Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement

Reception section

The reception section was a collection of carefully chosen, pro-Zeitgest quotes tossed in the article with nothing else. I removed the section as a quotefarm, POV and not encyclopediac in nature. Avashurov added the section back but removed the quotes, so it's now essentially a list of articles/sources. No context. No information. Just a list of article. I removed that with the edit comment of "Still removing the section - that's basically a list of sources. You need to write it in summary form and include both sides". Avashurov reverted that, saying it was my opinion. Rather than continue into an edit war, let's discuss this. The section, as it's written adds nothing to the article of an encyclopediac nature. That's contrary how article should appear on WP. A reception section is probably valid, but it MUST be written in summary style, based on sources and be balanced in it's coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is important as it adds to notability. It also includes both sides, for example New York Times criticized it "The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life." If you have other critique from reliable sources, please, fill free to include it.Avashurov (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it needs to be written in summary form. Not a collection of quotes. Not a collection of articles. A summary of the reception the group has had from various areas. As it currently stands, it's not something that should be in a WP article. Ravensfire (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There only dates, names and titles are left. Are you suggesting a summery of the articles instead. Then it would have to include quotes and would be about 5 times bigger.Avashurov (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, extensive content from the articles is even less needed. We don't need to detail the contents of the articles here, all that should be there is a list of where the movement has been mentioned, with sources, probably only a short paragraph. Maybe one brief quote from one article, but nothing more. Dates names and titles should go in the footnotes section and not in the main part of the article. Zazaban (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Venus Project section

The tag about copyright violation placed by Ravensfire is inapplicable as there is no copyrighted material presented. The information presented is important as The Venus Project has played significant role in The Zeitgeist Movement's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avashurov (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If material is copied from elsewhere, we have to assume that it is a copyright violation unless evidence to the contrary is given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What copyright violation? The information is from FAQ section of the movement's web-site it describes.Avashurov (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is - and at the bottom it reads "© Copyright 2008-2011 The Zeitgeist Movement ®. Portions Licensed under the Creative Commons License" - not entirely clear, but we have to be careful. Note that it is the wording that may be copyright, not the information - all that is required is that it be paraphrased. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. Avashurov, please read WP:COPYVIO for more information.

That's hardly the only section with possible copyright problems. Take any of the techno-speak phrases in the article and google them and you get hits. See From the lede and from the RBE section as examples. I suspect there were more but trimming and non-SPA editors revamping the language has helped. Ravensfire (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, there's nothing to prevent say small portions of the FAQ being quoted directly - as long as it is properly attributed. It's copy-and-pasting text without putting it in quote marks that is the problem - and actually, even if it isn't a copyright violation, an unattributed copy-paste is considered plagiarism by Wikipedia - we need to have a proper record of who actually wrote what. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Zazaban Please, provide justification of your neutrality dispute so I can improve it or remove the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avashurov (talk • contribs) 06:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that almost all of the article is sourced to TZM, rather than to third parties, I'd have thought it was obvious. How many times do you have to be told that this isn't your article, it is Wikipedia's? AS long as the article lacks proper sourcing, it will remain tagged - or be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is the reason it's tagged with POV tag. I'm not sure about that tag as WP:ABOUTSELF seems to allow describing itself. Who better can define the movement's structure and organization then the movement itself? However the neutrality tag is not justified. If some part of the article is not objective enough, please, point it out.Avashurov (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No. We have already explained this. We don't give a rat's arse what the "movement" claims about its "structure and organization" - unless it is is reported in third-party sources it isn't going in the article. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

TZM is not a reliable source about itself, as, after all, it wishes to paint itself in the most positive possible light. Wikipedia never users primary sources. This article as it currently stands is essentially an advertisement. Judging from the talk page, there are members of the movement keeping an eye on the page to veto any additions that are anything but highly positive in tone, which is beyond unacceptable. The 'Activities and Publications" section should be cut to at most two paragraphs, and I just removed a pamphlet-like "and more" from the end of the list of events, and I should not have to explain why that does not belong. Zazaban (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Re neutrality, it's understandable that the pro-TZM people here can't see it but the overall tone of the article is subtly (or not so subtly) promotional or approving. That combined with the excessive use of primary sources and being written by editors with a WP:COI, warrants the neutrality tag, which should stay until the article is clearly neutral. Regular editors have been trying to fix the issues but the (Redacted) keep returning the article to its POV state. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy and it mandates at WP:SELFPUB that

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

At present it looks like this article is in breach of 1, 2 and 5. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Philosophy section.

