Talk:Peter Joseph

Birth

I've removed his date of birth as I can't find any mention of his birth online. The article stated he was born in North Carolina, yet he doesn't appear in the civil registration for that state. --Squirelewis (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Political Affiliation?

There's no mention at all. He's a pretty passionate activist and such articles describe political leanings first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.165.181 (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist itself points out that politics are part of the problem. Therefore, any label would be used against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.220.65 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

He has no political affiliation by his own admission. See the Zeitgeist Movement Guide PDF Flowersforparis (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations

I currently don't know enough about wikipedia but the citation that is missing about his mother shaping his world view is sourced here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIINgQ1TooE&NR=1 at around 1:20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.226.169 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What are your sources for your allegation? I have watched both of his films, read numerous papers by and about him, and listen to his radio addresses often and I have never seen or heard anything that would suggest that he is a racist. I would say that his words and especially his actions say the exact opposite. Also, as the article states, Perter Joseph is his first and last name. If you have legitimate information (negative or positive) please share it. Accusations based on fear are counterproductive. 198.179.142.6 (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Peter Joseph" is not a pseudonym, but his first and middle name. He has been profiled in the Village Voice: http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-05-25/nyc-life/big-brothers/ Lippard (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence except circumstantial that the Village Voice article is him and Wikipedia is not a "detective" blog and heresay isnt applicable 76.169.62.86 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The supposed last name is only sourced on hate blogs and Peter has never stated his last name. UNtil he does so, claims are hersay 76.169.62.86 (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This single, unsubstantiated allegation of anti-Semitism is what the banner disputing the page's neutrality is about? If that's all there is, then the banner should be removed because it slurs a living person unfairly.

The above comment has a small, factual mistake that is already corrected in the article's "Early Life" section. The comment says that "Peter Joseph is his first and last name," but the Early Life section states that they are his first and middle name and that his last name is withheld to protect the safety of himself and his family.Peter (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since his last name as been revealed publicly and is stated in the wiki, and he prefers to be professionally known as Peter Joseph, he should be referred to as Peter Joseph as that is the name he uses in all his professional work. (someone)

Well, in this case his full name should be mentioned and the fact his professional name differs from his real name. Mon Jan 31 20:31:23 CET 2011

His full name is only speculation. If you can find a quote by Peter where he states his full name, then you have a right to include it. Otherwise, it runs the risk of hearsay. 3rd party "invasions of privacy" which claim such thing is not valid. Peter Joseph is Peter Joseph. First and middle or not. That is the entity in question here anyway. Flowersforparis (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability issues

"The Zeitgeist Movement" has a history of inflating their notability in Wikipedia coverage. For a "movement" that is mostly an online phenomenon, this is of course not surprising. We still need to deal with it somehow. Peter Joseph is the spiritus rector behind this movement. I suppose the movement itself is somewhat notable, at least there are a bunch of online press articles about it. Peter Joseph can just get a section in that article as the founder/leader. I don't see any reason for a full biography article. --dab (𒁳) 12:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm really getting annoyed of the 'Notability' issues - every whatsoever stupid tv-show gets its own wikipedia page and description of episodes (hey, this is all fictional stuff) and a real world stuff has to proof to be notable - first remove all the tv show episode description before raising 'notability' issue of a real world event/person, not just here, but all other pages (this goes to the hired Wikipedia staff/editors). Mon Jan 31 20:26:53 CET 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.86.152 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, people who dispute the neutrality of this article are themselves very biased, they are either against the zeitgeist movement or what peter joseph has to say. i don't that's very fair. we need to protect this page separately from zeitgeist movement page. wikipedia is not for hate or bashing. if you are against zeitgeist movement then please try to hold that within yourself or punch a pillow but don't take it out here on wikipedia. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.111.178 (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter is known globally and is active. There is no "Notability" problem at all and any Google search bring 100,000 results for his work and movement interests. The Film series is one of the most famous in the world, covered by press all over the world Flowersforparis (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A person's birth name and what they choose to call themselves can differ and there is no problem with that under US law. He can call himself Madam X or the Great Booga-Booga and it has no moral or legal bearing. Please see the Wikipedia entry for Name Change.

As for notability, I specifically turned to Wikipedia for more info on Peter Joseph after watching Zeitgeist for the second time. Anything that draws the views the Zeitgeist series does is notable. A Google search for "Peter Joseph" turns up a full page of results pertaining directly to him including images, the IMDB entry and a short documentary about him. So the 'lack-of-notability' charge is a non-starter.

My conclusion from this people biased against Zeitgeist and/or Peter Joseph are acting under the guise of WP exclusionists.

I will look again after this edit but the entry is disputed under NPOV not notability. I didn't see much talk pertaining to NPOV. So whomever is disputing needs to make their case because they haven't yet.

Netscr1be (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything that draws the views the Zeitgeist series does is notable. Lol. Please see WP:ENC. Wikipedia isn't intended as a traffic-generator for your community site or online project. I am not "biased against Zeitgeist" any more than I am biased against 4chan. 4chan gets an article, so fine, if Zeitgeist can amass comparable online notoriety, let it have its article. This does not mean we accept biography articles on the 4chan founder, or various 4chan admins. The same goes for Zeitgeist. This has nothing to do with "exclusionism", it just means one article per topic is enough, and that article-sprawl generated by a movement's followers should generally be avoided. --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted below in the interest to reformat, Peter's work is now extremely notable given his collaboration with Black Sabbath. How do we go about removing the "un-notable" warning at the top?JamesB17 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

nobody ever suggested deleting all mention of him. The question is, is his biography notable. Of course he can be mentioned as produced of the Black Sabbath video, and he should even get a section in the Zeitgeist page, but does he warrant a full biography (childhood, early years, formative influences, friends and family, etc.)? Because this is what biography pages are supposed to cover, especially if the work is already discussed exhaustively in a separate article. --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

More Information is Badly Needed

I came here hoping for information on Joseph, and there is barely anything. Obviously he is a rather large figure in the world these days, certainly to people online across the world.

His page should have a lot more on him, such as: what religion is/was he? What religion did his parents belong to? Besides art school, did he receive any other education? What organizations does he belong to? Is he a Democrat? How did he get into making films? Did he have social or political connections? How were these films received? Did they win any awards or receive attention of important figures? Is he married? Does he have children? Is he involved any more projects? Clearly he is a part of a group (the Zeitgeist Movement) who are hoping to revolutionize the world. How so? What are they planning and how are they planning to accomplish this? Is their organization centered somewhere? Have they made any key public rallies or protests? Are they affiliated with any other major groups?

The page is pretty pathetic at present. Neurolanis (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

nonsense, you are here to tout PJ, not "hoping for information". It isn't clear that WP:BIO is met. Sure, we can have an article about this, but people have been actively trying to inflate the notability of this "Zeitgeist" thing. Wikipedia isn't for that. Write a single article, but don't try to create a walled garden under Category:Zeitgeist. Either merge this article into the Zeitgeist one, or vice versa, I don't care, but I seriously do not think there is enough notability here to justify more than one article. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter has stated he prefers to be private. Most of the data is from zeitgeistmovie.com. This is fine for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowersforparis (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as someone who sometimes looks to Wiki for information I was in fact "looking for information". Indeed.

