Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement

Reception section's focus on the movies

Although the emphasis on the movies in the reception section has been a recurring problem, this most recent edit by Earl has made it worse. This removed details about the diversity of the movement among other details, but kept commentary that was solely about the movie. It also removed an article from the Palm Beach Post that was entirely about the movement and could be useful in further expanding content on this page. We have multiple reliable sources that are almost entirely about the movement and only mention the movies as necessity requires yet the reception section, which constitutes about half of the article, is almost entirely commentary about the movies. This problem needs to be rectified.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. The movement is a spinoff of the first movie. It is overwhelmingly sourced that this is the beginning of the Zeitgeist group. Joseph was supposedly asked about alternative ideas connected to the first movie and introduced Zeitgeist in the second movie as a ready made movement or internet cult type of culture that rapidly found an audience though that audience has perhaps declined now. We know this from reliable sources. My guess is that because you have been blocked so many times T.D.A. for tendentiously editing and edit warring on articles concerning conspiracy things like this article, to the point of even breaking your editing sanctions and editing even more, that it is going to be hard for your edits to be thought of as reasonable since you seem to have a stake in presenting Zeitgeist things more toward their pov, that is more toward their primary sources and presentation and not so much from other sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that this article is about the movement, yet you are gradually removing any material that is actually about the movement in favor of material that is about the movies. I mean, this isn't even a POV issue. We are just talking about a problem where the reception section says basically nothing about the movement itself, but a lot about the movies that all have their own articles. Not sure why you go into attack mode over such a thing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not attacking just stating some things. As said we can not use the Zeitgeist material to form the article here. Their party line says that the two things are separate, 'movie' and 'movement' but most reputable outside observers differ to that line of thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say we should use Zeitgeist material? I said we should use the reliable sources such as The New York Times, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Weekly, VC Reporter, and even Tablet Magazine, to detail various aspects of the movement and its reception. All of those discuss the movement itself in some detail and not just the movies. I am not suggesting we avoid mentioning the movies, but that we recognize that this article is about the movement and thus we should only discuss the movies insomuch as they relate to details about the movement. A lot of details about the movement mentioned in these reliable sources are not mentioned in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You just keep repeating that and that is the crux of the argument, in which you have mistakenly taken that view point. The Movies and the Movement are integrally entwined. The movies are the movement. It is an internet based phenomena of people watching the Zeitgeist movies. Reliable sources repeat that over and over. It is only the Zeitgeist enthusiasts that differ on that point. I suppose that you fit into that camp because you espouse their approach to perceiving the information, that the movies and movement are separate things, which pretty much goes against most all reliable sources. So, its not right for you to use the pov of the Zeitgeist website on the article unless its backed by something else. There is zero serious news or articles about Zeitgeist now and I doubt whether there is a real social movement these days. I can't find any outside info. on it by reliable sources except from years ago now. The movement might be history at this point. Most of the things they predicted never happened and they have taken a lot of heat for their extreme theories also. Fresco leaving them did not even make news. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, the New York Times article has exactly three paragraphs that mention the movies and that is mostly to note that the movement arose from the films. The rest of it is devoted to discussing the movement, its members, and its ideology. I have rarely looked at anything on the Zeitgeist site and only then when it is a page already cited in this article or others. We have an article for each movie and that is where reception of the films belongs. An article about the movement should have reception of the movement. Nothing even remotely POV about that and I am not suggesting we act like the movies and movement have nothing to do with each other, just that we actually make the material in this article about the movement rather than the movies because this article is about the movement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then we should merge all this stuff into one article. There is no "movement" for all practical purposes...its just a scam or internet meme.--MONGO 05:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem The New York Times, VC Reporter, Orlando Weekly, Palm Beach Post, The Daily Telegraph, and even the rather biased Tablet Magazine disagree with you on that front. All of them consider it to be a movement distinct from the movies, albeit closely related to them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Another option is to simply have your edit warring nonsense put to an end with a topic ban on this topic. I've reached the point that I see an edit from you almost anywhere on this website and I feel it should simply be reverted on sight just on principle.--MONGO 05:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All of them consider it to be a movement distinct from the movies, albeit closely related to them. end quote T.D.A. - What? Why is it that you have the information upside down and backwards? It seems a waste of time to try to explain this over and over. The so called movement is just a bunch of people that watch Youtube and meet in some coffee shop to talk about the ideas of Peter Joseph who makes some money selling C.D's of these 'movies' on his websites, Amazon, etc. To say the movement and the movies are different?? does not make a lot of sense. Oh and knock off the for fucks sake kind of response in the future it is not cute and probably counts as personal attacking. This is not your local bar. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on reception section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The close is in two parts.

