the information about the articles again. One is this article (which I can send to any editors who don't have access to it, if they send me an email, as one person has), and one "Grauzonen der Antisemitismusforschung, oder: Versuch, den ‚Zeitgeist' zu verstehen" [Grey areas of anti-Semitism research, or: an attempt to understand "Zeitgeist"], is available here, with an abstract in English. German speakers available on WP to help [17] if you need it.--Slp1 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed the entire discussion (now read it). I saw the shorter discussion lower down. Discussions about this article are now occurring on so many forums it's hard to keep up. Thanks for your efforts. I sent you an e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Info box

The info box at the top of this article is really huge. Not sure why. I made it smaller and it looks better. Right now it is 280px. Changing it to 180px seems about right. At the larger size the aesthetic does not look right. Obviously the information remains the same. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy

This concept is a big deal in the Zeitgeist scheme of things. Recently that article link (resource-based economy) was removed from the header area of the article. Zeitgeist constantly writes and talks about this term on their official webpages [[18]] so its important to keep that information in the general header of the article as it is tied up completely in their overall plan. What that plan is, is nebulous but that phrase resource-based economy is an integral part of it and they constantly use that term. Earl King Jr. (talk)

Yes, some members of the movement still use the term out of habit and momentum and convenience. But, as I said before on this talk page, the movement as a whole is moving away from using this nebulous, meaningless, vague, misleading and unclear term, especially after the separation from The Venus Project, which claims ownership rights to the term. Peter Joseph and other key spokespersons of the movement have not used the term in many months, including in the most recent (and all-important to the movement) Z-Day in February. The term RBE does not help the readers of the article -- in fact it is confusing to our readers. And our separate article on the term RBE is skeletal, confusing, and misleading, and is the subject of a very long and separate dispute. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some members of the movement still use the term out of habit and momentum and convenience. But, as I said before on this talk page, the movement as a whole is moving away from using this nebulous, meaningless, vague, misleading and unclear term, especially after the separation from The Venus Project, which claims ownership rights to the term. end quote User:Ijon. Please understand that it is not your call beyond neutral presentation, and your opinion matters not, because it is only an opinion and does not conform with the Zeitgeist official presentation because Zeitgeist movement uses the term http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/category/tags/resource-based-economy, and it is part of their information currently http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 Also Fresco does not own the term. That term has been around for decades before Fresco's use of it. It is a mainstream concept with alternative application. Taking that out in the lead (you deleted the link to Resource-based economy that information link, from the article, is against neutral presentation. Your opinion just can not be used to source the article.

Also when you say And our separate article on the term RBE is skeletal, confusing, and misleading, and is the subject of a very long and separate dispute. User:Ijon end quote, that is not so. That dispute started by you is pretty much over and the article is a good article that presents the basics with links to more information, so again your opinion non withstanding, is against the consensus of that article. Also the redundant intro was removed now and can stay off the article. The thing you added just repeats what is there with more words. The editor that removed the long pointless repetitive intro. in a citation is also going with consensus, so please leave that off also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User Bbb23 on the DRN: "I don't necessarily have a problem with Ijon's suggestions for the lead ..."

Everything in my last few comments still stands. Including the fact I oppose the continued use of the skeletal, misleading, meaningless 'alternative definition' in the article on RBE to deliberately mislead our readers into a dead-end that does not provide any meaningful information on TZM to our readers.

TZM's official Q&A website has not been significantly updated since the breakup with Venus. The use of the term 'RBE' in TZM's official Q&A is outdated. The main spokespersons for the movement have not used the term 'RBE' in many months in official appearances, including in the most recent Z-day, which is one of the most important yearly events for the movement (in TZM's view).

Your repeated removal of the wordy TV interview reference is not only against consensus (as this wordy reference has existed for many weeks on this article and passed the scrutiny of many editors, except yourself), but, and more importantly, is against WP policies on translations.

Repeated removal of the TZM response to the StudiViz antisemitism allegation is against consensus, and is yet one more piece of evidence of a coat-racking and POV-pushing operation.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"TZM's official Q&A website has not been significantly updated since the breakup with Venus. The use of the term 'RBE' in TZM's official Q&A is outdated." - So you say. But you are not WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And if it were true, the movement's own website should be a RS for their opinions. To maintain it properly is their responsibility, not ours.