Are you tell me that Joseph has asked to stay private, even though he is a public figure, and Wiki has said okay to this? Wow, and here I thought this was a public encyclopedia... Neurolanis (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph has stated that he wishes to have his last name private. The fact that people who advocate his ideal have been met with threats of physical harm and even death shows the reason why he wishes this. I can only speak from personal experience but that is just that, people advocating alternative social designs would rather have it that their personal lives and last names hidden from public site. This is to avoid people attacking him publicly and trying to make it so that way people do not try to harm others that are affiliated with them personally. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can appreciate that. Although I disagree with his proposals, the world is in crisis and does need solutions. No doubt large and powerful corporate interests would not take kindly to some of his ideas, since their drive for "progress" (and the greed of the public for many cheap products and services) is destroying the world of which we are dependent on for survival. Neurolanis (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

History of vandalism

I have noticed that their has been a great deal of vandalism by a number of users on this page. One of the more recent has been done by a user with the IP number 109.125.1.225 and his vandalism was adding the supposed last name (see here) and the description tag give of the article as Conspiracy-based without any adequate reasoning nor any thread to justify it (see here). User with IP number 82.69.149.142 has also engaged in the same tactic with the conspiracy theory category (see here). After going through this user's history, he seems to have a consistent and especially a recent one of vandalizing numerous pages that are related to this one in subject. The amount of pages he has vandalized are so numerous that one just needs to view his history to see that this person has constantly vandalized even non-Peter Joseph related pages (please review his history here and come to your own conclusion. It is expressed conclusion based on this user's contribution is that he is a troll). The user SmackBot has also engaged in the same exact thing within regards to the conspiracy theory categorization of the films without the means of substantiation (see here). Now I would like to make it known that it may not actually be the expressed means of vandalizing this page and may have been on an honest mistake on his part due to the review of the history. I am just letting it be known that this can in fact be counted as vandalizing a page without any adequate given information and substantiation as to why the category conspiracy need be applied to his films due to the heavy connotation that conspiracy theory plays in today's culture (please see Conspiracy Theory for information on this).

Note for those wondering, I am doing this mainly to have a category to allow for the history vandalization of this page and to track anyone who engages in the act of such. I have taken the liberty to undo the damage by those who apparently have engaged in this act and perhaps reach a consensus on what changes could constitute as vandalism or not of this page.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In my view it is not "vandalism" to give an article subject's real name rather than a pseudonym. Come on, if a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, he is also notable enough to have their real name revealed to the public. Either be a private citizen, without wiki bio, but with a right to privacy, or be a public figure with wiki bio, but no privacy.

What is "vandalism" is the constant removal of cleanup tags which point out that a bunch of self-published urls and two online newspaper articles are not nearly enough to satisfy WP:BIO. This page should just redirect to The Zeitgeist Movement until someone bothers to present a rationale how this is supposed to satisfy our inclusion guidelines. If Peter Joseph is notable, he is notable for having produced a crappy 9/11-truther-cum-Christ-Myth documentary which caused a ripple in the blogosphere. I do not think this satisfies our inclusion guidelines. If you disagree, then you can hardly argue that the "conspiracy" tag was misplaced. I have no idea whether the private citizen behind this persona has any interest in conspiracies, but our article is supposed to be about the public persona, which is WP:1E-notable for having dabbled in the conspiracy-mongery industry. --dab (𒁳) 11:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter Joseph's own reluctance to gain personal publicity (possibly to gain an air of mystery) thus receives a lot of mocking. However, there does not seem to be unequivocal evidence, or at least the kind of evidence that wikipedia can use. So I'd go with innocent edit, not vandalism; in any case, it's more complicated than you present. There's an argument for merging this page with Zeitgeist: the Movie, but your tone is not going to make you any friends.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to it as vandalism based on the history of the people involved in the editing. If you've noticed that I have not just been harping on the fact people have been giving his supposed last name name but also the fact that these people are also engaging in a number of edits of the description tag. I do not have a problem with tags being given so long as they are edit's. If they want to add a tag the article which goes to Zeitgeist: The Movie then I will not give a rats ass about it. But if people want to create a tag saying that this is conspiracy-based then I will take issue, ESPECIALLY when the person in question who made the edit has a history of vandalism. Again, just see their history to understand what it is I am referencing. I have also stated that Smackbot probably did not intend for means of vandalism of this page. I am just stating that he should give adequate reasoning for adding the tag for relevancy, I also stated that it "can be" but not that it is vandalism. As for my tone, please express to me how one can sound or even seem condescending through means of text typing via a keyboard and behind a computer monitor (or in my case a tv)? I am also not here to make friends, I am here to make correct edit's and add to the content of Wikipedia.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You talk as if you know Peter Joseph personally.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to know someone personally to know that Peter is keeping his last name secret so he an protect his family and friends that have nothing to do with the movement. Whether those fears are valid or not is not what this is about, it is about the FACT that people have professional names and they have personal names and they go by these to protect themselves and their identity in their work. This also happens as a means of the activists or actors themselves changing their names legally to their personal public persona's. However the point should be made that no citation can be found that bears his name has been found and can be used as credibility other than simply guess work from a couple of online articles. I also do not know the legality of this issue either so I do not want any legal ramifications for Wikipedia in the off-chance (slim as it may be) that he get's murdered because of his name being found out because it was added on Wikipedia. So I am also trying to make sure that the people who host this site do not have a legal lawsuit on their hands either from Peter or a group who is going on their behalf on the slim chance of being murdered. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

well, people will have to make up their mind on what they are claiming.

1. either PJ is a person of public interest. In this case, he would pass the WP:BIO notability threshold and qualify for a Wikipedia bio article, but it would also mean that his family name, which has been reported in third-party sources, is a point relevant to his biography and belongs in the article
2. PJ is not an individual of public interest, and he does not pass Wikipedia's notability threshold. As such, he enjoys a certain right to privacy, and his family name should not be thrown around on the wiki, precisely because like him it is of no public interest.

I have long argued the latter. PJ is WP:1E notable, as the founder of the so-called Zeitgeist Movement. It is enough to mention him in a brief paragraph over there. Neither his family name, nor his early life, nor his biography in general is of any encyclopedic interest whatsoever. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

merge unjustified, smells of censorship

Someone replaced the page with redirect, on a bogus premise of merge (yet no mention of the person is made in the article it has been redirected to). this is completely unjustified. Merge is not justified as there is a lot of material that is relevant.

If you want the article removed, you will have to use vote for deletion procedure (where you have to prove that it fails notability). good luck with that. this way of sidetracking the issue is both dishonest and pushy. if a person is notable he deserves an article. if he is not, take it to vote for deletion. merging without procedure for this is completely unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.200.203 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC) I now see that article vas on vote for deletion twice - once, 3 years ago, it was deleted. Second time, in march this year, it was voted keep (complete concensus). obviously, in the meantime, his notability increased. Vote was keep and no suggestion to merge. Hence, merging was completely POV push, against concensus! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.200.203 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What about his last name?