1) There is no consensus as to whether the reception section of the article should focus on the Zeitgeist movement or the films. Only a few editors directly answered this question and it would be wrong to extrapolate a consensus from that, even though there appears to be consensus that the article has historically made an artificial distinction between the two. I also note that the page has recently been moved (which this close will endorse), and that the move may affect editors' stances on the question. Therefore: No consensus.

2) The page was recently moved to "Zeitgeist (film series)", with a consensus deriving from this RfC cited in support. This close endorses that action. Even though the RfC question did not invite the discussion, there was clear consensus, at least, that there should be some rationalisation of articled in this topic area, much of which was in support of the type of action undertaken. Merging the articles about the films and their influence seems like a logical response to that, taking into account WP:CFORK. Although I would stop short of saying that consensus for the merge is strong, I think it exists, and consensus against the status quo at the time the RfC was started is very clear. If I were to shy away from declaring a consensus, this would put the recent merge into question, which would not be in the interests of the project and would be a disservice to editors who participated in the RfC. If there are editors who would prefer a different shape of reorganisation without merging these two articles, that's a discussion that can easily follow this close.

Should the reception section focus on The Zeitgeist Movement or the Zeitgeist films?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• This article is about the movement and it is rather silly to have a reception section that pretty much only mentions what people think of the movies. Plenty of material about the movement itself is present within reliable sources such as The New York Times.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, the whole Zeitgeist belief is predicated entirely on the movie, there is no "movement," not unless one could consider Star Trek fandom and Star Trek conventions a "movement." The movie is fantasy fiction, it is not a real phenomena, the movie is not a documentary and people who believe otherwise are not a "movement," they are fans of the movie, ergo the focus of the article should be on the movie.