Can somebody explain to me what is trying to be said here? It is so stuffed with buzzwords that I can't make heads or tails of it. If it means anything at all it should be rewritten in plain English. Zazaban (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And Avashurov's revision of this [1] is even less intelligible. Can I ask that those making substantive edits to the article at least attempt to communicate in something approximating to the English language? AndyTheGrump (talk)

I have read it over and over again and even asked somebody else to try reading it, and the conclusion I have come to is that it is, more or less, an extremely fancy way of stating 'the movement promotes a society where the facilities of logic and the scientific method, though advanced technology, will be used to find the best possible solutions [imp. to the world's problems],' or something of that nature. Which is still vague almost to the point of meaninglessness. (What movement doesn't claim to aim for 'the best possible solutions?') Zazaban (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. A technocratic utopian socialism, of sorts. Tony Blair's New Labour 'things can only get better' meets William Morris at a Star Trek convention. Marxism without dialectics. Humanism without people. Political analysis without theory - or anything much in the way of analysis either. But that is my opinion, and as such irrelevant to article content. If TZM are capable of writing a coherent explanation of their philosophy, we can of course quote them directly. They are the best source for their ideas - but only when we can understand them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am attempting to improve clarity, but it is somewhat like wading through mud with metal boots on. Zazaban (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether we understand it, and the article talk page isn't a place for discussing its meaning or debating its validity. If the organisation itself puts out a suitable short summary of its own philosophy, then we can and should quote it directly, duly attributed, whether or not you or I think it makes sense. If an independent reliable source, or an identifiable consensus of such sources, can interpret it, or place it on the political spectrum, or in a social trend, then we include that interpretation, again duly attributed. What we do not do is original research to try to work out what on earth it means. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and I will revert back. Zazaban (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we are taking Avashurov as a source for TZM - and we can't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If the consensus here is that a certain portion of text (in the voice of the encyclopaedia) is meaningless, then of course it must be removed. But if a quotation is accurate, then our views on its meaning are irrelevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is almost meaningless, since what it states is so general that it could apply to almost every social movement, but it does in fact mean something. I don't think it's a direct quote, however, and it is about 70% wooden language. Zazaban (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no independent source for the organisation's philosophy, probably best to directly quote something from them that can be identified as a summary of the beliefs, if there is such a thing. If not, then we say nothing, because there's nothing verifiable to say. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the philosophy section is necessary at all, what we're aiming to cover can be covered in summary in the Activities section -- the section describes what they do and what they promote. It's not like they're a philosophical movement, most of their focus is on practical reality. If there's anything valuable in the current Philosophy section then I vote we rephrase it and move it to Activities (we can of course also rename that subsection if there's a better alternative).

Not that it's very important but I was a TZM supporter a couple of years ago (and still find TVP fascinating) -- I don't agree with the above notions that their actual views are vague and meaningless. I don't know what they're up to these days, but in any case the portion of text that you're confused about is not the same thing as their actual views.

If anyone has time, the fourth and fifth faq may be useful (in looking for their own description of their philosophy): http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq4 — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be important to mention somewhere: "Out of a general respect to TVP's work with what they consider to be the proprietary notion of a "Resource-Based Economy" [RBE] and its definition, some in The Movement prefer to adapt to the term "Resource-Based Economic Model" [RBEM] to separate from the Fresco-specific association/definition and allow for a more general flexible understanding of the Train of Thought." (The movement itself uses the term/abbreviation RBEM, which should be mentioned in the article.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right about the summary being the same as their views, but as I said, we have to go by what the sources say. If no independent reliable source has thought it worth commenting on this philosophy then there is nothing we can write about it, and so we should write nothing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed the movement really really likes technical sounding buzzwords and abreviations, and it likes capitalizing them too to emphasize their importance, but I don't know if they all need to be mentioned here just because TZM likes to use them. 'RBEM' is essentially insider jargon, meaningless to the uninitiated. And, pardon me, the differentiation between it and 'RBE' strikes me as an attempt to assert uniqueness though semantic hair-splitting. Zazaban (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I vaguely recall that the term 'Resource Based Economy' was trademarked or something of the sort by TVP, so using an alternative term might've been because of that. (And on a sidenote, I don't believe they deliberately over-do it with the jargon.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven at one blow