That is him, considering two of those pictures were also used in the 50min interview called "Who is Peter Joseph?" and these were in fact forwarded to him (as the creator actually explained as a rumor started going around saying that the creator was Peter Joseph himself). But his means of identifying himself is in fact using his first and middle name, I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on this though. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

fyi http://www.whoispeterjoseph.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.157.248 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a written summary of the video anywhere? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no viable source for this information, only speculation from anti-peter joseph groups. Wikipedia is not an "exposing" platform. It can only work based on provable information. Peter Joseph would have to publicly state and publish his last name for it to be viable. Just as he would have to do for any personal details Reinventor098 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, this doesn't come from an anti-Peter Joseph website or a group and the bio was created in May 2007, which was a month before Peter released Zeitgeist: The Movie and before he got the mass attention that he has now. Especially if you look at this link here: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/NVP/Merolo.htm. It lists his recordings and his company he uses and this is all before his "rise to stardom" for lack of a better term. Now keep in mind Reinverntor098 that I am not of the anti-TZM or anti-Peter Joseph crowd, I admire his work and am apart of the movement. I am simply stating that, yes this is him and yes it seems to be a credible source. But whether or not the source is enough to verify him as such, I have no clue. However my standard of evidence is not the standard of evidence wikipedia requires. I suggest you go over their standard of evidence for identifying someone by their personal name in a biography before adding it. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That particular source is not a sufficiently reliable source for that particular claim. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You should at least mention that Peter Joseph isn't his real (full) name. Mr. Joseph admits to this in the Q&A section of the Zeitgeist Movement's website: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/qa.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.160.223 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Added a note. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There was an article about Peter Joseph in the Village Voice in 2004 with his brother http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-05-25/nyc-life/big-brothers/full/ It is consistent with the information he provides about himself in the 'Who is Peter Joseph?' interview here: http://www.whoispeterjoseph.com/ (transcript http://dotsub.com/view/651bf2b8-e222-443f-b1c9-bef709b10dd4/viewTranscript/eng ) He states he does not mind if his last name is revealed in the same interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.107.163 (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl King Jr. (talk • contribs)

Vision Section

Apologies to EKJ, his edit was not in violation of WP policies on translation because he did not remove the key sentence clarifying that the TheMarker Television interview is in English, following a brief Hebrew intro. The original edit by Str1977 was in violation because it removed the key sentence. This is a moot point because then Str1977 studied the WP policies (posted on my user talk page) and modified his edits accordingly. This is not to attack anyone or to find faults. This is just to apologize to EKJ and to clarify and explain an old, moot, and by now obsolete point. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be a coat rack for the zeitgeist movement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should not be a coatrack. The recently added vision section is pretty much a promo piece that is p.o.v. script for Zeitgeist. Removing that again. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Many articles in WP about a person contain some sort of section discussing their ideas/ vision. For example, Jacque Fresco, and many, many other biographies. In contrast, from the current version of the article, it is impossible to know why the article exists at all. It merely lists Joseph's work in the style of a directory or a repository of links (to Joseph's films, to newspaper articles about PJ, to TV interviews, to TEDx appearances, etc). The article's infobox, and our secondary sources (e.g. TheMarker) correctly describe PJ as an activist. Thus, the article needs a discussion of how the items listed in the directory/ repository are related to Joseph's vision/ ideas/ philosophy that drive his activism. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding self sourced information is not a good idea. There is no indication of notability if a closed loop and walled garden of information is tossed up. Then it looks like simple o.r. and p.o.v. and promotion of a subject. As a member of the Zeitgeist group as your user page badge says, neutrality is something to be very careful about. Promotion of a subject through multiple non 2nd or 3rd. party references is to be avoided. It becomes a self grasping attempt at notability for a subject and then the tone of something becomes impaired. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Earl's comment encapsulates the deep hypocrisy and intellectual vacuity at the root of Earl's editorial style. His comments and edits are intended to censor all TZM-related articles. Earl's comment is 100% opinion and 0% relevancy. It contains an irrelevant, McCarthyite-style, Fox News-style, Ad hominem attack on a fellow editor, intended to imply that the editor is acting in bad faith. Earl's repeated, relentless, obsessive personal attacks on me are clear violations of wp:AGF and are a direct proof that Earl himself is the POV-pusher. Additional proof is his undue pushing of minor/ fringe ideas e.g. antisemitism, Reason magazine conspiracies. (And by the way, referring to the content of an editor's user page is insulting to the intelligence of WP editors, because they can read each other's user pages for themselves, if they are so inclined to waste their time, and thus your referral to a user's page is redundant and does not provide the reader of your comments any new info.)

The rest of Earl's comment is similarly based on opinion - actually the opinions of Andy and OpenFuture, which Earl "parrots with cheerful, rot fidelity" - masquerading as fact, and thus Earl's comment is completely irrelevant to the development of this, as well as all other TZM-related articles. Earl enthusiastically and energetically supports the inclusion of citations from sources - with vanishingly small readerships - which fraudulently conflate the conspiracy theories of the first Z documentary film with TZM ideas/ philosophy, in order to deliberately shepherd, misdirect and mislead WP readers into associating the Zeitgeist movement with antisemitism, cultism and conspiracies. At the same time, this censor/ guardian-of-the-status-quo/ gatekeeper concots the most contrived, incredulous, vacuous arguments/ personal opinions ( "adding self sourced information," "there is no indication of notability," "closed loop and walled garden of information," "o.r. and p.o.v. and promotion," "promotion of a subject through multiple non 2nd or 3rd party references," "a self grasping attempt at notability" ) to block the inclusion of verifiable citations from highly reliable secondary sources with combined tens of millions of readers/ viewers (NYT, HuffPo, Palm Beach Po, TheMarker, Globes, VC Reporter, TheMarker TV, RT TV, ...) Earl did not provide any proof to support his unsubstantiated claims - for example that my edits are O.R. or POV - because my edits are based purely on direct citations from the above reliable secondary sources. Earl's work is motivated purely by his desire to help Wikipedia and his great interest in improving Wikipedia, but his hypocritical editorial style has resulted in turning The Zeitgeist Movement article into not much more than a coatrack on which hang the coats of antisemitism, cultism and conspiracies, and the Peter Joseph biography into not much more than a mere directory listing. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Culture in Decline

Please make sure his new hit series Culture in Decline is on this page. It is very important to Peter's Work and very notable with 100k views in a 2 weeks. Equal to his view and notoriety of his film series. Flowersforparis (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles should be based on secondary sources. What reliable source verifies the above? At any rate, an article is not a place for gushing text, and as mentioned in my edit summary, Rogan's views belong in his article (Joe Rogan). If Rogan were an acknowledged expert in a relevant topic, his views might be appropriate in this article, but editors should not pick glorifying text from random commentators. At any rate, is there a source to verify that Rogan made that comment, and the context in which it was made (an independent source, not a WP:SPS)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Okay- but we should at least have the show listed. It has had a large number of views, just like his films and is just as notable as his other credits regarding he work. I will remove the Rogan note.Flowersforparis (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Today blog site may not be notable and it looks like an activist with Zeitgeist wrote the article to promote Zeitgeist. It does not look like an actual review, but a gushingly wonderful lecture about Zeitgeist by a member of Zeitgeist. Also, the editor that posted that information appears to be a sock puppet or person with a long history of trying to infuse self sourced to the subject info to any related articles of this subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Flowersforparis/Archive Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Your opinion on the article has no barring. The article was not written by an "activist" at all. This reporter is hired by Hollywood today and has no known activist relationship. Also, my history on wikipedia is not of a sockpuppet or whatever you claim. I have been attacked left and right by various anti-Zeitgeist trolls while I simply try to put relevant, notable data - not to mention that has no barring on anything as far as the notoriety of the articles in question. Flowersforparis (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Calling other editors 'trolls' is not a good idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Today is not a BLOG, It is a Notable News magazine

http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/ This site is is not a blog. The articles about Joseph and very clear of his intent and very notable. This reporter is hired by Hollywood today and has no known activist relationship to TZM at all. Flowersforparis (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful. Its a blog like post with blog commentary after it and sure is not written like a news or information story. It is more like a Zeitgeist can save the world story so its questionable and the author is not notable. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

These are opinions of yours: "Blog Like" & "Author not Notable". Wikipedia bases noterity on source which includes the institution. The article is no more "blog like" than the Marker, RT or anything else noted here. The Idea Bruce L. is less notable than the other articles is unfounded. There is little real information on the work of Peter Joseph on this page. If you revert again, I will take this up with Wiki Admins as your opinions are biased and without logic. Flowersforparis (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Black Sabbath Addition?/Notability?/Awards?/Page reformatting?