The Star Trek Wrath Of Kahn movie, for example, could not be considered a "movement" if a significant number of people believe that the Genisys Device is real and that the events as depicted in the movie actual;ly happened. A Wikipedia article covering the movie should not talk about the film in the context of a "movement" any more than Zeitgeist should. Damotclese (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The question implies a bright distinction, that there are the movies and the movement, and that these are two wholly different things. That's not the way the sources present it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• It only implies a distinction in terms. When sources talk about the movement they are talking about the movement and when they talk about the movies they are talking about the movies. At present, this article about the movement has a reception section that barely talks about the movement and talks a lot about the movies, which have their own articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should the reception section focus on The Zeitgeist Movement or the Zeitgeist films? end quote from request for comment by T.D.A. Again you are failing to understand the dynamic of this. The movies are the movement and the movement is the movies. Probably all of the 'films' could be batched into one article. Maybe the film articles and the movement article should be put into one article. Right now it just reflects the inordinate enthusiasm of pov editors that created the multiple articles. There is no reason for so many articles on this subject which many consider a dead letter that virtually no reputable source has written about for years. I suggest all these movie articles become redirects into 'The Zeitgeist Movement' Wikipedia article. Or all the movie and movement articles be redirected into the original movie article, Zeitgeist, the movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Even if I were to agree that The Zeitgeist Movement is nothing more than the fan following of the Zeitgeist movies, it would not change that the article is about the movement. The article on the Star Trek fandom does not give people's various thoughts on the franchise. It is about the fandom because that is what the article is about even if it is just the people who enjoy the franchise. We have an article about the movement and other articles about the movies and that separation has been discussed many times. As that is the case, this article should be about the movement and the material written accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume that your pov which you have from the Zeitgeist movement and its theories is your reason for the discussion and that you are not going to change your opinion and you just want to argue your point over and over T.D.A., waste peoples time and give the Zeitgeist movements 'party' line about what it is which differs from what reliable sources say. Since you have been blocked and banned numerous times for edit warring and tendentious editing on the conspiracy articles I would suggest that a topic ban is in order for you. Another one on this conspiracy based article so that you stop your disruptive editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the articles should all be merged into the main Zeitgest article or The Zeitgeist Movement, and that having a separate page on every film isn't warranted by the sources. Per that statement, the reception section of the combined article should cover both. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 02:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Would you be interested in doing those options either of which is fine. I would support putting the movie articles, in greatly reduced form, into the Zeitgeist movement article or any other option of reducing the pointless articles on this. If you want to boldly redirect the movie articles into the movement and just put a section on the movies in the article that would probably suffice. Part of the problem here has been the Zeitgeist supporters that swamp the neutral editing editors. Your suggestion was attempted a while back and was met with a barrage of misdirection and interference from the Zeitgeist supporters that show up here in multiple guises as sock puppets meat puppets etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What a farce Earl King Jr. You're not some neutral editor. You already made your anti-Zeitgeist sentiments abundantly clear by calling it a cult or a scam. Biased bigots like yourself should have no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.168.153 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If not a scam, it is objectively a cult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no "movement" I was called by the 'bot. There is no such thing as a "Zeitgeist movement," there is only a fantasy fiction movie of that name and people who believe that it is real. For the RFC itself, the focus should be upon the movie since the article is covering a fantasy construct which is predicated solely upon the movie.

Wholly agree. There is zero evidence to support the existence of any organization, much less a movement, which expounds the views expressed in the Zeitgeist films. At best we are talking about a collection of fans. JamesBay (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There are obviously believers who employ religious conspiracy non-complex cognitive thinking who will argue that there is a "movement," and there are Editors who fall in to that class so I expect people will argue the point. However for accuracy and encyclopedia needs, I recommend focus on the movie. Damotclese (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. I would support your line of thinking and support you if you care to get involved by boldly redirectly most of the mess of the articles into the original movie article. Keeping the original movie article and updating it with information from a 'so called internet' movement which is not real in my opinion also. I see the whole thing as a marketing campaign. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Damotclese, but you don't go far enough.

Really, anything zeitgeist or venus project doesn't belong on Wikipedia since it's the promotion of a scam.The-Land's-Way (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