"Repeated removal of the TZM response to the StudiViz antisemitism allegation" - if there were any response of substance, I'd agree. But simply contradicting an allegation is not noteworthy, especially since the allegation has been worded in a NPOV manner. A mor substantial response on the antisemitism issue has already been included in the same paragraph. Given that, it goes without saying that TZM would disagree with StudiVZ. Finally, how is an Australian response to a German networking site relevant? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

TZM's official Q&A website has not been significantly updated since the breakup with Venus. The use of the term 'RBE' in TZM's official Q&A is outdated. The main spokespersons for the movement have not used the term 'RBE' in many months in official appearances, including in the most recent Z-day, which is one of the most important yearly events for the movement (in TZM's view). End quote IjonTichyIjonTichy. At this point your edits are exhibiting a failure to get it that is pretty stark with the consensus here. Your opinion is not a reliable source and there is no doubt that The Zeitgeist Movement uses the concept of a resource based economy in their most basic presentation of who and what they are http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 You yourself Ijon have used the Faq's previously to try and prove some points that you considered 'true'. So selectively using it and then saying it is outdated does not make for a good argument. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The main spokespersons for the movement have not used the term 'RBE' in many months in official appearances, including in the most recent Z-day, TED-x events, lectures, seminars, etc., all posted on the movement's official website. Our reliable sources support the fact TZM officials not using the term anymore: please see, for example, our most-recently-published reliable secondary sources, e.g. TheMarker article and TheMarker TV interview, both conducted in January 2012; and the two primary sources - the TED-x lectures in Feb. and March. of 2012 (both available at Peter Joseph).

And please see the DRN on the discussion of the lead, regarding why it is important the word 'equal' (sharing of resources among all of humanity) should appear in the lead. IjonTichyIjonTichy IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that you lost those arguments. At some point it becomes an issue if you keep returning things against consensus and argument Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CON, consensus is important. It is powerful. It should be respected. But WP policies are more important. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV trump WP:CON. And I've not lost the argument TZM is not using the term RBE anymore, because my argument is supported by our reliable secondary sources (TheMarker, TheMarker TV, RT TV interviews in Dec. 2011 and Feb. 2012, etc). And by primary sources such as TED-x lectures and the many lectures during TZM's Z-day. Nor have I lost the argument regarding the importance of incorporating the key aspects of TZM in the lead, because this argument is supported by the WP policy on the lead.

Nor have I lost the argument that you continue to waste our time with your complaints and attacking. Instead, I challenge you again, as I've done several times in the past with all editors: re-direct your energies towards providing verifiable citations from a subset of (or all of) our set of reliable secondary sources to help substantially build and greatly develop the main body of the article, and not only the 'criticism' section which has been essentially your almost only focus. This way, the main body of our article will improve, and you, as well as other editors, would have no reason (or reduced reason) to continue to waste everybody's time with you endless complaints.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As you've perhaps noticed, I haven't been paying as much attention to the changes to this article in the last week or so. However, in looking at what's changed in the interim, it appears to me that the article has become increasingly slanted in favor of the movement, serving as a platform for what the movement supposedly advocates. The lead and the first part of the Philosophy and history section sound almost the same, like an advertisement for everything that is good and wonderful. And you two are still sniping at each other, more's the pity.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

How can the article be more slanted in favor of TZM, when both you and Tom harrison have added more criticism of the movement? It is becoming increasingly like a platform for the critics of the movement, not the other way around. (This is not meant as an attack on you or Tom.) And why are my verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources considered 'remarkably problematic'? These reliable sources support the fact TZM is moving away from the term 'RBE'. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I specified what parts of the article are pro-movement. Your edits removed sourced information w/o explanation, in particular, you removed the studiVZ ban sentence (now twice), leaving in only the response, you increased the logo size again, and your edit summary reflected none of this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I did not remove the studiVZ ban sentence, not once and not twice. It's at the end of the middle paragraph in the 'Criticism' section. And the logo size of 280 was agreed to by consensus of many editors before EKJ reduced it to 180. If he can reduce it to 180, why can I not increase it to 220? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies about the studiVZ sentence. I saw your removal but didn't realize you had placed it in a different spot. That said, some of your rearrangement of the material doesn't work well and is confusing. As for the logo, please help me out and show me where there was a consensus that it should be 280.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I was trying to improve clarity and readability, by lumping the criticism from Reason magazine, the scholarly journal on religion, Tablet magazine, and studiVZ into a single paragraph, because these do not criticize the economic model proposed by the movement, but rather are all based on the (alleged) connection between the first movie and the movement. (I did not modify the wording of these criticisms before lumping them together.) Then, I collected all the responses of TZM to the criticisms (i.e., to the allegations that are independent of TZM's proposed economic model) into a single paragraph.