Hello WikiFamily! Since Mr. Joseph has just had a flood of notable, secondary source interest from around the world due to his direction of the new Black Sabbath Video GOD is DEAD?...

[A Few Sources/links: http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=190999 http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2013/06/black_sabbath_release_party_13.php?ref=trending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Dead%3F http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhhOU5FUPBE http://www.mtv.com/videos/black-sabbath/917627/god-is-dead.jhtml http://www.metalinsider.net/video/black-sabbaths-video-asks-us-god-is-dead ]

(* just google search peter joseph and black sabbath and 100s of links come up now)

...I think reformatting this page into a more traditional Biography is needed. This also voids his lack of "notability" by a long shot.

A simple section called "Career" should be added perhaps with his films and other work, so as the Black Sabbath collaboration can find a context. As of now, it has no context.

I was also surprised not to find anything about his "awards". He has many from notable orgs, such as with The Artivist Film Festival JamesB17 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I added a short blurb in the introduction about him directing the new Black Sabbath video. I also mentioned the "Culture In Decline" series that he has produced and directed. Marty2Hotty (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is not much doubt that Joseph is notable. Just the fact that he directed the video insures that, along with the Zeitgeist movie associations. I am going to remove the question of notability tag from the top of the page now. It is no longer an issue in my opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Date of Birth Wrong - 1979 via peterjoseph.info

Found his personal website: peterjoseph.info.

1979 is DOB, not 1978 according to PJ personally. Since this is the only source I can find, I will change.

>Peter Joseph (B. 1979, Winston-Salem, NC, USA) is an American Musician, Filmmaker, Author and Social Activist; best known worldwide as the creator of the award-winning “Zeitgeist Film Series” and founder of the “The Zeitgeist Movement”, a social sustainability advocacy group which currently operates across the world. He also founded and curates the Annual Zeitgeist Media Festival for the arts and is on the Advisory Board/Steering Committee for "Project-Peace on Earth". JamesB17 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That is probably not a good idea to use the person that we are writing about as a source that they have approved. That webpage says About this Website: This website is an archive of all relevant media related to Peter Joseph and his work in media & activism. All content is approved by Peter Joseph. It is more or less then like an advertising page without critical thought if you copy information from that. Better to find 'outside of himself' sourcing about Joseph. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but I believe in the case of let's say, someone's own date of birth, per wikipedia's regulations of course, that such a source for the DOB is acceptable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

God Is Dead?

Somedifferentstuff has twice removed the name of the song from the section title, turning it from "God is Dead? video for Black Sabbath" into "Black Sabbath video", claiming that including the name of the song is a "neutrality violation". I restored it because I don't understand how it pertains to neutrality — it just looks like a more precise title to me. Could you please explain how it's less neutral, Somedifferentstuff? Bishonen | talk 08:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

I wrote the original article sub section heading title and it seemed o.k. to me, not that it matters who wrote it. It seems descriptive and as a 'meta' heading would seem to get the idea across well. Neutrality violation? I don't see it either. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the section. This short article now lists the name of the song THREE TIMES. This is both a WP:Weight violation as well as a BLP violation as the title of the song is being used to portray Joseph in a certain light in relation to the first Zeitgeist film. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I was hoping you'd explain what that certain light is, because I'm not getting it. It may be just my European stupidity about US religious matters. Bishonen | talk 09:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

I removed the tag. It seems pointless. The article has come close to being deleted as not important enough or notable to keep. Him directing that video really put it over the top that Joseph was notable which was questionable before, at least for him to have a page.

the song is being used to portray Joseph in a certain light in relation to the first Zeitgeist film, end quote. What do you mean by that? He is directing something. What kind of light? There is nothing negative with it. Its Black Sabbath, basically a cartoon band that plays some comical but well done material that most people appreciate. Why take away one of the things that makes Joseph notable to Wikipedia? Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bishonen, if you're familiar with the first Zeitgeist film you should understand what I'm talking about. Earl, having the section titled "Black Sabbath music video" is not removing the material. This short article should not list the name of the song THREE TIMES! - Are you not willing to compromise? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've asked politely and you tell me I should already know. Is the "light" too hard to explain? I'm not "familiar" with the film, no. (I know about it. I haven't seen it.) Bishonen | talk 10:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

It's 2013. Whatever the light we're taliking about, that Joseph directed a music video titled God it Dead? is no more likely to be seen as negative than positive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

User Earl King Jr., in his/her interest to try and create bias against Peter Joseph by creating a "Gentle Machine Productions llc" link to The Zeitgeist Movement, keeps posting statements that are un-validated. He continues to pose the implication that The Zeitgeist Movement has a "connection" to Joseph's production company, when no primary or secondary sources or the like exist to support the claim, apart from random keywords from a domain link. JamesB17 (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Further, he continue to refers to the "other Gentle machine prod." projects by peter joseph as "Zeitgeist related" when Joseph's work is not only "zeitgeist related". Culture in Decline and InterReflections, as per the websites, are not "Zeitgeist" related... whatever that even means. This is pure POV and misleading JamesB17 (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed the header for two reasons. First, article talk pages are not places to complain about other editors regardless of their attributes. Second, "vandalism" has a specific meaning at Wikipedia (see WP:VAND) and that word must not be used regarding edits that are not intended to damage the article. There does seem to be an unusual amount of activity puffing up articles in this topic area, but unfortunately that has to be dealt with patiently. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This page is deficient