O.k. I more or less agree with The Lands Way and others here that currently we are over-killing with these articles. So lets do redirects of the various Zeitgeist articles into one article. I guess the first movie article? Zeitgeist the Movie is appropriate since that is what started the ball rolling. Its either that or make all the movie articles go into the so called 'movement' article. Which is best? Does someone want to boldly do either one? It looks like the Zeitgeist supporters that edit here will buck that idea but NPOV editors seem to agree that it would be better that way. Thoughts? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I merged, redirected, the movie articles, three of them into this article page The Zeitgeist Movement. Zeitgeist the movie, Zeitgeist moving forward, and Zeitgeist Addendum. I hope this is close enough to the consensus here of slimming down this multiple article over kill of Zeitgeist related things. It probably is doubtful that there is a real movement beyond a kind of commercial enterprise I would agree with others here. There has been virtually zero written about Zeitgeist and its ideas for years as far as serious journalism. Anyone willing now can make one section to lump the movies together in this article (The Zeitgeist Movement) and I would suggest that not more than a title of each movie is really needed, when they were made and a one sentence idea of what they were about. I have no doubt that the Zeitgeist supporters here are going to freak out but lets just say that the consensus is not for Wikipedia to advertise these movies or the movement and maybe cursory space is appropriate for them. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Once more proceeding with your soft deletions of the other Zeitgeist articles I see. You do not have consensus for what you are doing, nor have you provided any sources. What you are doing is arguing on the basis of your opinion, which appears to be what others are doing above. Consensus is guided by reliable sources and policy, none of which are being cited here to justify this move.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with Earl King efforts to merge these articles into one piece of article space. I don't yet know what what the parent article should be. I would think since the movement is nonexistent that the first movie should probably be the only article.--MONGO 01:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I hate to talk about you, but you are a pov pro Zeitgeist in all its multiple needless articles, editor. Did you read the comments above? There is almost no support for those extraneous articles above except by yourself T.D.A. and you have a block history as long as your arm for tendentious editing, edit warring on conspiracy articles and were blocked multiple times for that and taken to task multiple times for that and sanctioned from even editing them twice previously. So lets cut the crap and consolidate these articles which many people here think are overkill to this subject, which as someone above said, is not really even a social movement probably and mostly internet generated junk to sell DVD's or Pay Pal donation click button stimulus. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous deletion discussions and merge discussions that rejected this exact move and previous rejection of unilateral efforts by you to redirect these articles to a single target suggest otherwise. Also, you "hate to talk about" me? Since when? Seems whenever we have a discussion all you do is talk about me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Merge all zeitgeist stuff into one article so readers don't think there is more than just the one thing in multiple formats. --DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly... which article though. I'm going to move all the articles into Zeitgeist: The Movie in a day or less since the only person arguing against that is The Devil's Advocate and he's overdue for a site ban anyway.--MONGO 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• You are not even allowing a formal discussion of this issue. All you are doing is hijacking an RfC on another issue to try and force a decision that has been rejected in more active discussions that were actually about this issue. None of you have pointed to where reliable sources actually support this action. Every argument you have given has been essentially your personal opinion on the subject without any regard to sourcing or policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, merge all the articles into one. As a first step, the movies should all be merged. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. Could you or someone else then take that step please, with support from this discussion? It seems like this is as good a time as any to do this in one fell swoop also. I don't think that T.D.A. is going to let anyone do anything unless he is reverted by the N.P.O.V. editors. He is just rejecting any redirects that I do and turning a blind eye to the overwhelming consensus of consolidating. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Let us first decide which article will be the one they are redirected to. I would think, as I mentioned yesterday, that the article about the first YouTube movie should be the only article.--MONGO 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but the same people who have been pushing for eliminating these articles still pushing for eliminating these articles are not a consensus. You are going to need to start a new discussion in a formal process and I will be sure to notify any other parties who have an interest.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No reason to be sorry T.D.A. about all this. Also, you are way out of sync. with the other editors here. Also, canvassing other pro Zeitgeist or middle of the roaders as I see you have started doing is called canvassing and that is not a good idea. This RFC has pointed out a lot of things from uninvolved parties and gets right to the core of why all these promo articles mostly by the movement members and hangers on are not really good for Wikipedia. O.K. so lets put the movie articles into the first movie then. Lets go with the first Youtube movie then Zeitgeist The Movie. Redirect the 'movement' article and the other 'movies' into that one. If someone wants to do that now I support that idea. Also noted that redirecting articles is not 'getting rid' of them. In this case it is just sparing people the trouble of unwarranted bits and pieces of information spread out over Wikipedia about this subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where the discussion should be, but there only needs to be one article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As a first step, I've merged and redirected Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward to the (already existing) Zeitgeist (film series). Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Did not know there was a "film series" article but now that I do, I see that your merge and redirect is an excellent plan. Other articles should probably soon merge into the one you found as well. This article should also be merged there I should think....and the template at the bottom should go to TFD after that.--MONGO 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'll trim the movies a bit, then see about merging more in, or anyone can jump in and do it without waiting for me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it, why does wikipedia need to have any articles for anything zeitgeist? it's a confidence trick, a fiction, false advertising, peter joseph's cult and so forth.