The logo size was 280 points for the last two years without any editor seeing a need to modify it. An editor reduced it to 180 a few days ago, and I felt 220 was more appropriate. But I will leave it up to you to arbitrate the final logo size and I'll be happy with your final decision on the size. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I went back and looked at reorganizing it, but the problem is it conflates the three criticisms (the journal, Goldberg, and studioVZ) and TZM's responses. Yet, that's not really how it went down. As far as I know, TZM didn't respond to the journal piece, so that has to be separate. And the responses to the Goldberg and studioVZ material were also different. So, I can't see changing it. As for the logo, I think it's big enough, particularly when you take into account that it has the name of the movement in the logo and then just above the (same) name of the article. It doesn't need any more prominence. I realize it's a judgment call, but I think you're wise not to make a big deal out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with all your judgement calls. But if and when more criticism is added, and/or other editors change the wording in the criticism section substantially, and/or my research reveals new TZM responses (say, to the criticism from the scholarly paper, which, as you said, currently does not have a proper TZM response), I reserve the right to edit the criticism section if necessary to improve the balance, tone, accuracy etc. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's one hell of a sentence, Ijon. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"And I've not lost the argument TZM is not using the term RBE anymore, because my argument is supported by our reliable secondary sources (TheMarker, TheMarker TV, RT TV interviews in Dec. 2011 and Feb. 2012, etc)" - As already pointed out, in TheMarker article, they use the term RBE. I don't know what exact other sources you re referring to (please provide links) but the credibility of that claim is under serious doubt as it is. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In the TheMarker article, the single reference to RBE is within a paragraph focused entirely and exclusively on a discussion of Jacque Fresco and Venus, not TZM. And the rest of the very lengthy TheMarker article does not mention RBE.

The RT TV interview from Dec. 2011, the TheMarker TV interview from January 2012, the RT TV interview dated Feb. 2012, and the TED-x talks in Feb. and March 2012, are all available from the Peter Joseph article. The dates are important, as these are post-Venus-split dates. Pre-split and near-split sources [e.g. the RT TV interview dated Sept. 2011, which is near-split] do mention RBE. In contrast, to the best of my knowledge and memory, the Dec. 2011 source and the 2012 sources do not use RBE to describe the theoretical econ model. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That these sources fail to mention RBE (except that one do) does not mean that TZM have stopped using the term. You need a reliable source that explicitly says that they have stopped using it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Um ... I'm not sure I agree with you on that. You are raising the bar pretty high, and it seems you are not likely to obtain this sort of evidence. Based on watching many tens of hours of TZM videos, reading all their blog entries and newsletters, and especially based on reading all our secondary sources, it seems TZM does not operate by decree, or orders from above, or any sort of hierarchy. These sources tell us TZM sees itself a leaderless movement, and is extremely unlikely to issue any direct orders to its members, including orders to stop using the term RBE. Based on our secondary (and primary) sources, it seems TZM goes to great lengths to make sure it is not perceived as an organization that issues orders or decrees to its members, and thus it seems it would be extremely unlikely we'll ever see a source that explicitly says that TZM stopped using RBE. As they say, in certain circumstances, silence speaks much louder than words. In this case, the lack of usage of the term RBE, despite having numerous opportunities to do so, including a very lengthy print article (TheMarker) and several TV interviews and TED-x talks, speaks pretty loudly. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with OpenFuture. I particularly like the pithy way he put it. Your inferences from the absence are WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS or both. You've actually made these sorts of arguments before, as I recall, in connection with antisemitism. They won't fly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, I'm curious - why the opposition to double columns in 'See also'? It seems many good articles or even featured articles have double columns in 'See also.' This is just a question seeking knowledge, not serious objection. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which articles you mean because you don't link to any, but it's just like the references section, if a list gets too long, double columns make sense, but with a short list, as here, they don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that this silence does not exist outside your imagination. The term RBE is used in TheMarker, and in the Q&A from the site. Without any reliable source to say that they have stopped using the term RBE, the claim that they have is nothing but your conjecture. It's WP:OR. You *have* lost this argument. Again. Drop it, it's a dead horse. TZM *is* using the term "Resource-based economy". --OpenFuture (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not. As I wrote above, TheMarker only used the term once in a short paragraph that focused exclusively on Fresco and Venus. The rest of this very lengthy article did not mention RBE. And the Q&A has not been updated since the split with Venus. And out of the many 2012 talks and lectures (including Z-day), RT TV appearances, TheMarker TV appearance and TED-x lectures, etc. exactly zero use the term. TZM is definitely moving away from using the term. And as I explained, you have set the bar unrealistically high and you will never see a reference that says that TZM 'ordered' its members to stop using the term.