Firstly, the line "In 2013 he directed the Black Sabbath music video "God Is Dead?"" in the intro needs a citation. Secondly, when compared to the Wikipedia page for Anarcho-Capitalist, Libertarian Stefan Molyneux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux) - it becomes blatantly clear that this page is severely deficient. Why is it that Stefan Molyneux has a very cogent "Works" and "Viewpoints" section (most of which is cited based on his own content, not third-party citation) but Peter Joseph does not. I propose that this page needs some significant work, creating a "Works" and "Viewpoints" section with proper citation would be a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaChaLoco20 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Unlike most other profile pages, "Zeitgeist" related pages are abused by anti-zeitgeist trolls that work to downplay anything they can. You should be surprised Peter has a page at all given these folks.JamesB17 (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I see one edit was made by the person you are responding to JamesB17. This, only one on the talk page, comment by the person. Did you or a friend make that account to ask yourself those questions and give those responses. You were blocked previously for abusing people on related articles and now have returned to continue insulting. Calling other editors trolls can get you blocked. Also the article is not controlled in any way except for neutrality and good presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Earl. I'm just another editor, like you. And no, I have no idea who the other guy is and your accusation makes you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. JamesB17 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest with you Earl, I made this account and posted here specifically because I was so annoyed at how useless this page was and how ridiculous all the banter going on here in the talk page was (especially from your end). I came to Peter Joseph's Wikipedia page to try and learn more about him, but I left it knowing even less! Furthermore, you still have not addressed my original points and it has been almost 7 months since I made them. Given that you seem to be one of the more prominent editors on this page, I am holding you personally responsible for this failure, and the failure of the page overall. Peter Joseph, as a public figure, is far more noteworthy than individuals like, for example, Stefan Molyneux. This is crystal clear, as evidenced by the fact that Molyneux only has ~200,000+ YouTube subscribers, a website and a few self-published .pdf "philosophy books", whereas Joseph has directed and produced multiple online films watched by literally millions, started a world-wide advocacy movement with hundreds of thousands of members and all this [b]in addition[/b] to his work directing the Black Sabbath music video 'God is Dead?'. There is no question that Peter Joseph is the more notable character of the two, and yet despite this, his page is comparatively useless when it comes to learning more about him and his work. Here are some sections from Molyneux's page which are suspiciously absent (but desperately required) on Joseph's page: a 'Background' section, a 'Public Appearances' section (Zeitgeist Media Festival), and finally (and most importantly) a 'Views and Criticism' section. How and why is it that a relatively notable public figure with such radically left-of-field political, economic and social views does not have a section briefly expounding those views and some of his critics! Fix. ChaChaLoco20 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography Section Added

Joseph's co-authorship of The Zeitgeist Movement Defined has been added as it fits Wiki requirements for Biographies as far as what the person has produced in media. Just as the Films are noted and are, in truth, self-published, so would be his other works. This book was years in the making and isn't some "blog" or other non-notable literature JamesB17 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Its self published...thats about the same as not published IMHO.--MONGO 01:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

New Article July 30 2014

According to londonreal: "Engineering a leaderless movement is a conundrum itself, which is why Peter rarely does interviews and instead prefers to let the movement ideals speak for themselves."

http://www.londonreal.tv/blog/peter-joseph-the-zeitgeist-movementNteryourusername (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Which projects are been worked on and which are complete

This sentence isn't very helpful-

Some existing and developing projects of Gentle Machine Productions are the Zeitgeist film trilogy, the Culture in Decline web series and Joseph's new feature film project: InterReflections.

I did differentiate which projects are been worked on and which are complete, but got reverted.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to consult the Wikipedia manual of style and to edit a variety of articles beyond your single purpose on Wikipedia, Zeitgeist related, to get a more well rounded feel for how this process takes place. Your edit was not an improvement. If anything it confused the information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree regarding the copy edit. Referring to the purpose or aim of an editor without evidence could be considered a personal attack.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[[1]] It is not a format for Peter Joseph and his projects here. The previous information gave the basic information which is all that is needed. Its not a redirect to Zeitgeist. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

IMDB

For information about citing Internet Movie Database, see here Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Full name

Reference could be used to cite Peter Joseph's full name 'Peter Joseph Merola'? ref

Probably not needed. It does not matter really. He goes by his 'stage' name if you want to call it that. Its like calling Sting by his real name... not needed, plus originally he used the fake name to protect his family according to statements he made so no reason not to use his art name instead of his real moniker. You forgot to sign your post above. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean, "not needed"? Would you argue it is "not needed" to note Joseph Conrad's name was Korzeniowski, or that Marilyn Monroe was called Mortenson? Providing this type of detail is exactly what an encyclopedia is for. Either he is notable (passes WP:BIO) and in that case, not only is name but his biography is implied to be of public interest. Or alternatively, he does not in fact pass WP:BIO, in which this case this page can redirect to the "Zeitgeist" topic, and his name or biography would not be of encyclopedic interest.--dab (𒁳) 09:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The full name isn't need in the page name (which is usually title after their 'popular' name). However, I would support the inclusion of the full name in the body of the text, if the article is kept.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• That is a strong source to indicate his actual last name. But I do understand him wanting to protect his last name from the public. Marty2Hotty (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Snorregrimstad (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mercola has now been removed from above ref, archive here Jonpatterns (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIO

I suggest section-merge into an "Author" section at Zeitgeist_(film_series), because

• the article does not establish notability outside of the Zeitgeist stuff. It simply presents a collection of news clippings mentioning PJ in the context of his Zeitgeist stuff.

Improper section-merge because of it is not reliable source. Thereby Zeitgeist_(film_series) should not be redirected and should also be removed. Pilagatto (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Peter goes way beyond "Zeitgeist stuff" and has been on endless podcasts, tv shows, sold out lectures and in film many interviews.

All anyone needs to see is his personal Bio. http://peterjoseph.info/biography/ , which also proves he is trying to be "private" at all. 69.26.138.251 (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• the zeitgeistmovie.com Q&A page makes explicit that PJ does not wish to have a public biography available, for privacy reasons (some of the more inconsiderate online have taken it upon themselves to try and exploit the issue by claiming to "expose" Peter and his family - posting private information about his brother, parents, coworkers and friends online ). This means that Wikipedia can and should treat him as the subject of a biography article against his will only if he is clearly a person of public interest.

You can't have it both ways. Either he is notable, but then he gets no say in whether Wikipedia or anyone else publishes about his name or biography, or he is a private individual with no notability separate from the Zeitgeist franchise, which means that his privacy should be protected but also that he doesn't get to be the subject of a Wikipedia biography page. I tend to think that the latter applies, protect his privacy and merge-redirect this page, but I argue it is cleary impossible to maintain this page and at the same time censor it according to the subject's wishes. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What? Since when does Wikipedia regard the privacy of anyone? If that was real, people would be able to remove their own wikipedia pages. He is notable based on wikipedia's true standards of notablity. Have you read them? The "latter", as you put it, does not apply, of course, since this is a conjob editorial troll anyway 69.26.138.251 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wanting to protect private life, but also have a public profile isn't necessarily a contradiction. He has a bio on his website. Joseph has produced more films since Zeitgeist and he is a talking head on Russia Today. Whether this makes him separately notable is debatable. The article was nominated for deletion in 2008 (mainly delete comments) and 2011 (mainly keep comments), see above.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no respect for any wishes of any person in question in any Bio. But it is hilarious you guys make this stuff up in an attempt to fake argue. But the good thing about this set of postings is we who care can now see who is working together in collaboration to troll - Dbachmann, Jonpatterns, Tom Harrison, MONGO, Earl King Jr. and, yes, it will be reported. Your time is almost up gentlemen. 69.26.138.251 (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable or not, there are too few sources to support a biography. It would probably be more useful to readers to redirect this page to Zeitgeist (film series) and merge there whatever is appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Tom Harrison as this subject is hardly notable and only so for his documentaries.--MONGO 00:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Who wants to do it? I think it appropriate that its redirected into the other movie and movement article also. It seems like the Black Sabbath video gives a bit more notability but probably a redirect can still cover that as it does now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's probably best to tag both articles with the merge templates, and give people time to respond, as a merge is potentially controversial.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter has a huge bio page http://peterjoseph.info/biography/ with endless interviews, notable lectures and he directed a video for one of the largest bands in history - Black Sabbath. There are porn stars with Bios on Wikipedia and you people choose to try and remove this page? It is clear you have a bias again this page's existence. There is no consensus here. Peter's page has been here for years. Peter has been in the New York Times, on major TV networks and he founded the largest grassroots movement in the world. But nice try. 69.26.138.251 (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