In see also it already mentions, Technological utopianism, if not scam, anything zeitgeist should just redirect to that.

Is Wikipedia in the business of allowing deceptive, malicious groups a platform? Zeitgeist doesn't need article, either no recognition or redirection to the appropriate article.The-Land's-Way (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia in the business of allowing deceptive, malicious groups a platform? Yes, in a limited way because it tells a lot about many subjects some not cute in some peoples minds. Wikipedia itself does not take a stand on the issues its covering but just presents things. There may have never been a real movement or if there was one it could have peaked and could well disappear. We don't know but time will tell. Its an adhoc group. Its not a company or corporation etc. Its probably impossible to tell the number of people involved, its doubtful there are any records. The article is fairly good now. Its not really complimentary and its not too hard on them either. Doubtful its a real movement now because there are zero citation sources from recent times.

Reminder, if you can find a notable journalist or essay or book that has your opinion then that would carry some weight. But, as a person that just 'thinks' your thoughts on this, that is not going to count unless you are published or notable in connection with this subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, it's great that you POV-pushers have found a way to hijack an RfC that wasn't even about this issue to achieve a goal you had been pushing with no success for years because of your own personal beliefs rather than because it was supported by sourcing or policy once nearly all those who would object are finally not paying attention or have been successfully driven away by your toxic hostility, but nothing you are doing is actually addressing the initial concern raised about reception of the movement actually being reception of the movement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate...please Assume Good Faith! Calling others POV pushers and claiming we have toxic hostility without proof is very uncollaborative on your part. I think the next step is to roll this article into the one the movies are all at now...making a nice easily contained bundle so it's easier to keep vandalism at bay and for the pusposes of consolidated information.--MONGO 12:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That is the next step, yes, and feel free to do it as it has overwhelming support. T.D.A. comment above about hijacking??, no I don't think so but nothing you are doing is actually addressing the initial concern raised about reception of the movement actually being reception of the movement.--The Devil's Advocate That was addressed in spades in the comments above and was also dismissed as being out of line with Wikipedia standards, that is your original concern. The article can not be a mouth piece of Peter Joseph information. It can not give the 'party line' faq's information from Zeitgeist websites that there is no connection of the movement to the original film. That is just what they say but our reliable sources plus the opinions of many Wikipedian editors says that this can not be true. I would echo another editor here and say that this new article of movies and movement is a big improvement because all the information will be together. It is virtually impossible to find any news on the Zeitgeist Movement now because it is very doubtful that it is taken seriously in a notable way. It appears to have sort of faded out the last few years, but that is just my opinion from not seeing any information or serious writing about it. It may have flamed out like Angry Birds pop culture. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

if this page is "necessary", which I don't think it is, it deserves deletion, There's a lot of things about this article which are just false. First of all, it's not "doubtful" if zeitgeist is a real movement or not, it isn't. Presently the article although says it's a movement it implies it's an internet cult by mentioning TZM being "directed" by its leader peter joseph, why the implication? why not just say what it is: a deceptive internet cult which promotes an Utopia, which relates to communism looks good on paper, disastrous in reality, it used brainwashed people's real money to promote such material under this "zeitgeist" label.

Obviously better worded than that, but this article fails to say what the "movement" really is showing how gullible whoever is editing it. So is it Wikipedia's job to inform or deceive? The-Land's-Way (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog so could you stop cluttering up the talk page with your personal thoughts about this? If you want to start a blog elsewhere you can for free, such as Google or Facebook etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Anything "zeitgeist" IS a "mouth piece of Peter Joseph information.", I'm guessing you just can't see this. The only neutral and sane thing to suggest on this talk page is this page's deletion.

No I don't want to "start a blog" I'd like to see zeitgeist deleted and events banned as much as possible.The-Land's-Way (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"<snip> The only neutral and sane thing to suggest on this talk page is this page's deletion. <snip> I'd like to see zeitgeist deleted and events banned as much as possible." Good luck trying. Signed, ^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 21:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

zeitgeist shit shouldn't be on wikipedia, it's false advertising, and that's not neutral.