My main problem is not with the term per se. My main problem is the fact the term has been used in the past as a substitute for explaining TZM's proposed economic model. Key terms such as 'equitable and sustainable sharing of resources' have been removed, and instead the empty term, and the equally empty, skeletal alternative-definition in the RBE article have been substituted-in. This is less of a problem now in the current version of the article, but in the past the term RBE was used in a possible attempt to maybe mislead our readers into the black-hole dead-end that is the RBE article.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are you just repeating what you already said over and over and over, instead of listening to what we tell you? There is no "unrealistically high" bar and I have never demanded to see any "order to the members". You are inventing claims and putting them in my mouth again, stop doing that please.

So, for the last time: You claim that TZM are moving away from the term "resource-based energy", but you base that solely on your own original research. Well, for the millionth time: you are not a reliable source. What exactly is it that you find difficult to understand in this? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My main problem is not with the term per se. My main problem is the fact the term was used in the past as a substitute for explaining TZM's proposed economic model. Key terms such as 'equitable and sustainable sharing of resources', etc., have been removed, and instead the empty term, and the equally empty, skeletal alternative-definition in the RBE article have been substituted-in. This is somewhat less of a problem now in the current version of the article, but in the past the term RBE may have been used in what seemed like a possible attempt to maybe mislead our readers into the black-hole dead-end that is the RBE article, instead of providing substantive info on TZM's proposed econ model.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One way to solve the dispute is to topic ban Ijon from the articles connected for being a disruptive editor. He goes back and forth in every conceivable way of attacking, then praising editors, all the while refusing to abide consensus. I don't think Ijon is actually involved in the so called movement now because his opinions are so very far away from their line, if I can use that term party line; for instance Zeitgeist does use a resource based economics concept which he denies is part of their scheme http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 its in their most basic information and conjecturing otherwise is a total disconnect http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/category/tags/resource-based-economy it is integral.

So, another format for a topic ban for being a disruptive editor?. No amount of time intensive pleading seems to make any difference about his personal attacks intermittent with equally inappropriate praising for fake or conjured consensus that is 'makes up' o.r. syn. and put downs. How many times do we have to hear the same put downs and have the same o.r. reintroduced? Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Earl, this is not the place to propose a topic ban. If you want to do so, then take it to WP:ANI or WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: Astonishingly, after I asked you to stop repeating what you just said, and listen, all you did was to repeat, letter for letter, what you just said!? Seriously? That sounds like me that you just don't respect your fellow editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the DRN in a few days so I'm only going to refer to your comments posted on this talk page. The reason I repeated myself here is because I responded to your repeated observation that the term RBE is mentioned in the TheMarker article. I repeated myself because your repeated observation, while correct, did not mention the fact that I placed your (correct) observation in a special context re the TheMarker article. (That context is detailed in my previous comment(s) and thus I'm not repeating it here.) Because your second comment did not seem to acknowledge the proper context, I naturally assumed you were acting in good faith and maybe you missed my explanation of the context. That's why I repeated my explanation of the context.