For the thousandth time, "The Zeitgeist Movement" is not the same as the "Zeitgeist Film Series." Also, it's called "The Zeitgeist Movement," not "The Peter Joseph Movement." The movement, the films, and Peter Joseph all deserve their own separate wikipedia article, otherwise conflation, confusion, and negative prejudice and bias will continue. Please help us stop this. This is unnacceptable, and a disgrace to wikipedia itself. Jimmy Wales would be appalled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:23C3:E300:EC29:C793:2C5A:7F94 (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

agree with 2 comments above strongly oppose merge he is notable outside of the film trilogy now Screamliner (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

zeitgeist movement and zeitgeist films are not the same, i oppose the move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.102.170 (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement, The Zeitgeist Film Series and Peter Joseph are different. All three required a revision with out bias. People working for years on The Zeitgeist Movement deserve respect. The Zeitgeist Movement Defined book is a great reference for anyone who doesn't understand those differences. No merge please. Yv6eda (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC) yv6eda

No merge please, Peter Joseph is his own entity apart from his accomplishments and activism and clearly deserves to remain so. The Zeitgeist films and the Zeigeist movement deserve much more respect than being dismissed and deleted as all bullshit. This man has devoted his life to informing people about how we need to dramatically work on our unsustainable system in order to survive as a species. I repeat, no merge.MrDasturd (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest keep Peter Joseph's page separate. He has done a number of podcasts, directed the Black Sabbath video and is also making another trilogy (I believe) of films related to this ideas. I see many other artists and entertainers that are not even close to being as relevant having their own Wikipedia pages. I don't see a problem in keeping his page separate as his career continues. I am for keeping Peter Joseph as an ongoing Wikipedia article. I know if I looked up the Zeitgeist movies or seen any of his countless interviews that I would be interested in knowing more about the individual than just grouping his Wikipedia existence with the three movies he did. He also did his web series Culture in Decline and did a ton of interviews on RT. Keep it separate in my eyes. Marty2Hotty (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"it'd probably better if all the zeitgeist pages, zeitgeist movement pages, peter joseph page were deleted when you think about it, it's bullshit" - That's not how Wikipedia works, buddy. You can't just delete a page because YOU think it's "bullshit". Please provide sources and argumentation before classifying the series, the movement and the person as "bullshit". And while you're not able to, please avoid commenting useless and senseless stuff. It's only common sense to separate a series with millions of views, a movement present in many different countries and a person who's already made many more contributions aside from the zeitgeist series. As stated several times before, you can see how many lectures, interviews and discussions in TV/online contents, another series of 6 episodes that's NOT LINKED to the Zeitgeist series and much more, in his official Bio page. Insisting in the merge is only senseless and will be misleading to whoever seeks information about him and his works. All this is leading me to believe a caustic and mindless opposition is being made against the Zeitgeist series, the movement and Peter Joseph as a person, with no coherent argumentation and speculation regarding the Person's personal life. If this goes on I will call for a RfC and if that doesn't work then I will appeal to the Arbitration Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodazol (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the merge as it is a gross misrepresentation of the film and of Peter himself. The zeitgeist page is highly misleading and does not properly source the films or the director at all. Peter is a highly influential individual that has done much more just the zeitgeist films (as noted on his page). Merging the two will only do damage to Peters reputation unless the films page is properly edited. Claiming that Peter is notable is a joke considering he's touched millions of people and done a myriad of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustay14 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked the disruptive IP 69.26.138.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that has been messing about with this page, see History. Please feel free to disregard comments from it. If the individual returns from other IPs or throwaway accounts,[2] I'll semiprotect this talkpage. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: semiprotecting the page would reduce the incoming WP:MEAT. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We've got clear WP:MEAT going on here by users with no clue as to how Wikipedia operates and every intention of WP:ADVOCACY for TZM. All of the refs discuss Joseph as the author of Zeitgeist. All of his work concerns the Zeitgeist series and movement. So far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines are concerned, he has no existence outside of Zeitgeist. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Joseph is a person who created TZM but is not TZM. Peter Joseph is not a movie but a person and should be respectfully treated as one. I recommend closing this thread because it sounds like op is just trolling. If thats the case i recommend George Lucas be merged with Star Wars page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaithe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What is Peter Joseph known for outside of Zeitgeist? Lucas was known for American Graffiti, Indiana Jones, and other movies. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to ignore and remove obvious meatpuppets. The account User:Zaithe was created 3 minutes before posting here. Yes, I've semi'd this page, with some reluctance, as it means good-faith IP's can't post here either. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose merge, Joseph is well-known, notable and I agree with those opposed. Some people (especially if they believe Jesus existed) are "notable" for writing one book, etc. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears Peter himself is canvassing for meatpuppets on Facebook to come here and oppose the merge: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5640/what-the-leader-of-tzm-peter-joseph-is-still-talking-about/ — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And look at this comment thread: "I might be naive in this as I don't know how Wikipedia works, but why don't you write an accurate version, then post it on social media and ask all members to be editors? (so when an edit get's changed by the gatekeepers again, another member will simply copy and paste the accurate version .)" ... " Isn't that the tactic that the trolls successfully used? We are way bigger in numbers, I can see this working." ... " The WP admins will ban you for that. They're all on the same side as the libel-producing shills." ... "That's fine, but there are many of us... When one is banned then another makes the edit." -- the latest reply is two weeks old though, so maybe this won't be a problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Shame that he thinks 'core editors' are trying to 'pollute' his image and that he needs to call the lawyers in.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

John Patterns are you not one of the Facebook group editors that are editing proZeit? Your record indicated that. Page protection probably is warranted because of the barrage of people doing this now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The claims of "Canvassing" is an amusing idea but that isnt what Peter is doing. He is clearly upset to see his work being marginalized by people working to debase him online.186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Friends, I need your help. ... Please go to this page and oppose the move ... Please help stop this bullshit" -- if that's not WP:Canvassing then I don't know what is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth canvassing specifically.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no real FB link either. That image on that hate-blog could fabricated. This is the nature of quality control for Wikipedia?186.64.176.133 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerted Attack

The article and talk page have been under an aggressive attack by meats and socks pro and con for a while [3] I assume most people know that here. Protecting things long term is good. Conspiracy related aspects are now being spilled over to the actual neutral editors here in regard to a sort of call to arms to members to come here and turn the article into their Faq's material type presentation while trying to expose neutral editors as part of the grand conspiracy. I guess its funny in some ways and illustrative of something but I won't get into 'what'. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note from uninvolved admin: if you ignore the obvious meatpuppets above (69.26.138.251, 2605:E000:23C3:E300:EC29:C793:2C5A:7F94, Pilagatto, Yv6eda, MrDasturd, Rodazol, Dustay14, Zaithe), most of whom have made exactly one edit to the encyclopedia, I see a clear consensus for a merge. P.S. I've removed the irritating <ref></ref> footnote, which merely pointed to a Wikipedia article. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