That's how it is, the subject itself cannot be neutrally discussed since it's utopian fantasy bullshit, therefore this page should be deleted.The-Land's-Way (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but so what? All the serious people here are in love with Peter Joseph and his ideas and consider him our salvation because he has exposed the secret lizard based cult. The world is a better place because Peter Joseph has got the right stuff. Someday Peter Joseph will be the president of the whole world and then they will take away the chips and mind control devices. Feel better now? You see why opinions of editors do not count now? Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As you say: "Consider him salvation". Whether online or in real life, cults shouldn't be tolerated, they wreck people's lives. What's worse is that it's considered a movement and not at the very least a religion. That's "what".

it's a total bullshit made-up fringe group, it seems as if anyone makes a bullshit group on any site it should be cataloged for some reason. Zeitgeist is worth deleting not mentioning.The-Land's-Way (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New York Times Select Quote

This NYTs article is about The Zeitgeist Movement and therefore any quotes from the New York Time Article should relate to the writer's view of The Zeitgeist Movement and not the films. peter joseph or the like.

This is basic, common logic.

The following as been added to describe The New York Times actual statements about TZM's work:

The vision of "a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life."

The prior statement: "An article in The New York Times noted that Zeitgeist The Movie 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 Mr. Joseph said he "moved away from" (as of 2009 in an interview)

Has nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement and ignores everything the NYTs reporter has to say about the actual movement's work itself and the event he attended. This is clearly being placed here to distort the view of The Zeitgeist Movement by people who prefer to not properly represent TZM.

SweetGirlLove (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You omitted the context of "The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of..." That quote is more about how TZM sees themselves, not how they are seen by others. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Page situation

Why is it so hard to have a Wikipedia page on the zeitgeist movement, this shouldnt be complicated. There is nothing to polarize or make neutral, make the page about what the zeitgeist movement is. Not about advocates or critics opinions. Im probably wasting my time since its known how critics have been having their way with Wikipedia on things that are highly debated. Its easier remove content then to fix or add. Looking at you Earl King Jr, if you would want to prove that your not acting with the wrong intentions of controlling information on something you disagree with, write a better article that actually meets wikipedia rules and that is an information page about the movement.

The main question precluding any page in wikipedia is, WHAT IS. Now make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.108.66 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement has a membership of at least half a million last I checked, probably far more than that now, and exists independent of any art projects by Peter Joseph, who is also a leading figure of the movement (leading as in how visible he is due to the movies, but not a leader of it per se). If a bona fide organized effort like TZM has no place on Wikipedia, I regret my Wikipedia donations... deleting pages because you're ill informed about the content doesn't strike me as the way to go. 79.133.30.101 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no claims that the "Zeitgeist Movement" is organized, and no reliable claims that it has a large number of members. If you can provide evidence otherwise, it's possible an article about the movement might be re-split. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. From http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/structure one can follow to numerous state-specific and nation specific local groups, all with web presences, many with organized meetings on a regular basis, and collectively that is the de-centralized and cooperative Zeitgeist Movement that IS NOT the same as the art projects by Peter Joseph. If you erase the page on the grounds that it isn't an organization you may as well go remove the sections on the Republican Party. 79.133.30.101 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires independent sources to verify such claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The page was not erased it was moved over to the movie article page. There is no evidence what so ever that the Zeitgeist Movement is any more than a type of fanzine internet construct with many bored Youtube users pushing their button out of curiosity. The person that originated Zeitgeist movies was a Wall Street money broker and also worked as a Madison Avenue marketing sales person and probably branded the so called movement in a certain way to make it Google up as a movement. That may sound cynical but beyond a few articles from the past, there is no media attention being paid to the movement.Also, if you read the request for comment above you can see very clearly that the consensus here is that moving the information to the movie page is a good idea. We can not use the Zeitgeist material itself for an encyclopedia article except as the basic reference of what it is. Only the movement members view the films and the 'organization' as two different things probably because that is their instruction from their official website. Maybe Peter Joseph 'blew it' when he called the two things the same thing because the baggage from the first movie is not going to go away. Its not a plot. No one here of the serous editors really cares about Zeitgeist pro or con, but the articles can not be a mouth piece for their Faq's material. It should be noted also that the group is adhoc and not formal and has zero official presence as far as being incorporated or non profit etc. etc. and that does not lend itself either to a paper trail even confirming that it exists as a real legal entity. It may have been a short lived cultural phenomena. Its impossible to say but maybe in 10 years we might know. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. This is white knighting at its finest. 2007 was a long time ago and the movement has developed identification on its own and Although A film maker used the term in a film that is in no way ownership of such a broad term.