In his TED-x talks in 2012 (avail. on the Peter Joseph article), PJ uses the term 'Earth Based Economy' instead of RBE. This may (or may not) present a new set of problems because WP already has an article on Earth Based Economy. But as I said, I'm OK with RBE or EBE or any other acronym, as long as it is only used to complement more substantive descriptions of TZM's philosophy/ history/ ideas, not as a substitute for these explanations. And in the last version of the article I read (about 2 days ago), the term RBE did not immediately seem to have been used as a substitute, but rather as a complement or neutral descriptor, so for now, I don't see a problem with the term RBE (or EBE, etc) in our article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

It seems like the article now has a neutral point of view and tone and is maintaining that. Is it time to take the tags of the top? I think so. In general the article seems good now. Its informative and gives a good idea of the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K. Removing tags from the article now on the top because of improvements (neutral presentation) in the article. Tone now is just information presentation without promotion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A question and an answer

Possibility of legal issues? The following is a copy-paste from TZM's official Q&A website. Does this represent a potential legal issue? Our article seems to contain material that may directly contradict this official TZM statement. Question (11) - Is The Zeitgeist Movement related to Peter Joseph's Film Series? No. While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society. The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the ‘The General intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era." The Term "movement" very simply implies ‘motion" and change, Therefore The Zeitgeist Movement is thus an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time. The Movement is not about Comparative Religion, False-Flag Terrorism, Economic Hit-men, Fractional Reserve Banking or the Federal Reserve. The films are unrelated to The Movement in detail and are personal expressions of Peter Joseph. There is often some confusion in this regard and in the most extreme cases some people have the knee-jerk reaction that TZM supports forbidden "Conspiracy Theories" or is "Anti-Religious" or the like. This type or rhetoric tends to be of a pejorative/insulting nature, used in the context of dismissal of The Movement by an erroneous and "taboo" external association. The fact is, there is no direct association whatsoever. If you are not familiar with what TZM actually is, please review our extensive literature and video/lecture materials on this website. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC) No it does not present a possible legal issue. Organizations say all sorts of things about themselves, and WP is in no way obliged to follow their perspectives and points of view. As a encyclopedia we prefer secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking, over primary sources such as this. See WP:PSTS. In addition, please see no legal threats. I realize that you are not threatening legal action here, but erroneous claims of potential legal issues are chilling and stifling to editors and article development.Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC) You are right that I'm not threatening legal action. I was only raising a question in order to get feedback and improve my understanding, and I strongly recommend that editors not be discouraged or stifled by this post. Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC) That's fine, but if getting more information is the goal then maybe you should ask one person and wait for a response rather than firing off identical sections on multiple pages. Anyway, in the interests of reducing the chill effect, I am going to collapse this section.--Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Good idea. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

criticism section

consensus is important, but WP policies (V, RS, NPOV, translations, ...) trump consensus.

"members of the movement were given an opportunity to respond to the criticism" does not provide sufficient balance to the criticism. A more detailed and specific response to the specific allegations is necessary to provide balance and, in EKJ's own words, "critical thinking".

I have posted a note on Str1977's talk page, and I've also sent him an e-mail (per his request on his talk page), regarding his repeated violation of WP policies on translations. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Again,IjonTichyIjonTichy made a non neutral reversal edit to the article page. Adding information that has repeatedly been taken off by a variety of editors, and incorporating more syn, and o.r. and changing the tone toward redundant advocacy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything in your comment is incorrect. I repaired a repeated violation of WP policies on translations, and improved the balance and neutrality of the four specific allegations ((a) through (d)), and returned a sentence that was provided initially in response to the 'clarification needed' tags posted by Zazaban a few weeks ago. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I read Ijon's message and reviewed the discussion on his talk page. However, I don't see how any policy dictates that we must include a translation of foreign-language parts in a mulit-lingual source. The ref in question appears in a series of publications criticizing TZM for several reasons and only references that "TheMarkerTV" has published such criticism. How is the, pretty much trite introduction, relevant to the article? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do our readers benefit from denying them access to the translation of the brief intro? When an average person watches a TV interview in which the first few words are in a foreign language that he/she does not understand, even if the remainder was in a language they did understand, for the remainder of the interview they may be puzzled and may wonder if they missed something important in the intro. Translation of intro is provided for proper context and completeness. Without it, the all-important context is missing and the interview is incomplete. That is exactly why the proper journalistic standard is to introduce the guest and the subject of the interview.

And the interview is not only about the criticism. It is also an essential component of the TZM response to criticism of anti-semitism, cultism and 9/11 conspiracies, as well as some of the key concepts of TZM. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Our readers benefit greatly from not having their time wasted. The intro is utterly irrelevant, especially to readers of this article which already has introduced them to the topic. And especially since I have read the translation, I can only be puzzled by your claims that without it "the all-important context is missing and the interview is incomplete".