I'm going to abstain. However, I would say there is a majority for merge, but not a consensus @Marty2Hotty: was for keeping the article separate. It's probably best to tag both articles with the merge templates, and give people time to respond.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. Its interesting how anyone who supports an "Oppose" is a "meatpuppet" and anyone who wants to merge, which has zero reason or merit outside clear BIAS POV, is deemed a pro-zeitgeist "Meatpuppet".186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)— 186.64.176.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Maybe that's because you were obviously recruited by Zeitgeist members and don't actually know or care how this site works? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, so if I am not an advanced wikipedia editor I am therefor a "meatpuppet" and "recruited by Zeitgeist"? 186.64.176.133 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's because your only interest is in promoting Peter Joseph and Zeitgeist, and you've demonstrated little interest in the site's policies and guidelines beyond misrepresenting them however you can to those aims. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say merge already for the reasons given under that discussion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. Again, he is an activist, is on the Board of Project Peace on Earth, produces music videos, has been featured in documentaries such as "CrossRoads", has been on endless new stations as an activist speaking on cultural issues, spoken at occupy wall street, has major awards, and produced a video for one of the largest bands in history. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)— 186.64.176.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You've already stated your preference, stating it multiple times only makes you look like an incompetent sockpuppeteer. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As have you. Yet you make yourself look like a biased POV editor with an ax to grind 186.64.176.133 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Opposing a merge. WP:NPOV goes both ways. Just because there seems to be a "concerted attack" doesn't mean everything is justified. WP:Notability is clearly met. There are interviews (in many formats - including a full length documentary - and from a variety of sources). Additionally Joseph started a social movement and created a wide array of popular works - it's not just the "Zeitgeist" movie series so it's unjustified to merge it there. There's neither a consensus to merge nor are there any considerable reasons to do so. --Fixuture (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What is Peterson notable for outside of the Zeitgeist series and it's resulting movement? Nothing. Even the Black Sabbath video he did reused Zeitgeist footage, and he was only chosen for it because he was the guy who made Zeitgeist. The offsite calls for attacks are irrelevant in both directions. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And that is way enough. What you're doing here, probably unwittingly (WP:AGF), is moving the goalposts - Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. There is no need for, even though more exist, further points - a hugely popular documentary series and initiating a global movement is enough to meet the requirements. There are however wiki-articles on non-notable persons, I recommend you challenge those. --Fixuture (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really, I'm just pointing to the already existing goal posts of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG, which I haven't touched. Joseph himself needs notability outside of Zeitgeist, or else the material about him should be an "author/founder" section of the Zeitgeist article. The series and movement being notable makes Zeitgeist notable, but it does not make Joseph notable enough for his own article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

His notability rests in the Zeitgeist movies and the effect of having 'announced' his social movement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, his notability rests with his activism as a whole, which is why he has been brought on major TV networks and given lectures across the world for 6 years. It is very clear, after reading this page, that a very bias POV is occurring, trying to marginalize Mr. Joseph's global recognition and high level status as a media persona. This is tantamount to vandalism. I will also add that the Black Sabbath video makes him beyond notable and it means nothing that the content of the video had Zeitgeist footage. Zeitgeist related or not in content, it is a major video produced for a major band. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)— 186.64.176.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Read WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF, and present mainstream academic or journalistic sources that discuss his notability outside of Zeitgeist. As was already explained, the Black Sabbath video obviously falls under his Zeitgeist fame. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. You can say that about anything and it is a biased POV, pure and simple. Any chain of causality links to prior events. Black Sabbath is its own thing, along with about a dozen other notable achievements by Peter. Your claim is bogus and the fact you sit around trying to destroy Peter Joseph's page is amazing. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"You can say that about anything" -- No, I can't. George Lucas is famous for Star Wars, American Graffiti, Indiana Jones, and so on. He's famous for directing, producing, and writing lots of stuff, not just his pet project and his attempts to shove that pet project into a band's music video.

The fact that you're wasting your time being a shill for Joseph is disappointing. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Now I am a "shill" for seeking neutrality? Peter Joseph is beyond famous for things outside Zeitgeist. Sorry to disappoint you and thank you for being highly insulting.186.64.176.133 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your "neutrality" is nothing but WP:ADVOCACY for Joseph and TZM, censorship of anything displeasing to either, and no interest in site policies beyond WP:WIKILAWYERING name-dropping -- ergo "shill," if not "tendentious shill." Your only actions. That you have no prior interest in the site (unless you're just another sock of one of the many blocked editors), have no interest outside of this topic, and only care about making TZM look more presentable makes you look like yet another TZM zealot. Notice that I've not addressed User:Fixuture in this way, just you. The best thing you could do for both the site and TZM is back off. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as it serves your personal interest to declare such things, here is the reality: I don't care about "TZM". I am here because this page is viable and meets all wikipedia requirements.It has been up for 6 years and has only been validated over time by increased media attention and secondary sourcing. From the fame of film trilogy, to the Black Sabbath music video, to his many lectures across the world, to his dozens of high profile interviews in TV networks, Joseph is beyond notable and only people who should "backoff" are people like yourself who clearly wish to vandalize this page by a forced merger to further marginalize his work.186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally Joseph started a social movement and created a wide array of popular works I suggest the I.P. in the above tone down and would agree with Ian Thomson that with the deluge of Zeitgeist people here it gets annoying to say the least. Joseph has limited notability. He created some movies and released one on Google Movies and then it went to Youtube. He announced a movement. Are social movements announced really? He profits from sales of his information. Basic information of any recent activity of Joseph is lacking as in notable press. Zeitgeist the movie gave him some notability but it was also ripped apart and dismissed as much as it was given any meaningful press so we have to present that aspect also which is sourced. We can not let the Zeitgeist people themselves write articles that are paraphrased FAQ's for their own group. Merge. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Joseph is distributed by many companies, including Sideways film, Gravitas Ventures and Passion River. His work is not just on "youtube" or "google" it is actually on Netflix and many other major modern media outlets. His profit sales are obvious as he runs a business for his film work. His notability is quite large and wide and, in fact, what "makes him" notable is not material in term of wikipedia policy. If he is notable - he is notable. You should opt for deletion not merger if there was any question. There is also no single credit in the many news accounts that makes him notable by secondary sourcing. Furthermore, he didn't "announce" the movement, he started one, the likes of which have been documented by the New York Times, Huffington Post and a dozen other agencies. Even neg news sources like The Marker or Tablet, with Micheal Goldberg, as much as she dislikes it, admits it is a global body of people working towards a common end. There are a dozen active websites and so forth. There are many international articles. It is pure biased POV to state he "announced" it and nothing more. There have been many event days and much press. Peter's apparent recent activity being "lacking" or not has no basis in Wikipedia as it isn't based on time. If that were the case, dead people would have their Wikipedia pages removed. As far as "letting Zeitgeist people..." No, people here are trying to improve this article are actual normal people with a neutral bias. Your work to merge is clearly a form of vandalism. The Merge is baseless. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The only way it could be more obvious that you're a TZMer would be if your username was "TZM fan." Why does Zeitgeist have to be so dishonest in their advocacy? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but wrong again. I actually respect wikipedia and its purpose to provide neutral information to the public. This is a matter of principle. But thanks for the insults and confirmation of your ongoing vandalism. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You had better change your style because that style does not jive with editing Wikipedia. You don't call other editors vandals [4] for making edits for no reason as you are doing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Room for Improvement