"Zeitgeist" was used by google long before the film for fucks sake. Every editor here who trashes the term seems to forget that this term exists outside of the film series... or even Peter Joseph for that matter. These so called "neutral editors" Are a disgrace to this community.

A "Zeitgiest Movement" is such a simple term... it simply means "the ideas of a generation". Google literally uses that definition in its search indexing. With the advent of the internet, we all have this debate on a global platform and are participating in the spread of ideas across borders with instant ease.

Sure the term is so simple that does it really worth mentioning? Well yes!! Think about the term "cultural lag". Don't you think that The Zeitgeist Movement is a little more relevant seeing there are so many important ideas on the internet that would be helpful for many of the more isolated countries on earth?

Seriously guys, don't get so caught up thinking this one guy is a "cult leader". You simply demonstrate your lack of understanding of the term.

The idea is a persistant one, so lets embrace the term that strives to share the fruits of current scientific and cultural fruits and not turn this into a "films only derp derp" approach. End of unsigned and non robot signed comment by anon. above.

• Really its a waste of our time for rants by followers of Peter Joseph. Please go away and don't come back unless you are going to learn a bit of Wikipedia operational stuff. Stuff like

A "Zeitgiest Movement" is such a simple term... it simply means "the ideas of a generation". Google literally uses that definition in its search indexing. With the advent of the internet, we all have this debate on a global platform and are participating in the spread of ideas across borders with instant ease.

Anyway, this page is not a blog for you and Zeitgeist. I suggest that you go to a De-programmer, if you want my opinion of your opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim that "the Zeitgeist Movement" is a zeitgeist movement is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There may be five members of the "movement"...this whole charade has been a scam.--MONGO 21:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence you exist either MONGO, there's programs that can type the stuff you've been typing, see what i did there? :) You and your "american dreamer" friends use outstanding ivy league language however searching for evidence to verify your claims, which is 1 google away btw, seems to utterly defeat you, in the meantime 20 pages worth of comments have passed and all you advocates of the fact that "the zeitgeist movement doesn't exist" managed to do is tell each other your opinions in the most positively idiotic ways possible. 5.13.192.162 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Efforts by Zeitgeist members

There has been a general call by Zeitgeist websites to come here to argue the information for their Faq's material to be the basis of the Wikipedia article. They have lots of members so no doubt a few more will arrive here to tinker the article according to their pov.

Example,statement by *Melarish Ish: Been trying to edit the criticisms to end the association with Zeitgeist: The Movie. Not going too well. I can't edit any more or I might be banned so I'm continuing the argument on the Talk page. Source from Zeitgeist [1] end quote from the Global Zeitgeist Movement Facebook

I don't mind that Malarish is a Zeitgeist member/advocate, but mind that he edit warred the article and is trying to extend the Zeitgeist orgs. information to encompass the Wikipedia information.

Another example of how the group itself comes to this article from the large number of followers generated by Zeitgeist and tries to influence their members to come here and edit [2] Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Funny how you questioned the number of followers/members and even the very existence of any organization:

There is no evidence what so ever that the Zeitgeist Movement is any more than a type of fanzine internet construct with many bored Youtube users pushing their button out of curiosity.