No, the interviews is not "only about the criticism" - in fact, it only mentions the criticism briefly but does no criticism of its own. Hence our article's claim "TheMarkerTV criticzed the Zeitgeist movement" is not born out by that video. And I don't see how your last paragraphy is relevant to the item under discussion, namely the quote spamming in the ref. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

TheMarker TV: intro to interview discusses films, so used this source in relation to discussion of films;

More importantly: the interviewer asks TZM to comment (or clarify TZM's position) on allegations that they are blaming people. Keep in mind that the first movie's criticism of international bankers is the entire basis of the antisemitism accusation by Tablet magazine. In the TheMarker TV interview, TZM responds to this criticism (that it blames people). Thus, while you are technically correct that TheMarker TV does not directly criticize or accuse TZM, it is also correct to say that they "discuss various aspects of criticism of the movement" because they ask TZM to respond to criticism (i.e., allegations that were made by other sources).

Otherwise, I'm OK with your edits and have not reverted your summary of the intro (except I slightly modified your summary to briefly mention the fact that the Hebrew intro also mentions the movies).

[Apologies to EKJ, his edit was not in violation of WP policies on translation because he did not remove the key sentence clarifying that the interview is in English, following a brief Hebrew intro. The original edit by Str1977 was in violation because it removed the key sentence. This is a moot point because then Str1977 studied the WP policies and modified his edits accordingly. This is not to attack anyone or to find faults. This is just to apologize to EKJ and to clarify and explain an old, moot, and by now obsolete point.]

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy Is going from article to connected article with the same handiwork Peter Joseph, the latest. Its a pity because presenting all these subjects in a blatant non-neutral viewpoint and making articles read like official transcripts of Zeitgeist material destroys neutral perspective. The latest one on Peter Joseph, he is doing nearly the same edits as here except more blatantly because no one is watching that article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ijon,

"The original edit by Str1977 was in violation because it removed the key sentence. This is a moot point because then Str1977 studied the WP policies and modified his edits accordingly."

I don't understand this. My edits on this issue before and after "studying" the discussion on your talk page were basically the same, especially regarding the need for translations. I merely later inserted a very short summary as a possible compromise and I am glad you accepted that. But that doesn't mean that we could not do without that summary. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Original edit was in violation because it removed the key sentence "Interview conducted in English, following a brief introduction in Hebrew." After you reviewed the policies you re-instated this key sentence. Without this key sentence, any reader / editor could, upon watching the first 3 seconds of the interview, remove the source altogether, because, acting in good faith, they would assume the interview was not in English.

BTW, your explanation on why summarizing the intro serves the needs of our readers is very good, fair and reasonable. I should have thought of it myself. I agree with it fully. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Contemporary Religion article

I made some changes to the 2nd criticism item, based on the JCR article:

1. It is not the Journal that issued that criticism but an article penned by two authors.
2. Linking the movement to the movement is both banal (they are obviously connected, at least in some way) and not a criticism. The second sentence then criticized the movie (and at least in the quote in a not very sophisticated manner). The result: an article criticizes a movement for being connected to a film that claims X and Y. Sorry, that's not good enough!
3. Since I can't access the full article, I cannot improve the passage here much, but even the headline "Conspirituality" shows that there is more than what I previously criticized.
4. In such short a passage, it is not neccessary to add the same ref twice.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I must insist that it is the authors of an article that are doing the criticizing, not (necessarily) the Journal the article is published in. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Insistence is not constructive. This is not a process where editors insist. Obviously, when someone says that a journal says so-and-so, it is the authors that say it - the journal doesn't speak unless the publishers of the journal are saying something, which, obviously, isn't the case here. The authors of the article are in the cite. If the authors were noteworthy - say they had articles on Wikipedia, e.g., Goldberg - then we could name the authors in the body because it adds value. Otherwise, it's not useful. That said, I left in what appears to be a compromise, which is the article says (your edit). I can't even follow the rest of what you say about the journal article. I don't know why you keep changing the studiVZ sentences, but your change, other than having the value of being one sentence instead of two, puts the cart before the horse and is subtly non-neutral. I put it back the way it was.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Journals can have an editorial opinion but they do no necessarily endorse opinions expressed in articles. I understand that these authors are not notable (but is Goldberg?) but there are ways to avoid the problem by stating that it was the article that criticized.
2. Re. StudiVZ: IMHO the StudiVZ ban is part of the whole antisemitism discussion - the groups were banned because of that allegation. Hence it should be included in the same paragraph. That TZM's Australian website denounced that move is not surprising and doesn't deserve a full sentence and certainly not reprinting the ref. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is too long and looks like a block of words. Also why attach two information things together when they are different in focus and direction? It is a different aspect of critical view and makes a better short paragraph by itself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding accessing the full article, I obtained a copy by using WP email to send an email to user Slp1, indicating my own personal email address (because, according to Slp1, it is not possible to use attachments in WP email). I read the article twice, and it does not seem to me it criticizes TZM. It seems it only 'analyzes' or 'discusses' etc., but I did not detect a tone (or angle or direction) of criticism. But I don't object to leaving the citation as it is and where it is currently, i.e., in the 'Criticism' section, because the scholarly article also mentions the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the first movie. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The assertion by the article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion that the first Z Movie claims that 9/11 was an inside job should be removed, because it is redundant. Our readers already know that the movie has been criticized for conspiracy theories (they know this from the immediately preceding paragraph). The sentence should read only that "An article in the Journal of Contemporary Religion described the movement as an example of a "conspirituality", a synthesis of New Age spirituality and conspiracy theory, asserting that Zeitgeist: The Movie claims that "organized religion is about social control."[19] IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sustainable development clarification

The term "sustainable development" only needs clarification if the article Sustainable development is unclear or if something else, more specific is meant. And in that case, we should IMO keep only the clarification, and not the link to Sustainable development. As the article and the clarification as far as I can tell currently agrees, the clarification is not needed. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

(revert to consensus on susan brown etc; some members of both groups etc;) End quote IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk)

No consensus for that. Please do not assert consensus unless you find one on the talk page here. What has Susan Brown to do with Zeitgeist? Nothing. Also the other link to the Technocracy Movement article is not connected. There is no connection to that group.

Also 'some members' belonging does not make for critical thinking on this subject. Some members also belong to multi groups. Point is the main organizers of Zeitgeist and Venus Project have made a permanent split, and having anecdotal words saying 'some' etc. is not critical thinking and can be mistaken for a so called weasel word wording. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

All of Brown's ideas are almost identical to those of TZM; for example, her essay 'Does Work Really Work?'. This (almost)-equivalence/ high similarity is supported by several primary and secondary sources; for example, the Globes article. All of the ideas of The Technocracy Movement (TTM) are almost identical to those of TZM (because all the ideas of TTM are almost identical to those of the Venus project, by the way). And the dual membership of many TZM members is well-supported. It provides balance and critical thinking and NPOV to our statement that "the groups split and currently are not associated with each other". The word 'some' is used extensively in Wikipedia, most of the time without being mistaken for a weasel word.

We have already been through the whole discussion of the issue of 'See Also' previously on this talk page several weeks ago. You may want to review the previous discussion. More importantly, you may want to review WP:See also. I'm not sure what your logic is, as it is not clear from your comment whether you are saying, or perhaps implying, or hinting, or whatever, that only links that mention TZM should be included in 'See also'. (I don't know if that's what you are saying, I'm guessing here because your comment is imprecise and thus leaves me no choice but to try to interpret your comment in an effort to understand what it is precisely you are saying.) If indeed it was true that only links that mention TZM should be included, then all the other links (Ecotopia, Technological utopianism, Criticism of capitalism) should also be removed because they do not mention TZM. Or they should be removed because they are not 'directly' 'related' to TZM, or because they are not 'directly' 'connected' to TZM. Again, it is critical to fully read and comprehend not only the language, but also the intention and the spirit, behind WP:See also.

We should also include links to Kropotkin and Bakunin in 'See Also' because their ideas are almost identical to those of The Technocracy Movement (and thus TVP, and thus TZM). And Karl Marx and Carl Sagan --- both of whom are mentioned in the New York Times article on TZM.