As per WP:BLP, this page is in poor form as a bio for a famous person. Work should be made to improve it to better represent Wikipedia standards, along with being something people would gain important biographical data. There is a wealth of data on Joseph online. I also propose a section on his lectures as well, which are many and notable. JWilson0923 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, someone keeps putting a link to Jacque Fresco in the intro summary. This is not needed for an intro as it isn't relevant to Joseph personal work as a whole.JWilson0923 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - "Relevant" is "not relevant" to a discussion about content. It comes down to WP:WEIGHT. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming Joseph is famous does not give a good argument one way or another. His lectures are mostly self published. He is eternally associated with J. Fresco because the two bonded at one time and Joseph made his later movies wound around ideas from Fresco and acknowledged that at the time. So historically they are forever linked in a notable way. He has to be mentioned therefore as integral to Joseph's thinking because of being his mentor. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you have returned the edit again. The Who Is Peter Joseph link to a sort of biography is not a reliable source. It is possibly also not real having been done by Peter Joseph himself and perhaps passed off as a real bio on the internet. It is unknown about that for sure but speculation is pretty rampant that Peter Joseph himself may have made the bio and placed it online [5]. We just plain do not know and erring on the side of caution is best. We do know that the person doing the interview 'Charles Robinson' does not seem to exist outside of the 'interview'. Please do not re-add until this is cleared up. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in but EARL, your points are speculative and hence irrelevant to the policy of Wikipedia. And Fresco and PJ are no longer in association and, according the Zeitgeist Film Series Wikipedia, the zeitgeist movement is "based on Peter's films" not the venus project. PJ has also sourced numerous people, many more than Fresco in his work/activism and many would argue his work today is more in line with technocracy or Buckminster Fuller than venus project. To say Fresco is also "mentor" is total speculation/opinion. He put him in a film and promoted his work for a while. That's it. Fresco is irrelevant to PJ's personal bio. Likewise, if you do not have real evidence, linked to a notable online source like a news report, that peter "made his own interview".....or whatever... you have nothing but speculation, opinion and POV once again. No credibility to anything you are saying here. 12.130.117.66 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As said the link that was returned is not a good source and there is speculation that Peter Joseph himself made the interview and posted it on the internet. Unless it can be established who the person is that made the interview and its source it is not a reliable source. It is not from a news group. It is not from a pulished source that is known. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Was almost scared to come here for fear of being labeled, but this seems like an easy problem to fix. First, there is no reason to have the link to his bio as support for content. This is a self-published source. I see no reason to have it, especially since there are dozens of other sources supporting the same sentence. Which brings me to my next point.........there is no need to have a dozen sources for one sentence. Putting more sources at the end of a sentence does not make the statement stronger. Not sure why there is so much debate over this guy or his movies but making something neutral shouldn't be as difficult as it seems from the threads on this talk page. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you think this is not so good check out the Zeitgeist film series. The threads on the talk page are about impossible at least for me to figure out. People doggedly involved and I do think its a result of the Facebook call to edit. Your point about multiple over sourcing is taken. It made the sentence look odd with that many citations. I do not think we know who made the interview you removed but it does not appear to be a good reference citation I agree. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That one looks like a mess that will take a while to figure out.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Earl. So, I did my due diligence to review your edit history and I have to say you are quite an avid editor of all things "peter joseph" and "zeitgeist". In fact, you seem to be an almost "one topic" wikipedia editor... which makes your activity rather suspect, wouldn't you say? Do you have some personal vendetta against peter and zeitgeist? Your recorded archive of comments and edits give you away as far as POV and your clear interest in being as negative and marginalizing as possible. It is truly sad that Wikipedia gets turned into a playground for people who simply dislike a person or group. This isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.JWilson0923 (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at edit history has nothing to do with the discussion here. If you have an issue with an editor, there are places to air your grievances. Making accusations against editors is not going to help your argument here. In fact, it will likely hurt it as personal attacks are not very welcome on Wikipedia. Please stick to the point if you want to discuss an issue on the talk page. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone's time - that is, those wanting to improve the article.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk about content and not other editors or it can be construed as a personal attack. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been working through edits in my sandbox and posted a rewrite of the article. I was on the fence with the documentary (Who is Peter Joseph?) due to the claims of it being made by Mr. Joseph himself. However, there is really no need as the information can be sourced from other references so I think we just don't include it to be on the safe side with this being a BLP. I added back the Huff Post article as a reference as although it is a blog, this should not discredit the source. The writer has a history of articles on the site and the Huffington Post is not citizen journalism. They have a process they use to allow people to post. And, if it is like any other contributor platform, editors from the Huffington Post review the content and determine what goes live and what doesn't. Either way, I believe the content is neutral and includes information that everyone has been debating about. I am still not sure why there is a huge fuss about the contents of the article. Most of this debate is something for off-Wikipedia. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are not forbidden in Wikipedia articles; on the contrary, they may be quite helpful when referring to facts about themselves. Please see WP:Reliable sources. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Surname

Whether his surname is publicly known or not known, or any facts or speculation regarding such, should not be stated per WP:BLP. Unless it's a verifiable fact, it need not be stated that his "surname is not publicly known." It's irrelevant unless we can verify that. Laval (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Minor grammar edit

The sentence "The movement proposes an alternative economic model call a Natural Law Resource-Based Economy" should have the word "call" changed to "called". Awethentic (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've amended it to read "described as..." since that reads better - they are proposing an economic system, rather than a name for it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Peter joseph (B. Feb. 4th 1979, Winston-Salem, NC, USA) http://peterjoseph.info/biography/

200.71.251.111 (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 05:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Politics, Occupy etc

Please use credible secondary sources according to wikipedia policy for claims of political activism. Huffington post article is ok for mentioning he supports occupy but it is not what the subject is primarily notable for, so it should go later in the body and not in the lead paragraph as it is not WP:DUE. --Slicape (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Claims of political activism are not given in the edit just that he supports, works for and is a speaker at those occupy events. It probably is a major portion of who this person is if he does this and it is cited information. It should be in the lead if he lectures, speaks at these events as well as the body. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Because some one supports an occupy event does not change his profession to a political activist like you inferred. That is great exaggeration. Same for lecturing. If a film maker lectures or a gets a board memebership of a project does not change a person's primary reason of fame, popularity or notability. Almost all flim makers are lecturers or have other side activities but that does not change their profession and should not change anything in their intro. Mentioning in article later on is Ok. Your edit is at best WP:SYNTH. Please discuss before further changes. --Slicape (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Obviously Occupy is political and he is involved in trying to change the political system. Its not cool to accuse editors of edit warring on content disputes so please cease and desist. The information is cited and no one mentioned political activist after the first edit so your appraisal is not accurate. Earl King Jr.

The reference does not mention he is a political activist. Inferring from a reference that he is a political activist because the reference mentions he lectured at a political movement is WP:SYNTH and a form of WP:OR. Doing that will be breaking wikipedia rules. So you are wrong. Edit war only happens onnnn content disputes and it is not cool to edit war which you did by reverting 4 times. My message on your talkpage was not harassment. I only warned you not to break wikipedia rules as you had made 3 reverts and asked you to discuss on talkpage. Your 4th edit is also changing text in the article [6] but I am being cool as you did not revert me in that edit. Calling a normal warning harassment is actually a violation of rules as well. Please keep the discussion civil and away from accusations.

I know you did not add "political activist" after first edit but the other edit is not neutral as well. Please follow WP:NPOV in your other claims as well. I did not remove your whole edit. So you should be willing to discuss as well. Please give your argument against WP:DUE. Otherwise I think your edit is present later in the body and we should move on. --Slicape (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Earl King you should decide changes on article with consensus. Why are you doing everything alone again and again? You failed consensus in one change and you are changing different text to add your other opinion. --Slicape (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)