But now acknowledge a large number of followers because, of course, coming here and questioning the impartiality of the admins requires more than button pushers. (: 201.86.161.236 (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no strength in numbers if guidelines are not followed. Meat and sock puppets for the group have no value hre. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting you claim no bias Earl King Jr., you always beg people to assume you're always editing in good faith but then again you do your own research around the internet, see the material TZM publishes, the meetings with thousands of members filmed around the world and chose to dismiss all of them in favor of reinforcing your belief, while your fellow groupthinkers(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) reinforce your opinions further. No matter, the movement does not need wikipedia to publicize ourselves, and before giggling at that claim, ask yourself some questions about why certain ideas are penetrating 1st world media nowadays, ideas that otherwise would be considered dismissable within the society you live in.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always." Mahatma Gandhi 94.177.145.25 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it as to encouraging you but really you can not blog here about sweetness and light and good triumphing because of things like Zeitgeist. Its best you go where you are appreciated but that would not be a talk page discussion on Wikipedia. Here it is more about more mundane things like citations and sources and notability. We have to assume that you are one of the Facebook groups of friends of Zeitgeist and want to wave the flag for them. But, read a bit of how Wikipedia works and learn some editing things and then maybe you can contribute. Deprogramming. article might make an interesting read for starters. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point dodging skills are legendary my dear sir, I tip my hat, you managed to ignore everything I said. And no, I am one of the thousands of active members you claim after "extensive research" do not exist and "never have existed". About deprogramming, why would anyone within the movement need it, there's problems within the world that require change no political system can commit to, someone has to inform the masses about them since the mass media and people such as yourself are keen on ignoring them as much as humanly possible. 94.177.145.25 (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am surprised you know. Its true that many of us here are card carrying members of the N.W.O. and as such we have to suppress groups like yours otherwise they would become wildly popular overnight and Peter Joseph who really deserves to rule the world because of his super brain would become our new god like ruler instead of the current group of secretive bankers and politicians who pay us editors to suppress your group.

Now, apparently you are not going to listen to anything I am saying or suggesting. I suggest you get familiar though with policy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, you don't have to be from NWO or other such nonsense, your problem just seems to be the inability to break away from the pattern of absolute rule following, for the sake of rule following or the absolute faith that things can get better if they can get better - but don't quote me on that one. As far as sources are concerned, what would it take for you guys to acknowledge as a valid source, in order to accept the existence of the zeitgeist movement and thus justify the existence of this page - don't send me to the rule page because everything there is very vague? In the meantime remember the fact that TZM doesn't require explicit membership, thus it is nigh impossible to create statistics as to how many people are actual members or advocates. Also Peter Joseph is not a leader, he isn't even part of the administration as far as I know besides some podcasts once in a while and some speeches here and there, he does not do much else. The movement does not require anyone to do anything and it's main focus is coordinating and engaging in spreading of information, think of us as a fringe news agency that is voluntary based and doesn't have a absolute hierarchy. I recommend reading the book, it's on the main site [[3]] and you can judge for yourself if it's propaganda that bases itself on belief or something else, it is a very good read for anyone that acknowledges there are issues within the current social paradigm that need to be addressed and has very well sourced content. 94.177.145.25 (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum, this is a place to discuss article content and changes based on references. If you have none please refrain from posting, thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as sources are concerned, what would it take for you guys to acknowledge as a valid source, in order to accept the existence of the zeitgeist movement and thus justify the existence of this page - don't send me to the rule page because everything there is very vague? So far all press sources were removed, show good faith and give an example of what you guys would agree is a decent source for the existence of the zeitgeist movement. 5.13.192.162 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources, things like newspapers for example. If you have a question about a particular source you can bring it to WP:RSN. The rules for a reliable source WP:RS are actually pretty clear. 'You guys' refers to wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just people who watch this page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are such things as policies and guidelines, however no policy or guideline has ever edited any wikipedia page, nor will it ever. :) 5.13.192.162 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)