(This is not a personal attack. I'm sure some of my own past comments have been imprecise, and I often have to read the same WP policy more than once to fully understand its spirit, not only the letter of the policy.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We should then include links to Cockaigne, The Matrix, and Gnosticism, because these ideas are almost identical to those of Zeitigeist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom, your comment is sarcastic, insulting, offensive and highly disrespectful. It does not belong here.

Furthermore, in reverting my edits, you rudely, conveniently and completely ignored my reasoning for the inclusion of the (well-supported) dual-membership and for the fact that the second mention of the 9/11 conspiracy theories is redundant and unnecessary, because the conspiracy theories are already discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Tom Harrison is not being rude, sarcastic, insulting, offensive and highly disrespectful. Attacking editors, making personal attacks is not the way to improve the article. The points made by that editor are valid. Turning the article into a link farm takes away from the article, which is now greatly improved and nearly balanced neutrally, a far cry from where it was a few weeks ago.

The Venus Project is linked already currently. Zeitgeist has a direct history with them, that is why its in the article links currently. Karl Marx and Carl Sagan are not connected in any way. Browns ideas are not directly related and a stretch to say related at all. She is not connected as a member or speaker or anything to either group. and We should also include links to Kropotkin and Bakunin in 'See Also' because their ideas are almost identical to those of The Technocracy Movement (and thus TVP, and thus TZM). end quote [User IjonTichyIjonTichi. How is it that those peoples ideas are in anyway connected to Technocracy, which is not connected to Zeitgeist or Venus project or the two communist writers you mention? There is no connection except maybe radical social change ideas and there is no shortage of people that could be brought up in that context but its minutia and not relevant. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The bulk of my response to your comment would be exactly identical to my previous comment (time stamped 16:36, 11 July 2012) and thus I will not repeat it here (out of respect for OpenFuture's previous request that I not repeat myself). The only things I have to add are that (a) based on WP:See also the subject of the link (Brown, etc.) do not have to be directly connected (e.g. as a member or speaker of TZM). Karl Marx and Carl Sagan are mentioned in the NYT; (b) Your labeling of my response to Tom harrison as an attack on Tom is erroneous. I do not consider my response as an attack on Tom. I do not object to Tom's three suggestions for See Also. (Except perhaps a mild objection to Cockaigne because a link to Utopia is already provided in the body of the article.) The Matrix is mentioned in TheMarker, and I'm OK with including Gnosticism. (c) The sarcastic, insulting, offensive and disrespectful part of Tom's comment is the part where Tom writes "because these ideas are almost identical to those of Zeitigeist," because here he is mocking, belittling, disparaging and degrading my immediately preceding comment in which I show ideas that are almost identical to those of Zeitgeist, i.e., my explanations on the roots of TVP (going from TZM back to TVP, from TVP back to TTM, from TTM back to Kropotin and Bakunin, and back to Marx, and, of course, the people who influenced Marx, etc., all the way back to antiquity - these influences are listed in the respective WP articles on these persons. And you are right that there is no shortage of people in that context, and I'm proposing we should include some of them in 'See also'). And in his edit (as separate from his comment), he rudely, conveniently and completely ignored my reasoning for the inclusion of the (well-supported) dual-membership and for the fact that the second mention of the 9/11 conspiracy is redundant because the conspiracy is already discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring Ijon. You have reinserted the information 4 or 5 times now in a short period without consensus. The 911 mention is in a totally different context and different article. The article links you want to include are about Communism a different subject. Technocracy groups and now Venus Project groups are not connected except historically, mostly because Fresco once upon a time was a member of the Technocracy group. It is mentioned already that Venus Project is formerly connected for context and the article link is in this article. Technocracy groups state explicitly in all of their information that they are not connected to any groups in Europe of elsewhere. If there is a cross over of members between the groups?? that can or could be said for just about any groups in the world and has no bearing. The organizations formally split. As a member advocate of Zeitgeist you have to be careful to stay balanced with neutrality, for the article. Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist '

TZMThis user advocates
The Zeitgeist Movement.

' so utmost caution is suggested regarding neutrality. IjonTichyIjonTichy I am not saying that should or could prevent you from being neutral, but trying to insert material against consensus, outside of the neutrality of the article or introducing side personalities and then being so harsh against other editors will just bring more scrutiny to the article and its difficult enough to make a case for your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate. The article has seen vast improvement to the point where it really says a lot now. That is because of the more recent neutral editing by uninvolved but interested parties. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)