The article has just been tagged for advert, fansite, globalize, onesource, technical, refimprove and toofewopinions all in one go. Discussion of one, some or all of those would be useful. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they're all unjustified. Basically all statements have been properly referenced (in the current version, but watch out for the fanboy edits), and since it's an organization then I don't see why it would be mandatory for critical opinions to be included. Of course if such opinions existed in RS then I'd include them but if they don't then I don't think the tag is very helpful either. It's not like we have put undue weight on the org's own views here, I think we have barely enough, in fact. The article should sufficiently explain what their views are and what they do, to actually be informative, if it's written in NPOV then it's not an 'advertisement'. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as including critical opinions is concerned, we need to accurately reflect what independent reliable sources say. If it so happens that they are largely critical, then we give due weight to that. (I don't say whether or not they are in this case.) Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Duh, but they're not, that's the problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What are "direct scientific resource management" and "crowd sourced volunteer technicians", which both crop up in the lead. Such terms should serve as page links or be expressed in a more readily understandable manner; the article currently is a very grim tale. The last paragraph also excessively details minor insignificant details in an undue manner. It is not an encyclopaedic article but an aggregation of minutiae that would be better condensed into a couple of lines.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, are you sure you know what you're doing? Why did you revert that edit of mine? I made the part about the 2011 and 2012 ZDay events a bit shorter since they didn't receive outside coverage. If that wasn't okay then I'm sorry I'm not a mind reader and can't tell what your actual issue was. And can you or anyone maybe point out where these alleged 'buzzwords' are so we'll know what to fix? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General practise is to try to identify the problem before a removal of a tag and a subsequent reversion. You may not be a mind reader but you also appear not to be much of a page reader either. Read the post immediately above yours; perhaps the language was too technical for you to understand it first time?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the buzzwords, the tag and necessary repetition. For example, a "resource-based economy" covers the meaningless argot of "economic decisions are arrived at using scientific resource management". I have similarly removed unverified claims.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to unwatch this now, feel free to ruin the article as you please. Ankh, I had edited both of those terms that you quoted and either way they didn't seem to qualify as 'buzzwords'. But thanks for insulting me anyway. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, buzz-phrases or buzz-sentences would be more apt. Removing "direct" from "direct scientific resource management" was hardly a significant improvement to your incoherent mumbo-jumbo. I suggest your confine your proselytising attempts to your "numerous global events" and stop treating Wiki as your pulpit.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, I didn't write the original sentence, and you really seem to be mistaking me for someone else here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my previous allegation; my mind is somewhat addled from explicating the inpenetrable blabber.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

neutrality-delete?honeypot - who cares= delete

The article, which bases mostly on orginal sources, cannot be held neutral, because of zg people trying to influence it in their way of thinking. It should better be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogotron (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More false accusations of 'vandalism'.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated false accusations of 'vandalism' etc at The Zeitgeist Movement article. Since the person reported isn't the only one making such false accusations, I suggest that other TZM supporters take note, and consider their actions before engaging in such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see we have a new batch of TZM sock/meatpuppets attempting to spin the article. This isn't going to work. THere are only two possible outcomes: (a) a neutral article on the movement, based (with the exception of statements about what the movement believes in) to reliable third-party sources, or (b) no article at all. Wikipedia rarely appreciates POV-pushing, and appreciates it even less when it is done in complete disregard for every policy and guideline we have. This infantile behaviour can only reflect negatively on TZM, in any case. If TZM wants to be taken seriously as a movement, this is a bizarre way to go about it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that someone made false accusations, and to see that any individual is 'responsible' for the entire movement.

The article still doesn't reflect what the movement is, and that is unfortunate. For example, the critizesing of the fractional reserve banking system, needs further explanation. The socalled 'critique' stems from observation and research into the current socio-economic system. It would be great if we could come to an agreement of what should be written in the article and what should not. And for the criticism source; a criticism section. For the sources from the Zeitgeist Movement; they are the main description of the movement, as they are from the movement. Not forum posts, but mission statement and such.René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and it would also be great if someone could point to some independent reliable sources that would allow us to give a neutral description of the movement. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that this organization is barely notable. It only gets in the media when it occasionally releases a movie or holds an event (and that one time a kid spray-painted the word "Zeitgeist" on the side of a building). And even in those cases, reporting on what the movement actually is is limited to journalists regurgitating what it self-reports rather than doing any real research. It's a sad fact, but some articles will never be complete or even good, because they only just barely farted across notability line. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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 [2] 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, [3] and those in the NYT article - [4] 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 [5] and [6] , 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 [[7]] [[8]] 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. [9] 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)

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)