Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JWilson0923 (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 26 June 2016 (→‎Non-Neutrality and constant biased vandalism by Earl King Jr.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:ZG sanctions

Wessex citation

Current revision [1] I changed the wording a lot because the previous edit did not accurately give the information. It seemed to water it down or just take a couple of things while leaving out the gist of the information. If that citation is going to be used its better not to cherry pick or rephrase it for its good parts or less controversial parts. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify this, EKJ. Are you saying that more controversy is "better"?

I think this zeitgeist wikipedia article would be greatly improved if it was deleted right now.Pissinabottle (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Gruber

A section was added about Perry Gruber and his attempts to make an implementation of ideas "similar" to the Zeitgeist movement. I'm skeptical to this for several reasons: 1. It's not actually exactly the same ideas, in fact, it's only same as it thinks getting rid of money means getting rid of poverty. 2. I'm highly skeptical to people who claim to have invented something that is better than capitalism, but asks for money. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new section is about "various groups" of which Copiosis is only one. True, Gruber is in one of those groups, but not mentioned by name in the new text. The newspaper says the projects are similar to Zeitgeist, but with the added element of a route to instantiate "the model", indicating that the ideals are substantially the same. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 00:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Deleted the whole selection. Really not connected. Sources are for something not at all connected. There is a Forum thing about this on Zeitgeist forum but that sure does not count, at all. Please do not re-add. No connection to this article what so ever. [2] Completely different concept. Zeitgeist has no implementation policy beyond trying to get a movement going and that appears to be limited to chat rooms with few participating. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section really only was about Gruber and his group. And of course the ideals are the same. Everyone's ideals are the same. Ideologies and movements like this only have different misunderstandings about how the world works. We can't say that two groups are connected just because both of them doesn't understand what money is. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Earl King, you really need to get over your WP:OWN problem. Even though you have worked for years to eliminate it, this article has a subject and an existence. And other editors are gathering material to create an encyclopedia. Notwithstanding OpenFuture's thoughts on the universe, Other Editors: This is the text that Earl King just deleted without consensus. Would you perhaps read it to him, show him that it comes from a reputable news source, and tell him it is relevant to the Zeitgeist Movement?

== Implementation == In 2015, the Portland weekly, Street Roots, reported that a number of groups in Portland and in Chico, California are attempting to implement the economic model of the Venus and Zeitgeist movements. As reported, various groups and individuals are working on a series of demonstration projects, while another is developing a software backbone, called Copiosis, to improve society's utilization of knowledge, skills, labor, and resources. The software is based on the work of sociologist, author, and computer programmer, Larry K. Mason.[1][2]

Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 07:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Green, Emily (23 Dec 2015). "North Portland neighbors test a new economic model | Street Roots". news.streetroots.org. Street Roots. Retrieved 2016-04-22.
  2. ^ Glider-Shelley, Lydia (May 22, 2012). "Larry K. Mason, Author of Invisible Hand: How do we End Unemployment?". nopomstuff.info. Retrieved 2016-04-23.
Consensus is not just votes (where I add mine to Earl's) it's also who has the correct arguments. And TZM is mentioned briefly in the article, but this is not TZM trying to implement their ideas, this is another group trying to implement other ideas, which definitely have broad similarities, but they are not the same. So no, it is NOT relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wording it to make it seem like Fresco or Joseph are somehow in on that concept for an implementation of those two groups is original research and as such does not apply to the article. If you had Joseph or Fresco discussing that person and that concept then maybe, but it does not appear they have talked about it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sfarney, I think a See Also wikilink to a Copiosis WP article is justifiable, but this article isn't making any claims about TZM. It only references the ideas. This would be a good source for a Copiosis WP article. OnlyInYourMindT 21:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters

Is that Chapters section really meaningful? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, especially as the substantive example in Toronto is in fact a formal not-for-profit not a chapter, as the source clearly states.Martinlc (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain that at length, please? So far, the reason is not reasonable. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 06:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It would be ok to have a section about an organisation/movement's local branches if they could be identified and described from independent sources (otherwise it would be UNDUE). The section had three sources, two of which we vague statements that a Chapter might be established, and the other which was a news report that someone inspired by the movement had been involved in the Toronto chapter and then created a not-for-profit to develop the concept further, building on the wider local currency / time banking movement. If we are to take the Movement at its word that a network of branches exists we should expect that the Chapters' activities would appear in RS. As it stands all we can really say is that the Movement had that intention.Martinlc (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The more this unfolds the more it seems there is no movement or the 'movement' was killed off when it diverged from Venus project. Yes the section can be removed because nothing indicates it is anything but some forums and an occasional meetup and its not documented by reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there seems to have been two competing Media Festivals in 2015, it is indeed highly doubtful that it is a movement. But, as usual, that would be OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's unfounded speculation on your side - see: Non sequitur (logic): why would it be more than one movement if there are multiple media festivals? Wouldn't one expect so if there are also many local chapters? TZM is a loose and broad movement with members hosting all kinds of events at various days.
For the chapters section: I do think it's meaningful and should stay. It's an important aspect of the movement and there are enough sources for a basic description of its regional structure. The length and content of the description depends on the references (seemingly only the Toronto chapter got enough coverage for some more in-depth details). --Fixuture (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Basically the 'movement' originally is based on Fresco's ideas and when the two groups split it might have in effect ended the 'movement' though that is hard to say but it certainly is not written about now and it was when they were connected. Regardless I have added more information on Fresco and that relationship which I am guessing is important to understanding the two groups and their past situation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and when the two groups split it might have in effect ended the 'movement' though that is hard to say but it certainly is not written about now
Short note: that's original research and also false. --Fixuture (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Looking around for more sources, critical or otherwise, I found found this. Its old also but what is the sentiment? Could this be a source or citation for information in the article [3] Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stallman is a notable expert on several things, but it doesn't appear his comments on TZM are based on any of his fields of expertise. On the other hand, we do seem to value critical opinions from journalists (who are otherwise not experts in anything), so perhaps Stallman's criticism is valuable simply because he is a well known figure. And for that reason, perhaps even more valuable than a journalists criticism. Of course, an expert would seem to provide the most valuable commentary. OnlyInYourMindT 21:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting opinion, but probably not quotable. Stallman does not present himself as an expert on economy, and does not apply standard scholarly measures. Stallman seems to base "value" on the present system of numerical prices, while resource-based economy has a radically different foundation for distribution. The one thing that might be quotable is his statement that he does not trust computers to distribute goods equitably, partially because commodity values are complex and fluid. I added a reference earlier where a Portland group was attempting to build such a computer system, but it was reverted. Now King wants to add a piece that says it cannot be done. Hm. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 00:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nullifying the work of others is contentious

(copied from my talk page)

I hope you do not resume editing tendentiously on this article. You removed accurate information that was cited. Not a good idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl King Jr.: You replaced good text with babytalk: "Samuel Gilonis describes the movements opinions as wanting to replace all private property with for what Joseph refers to as ..." That is not good editing. A movement does not have "opinions", and the statement cites goals. You are not following WP:BRD -- Bold, revert, discuss. Go back to the talk page and explain why you want to nullify the work of other editors with this half-baked language. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 07:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Earl King Jr was following BRD. The IP made a bold edit, Earl King Jr reverted it, and the onus to discuss the matter was on whoever restored the material. It's not BRRD or BDR. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson: Study further. Earl King reverted a number of edits in a sweep that included the most recent from a signed editor -- without discussion. The history page tells all. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 07:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, changed a few words back to conform to the citation that was given in sourcing the information and they were a very few words, not a 'sweep'. Someone tried to change the general information from the citation, an I.P. I think, not that there is anything wrong with that, but its better to keep the actual intent of the citation and not someones rephrasing, hence inaccurate, not even paraphrased right information. Please return the former edit as it was it was accurate. Also the bit you added sfarney about how many people belong to this very iffy movement is not actually sourced in the citation, its of unknown origin. Where does the number come from, Zeitgeist? We can not have some Peter Joseph interview claiming how many people belong when no public records are available for this social movement which may not even be a social movement but very possibly just a promotion for Mr. Josephs series of movies. After all he did announce the Zeitgeist movement at the end of a movie so this whole movement thing is very very iffy and needs good sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be reluctant to accept as a definitive statement on the number of members sources solely to a student newspaper. Presumably the writer had obtained the number from somewhere but there is nothing in what is written to suggest that it was from anyone who might actually have access to the information.Martinlc (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the writer of the article is hostile to Zeitgeist Movement and would not be accepting their numbers without checking -- but it would be very boring if it included all the background work confirming each fact. If this it RS for any facts without a whole monolog on where it got the info, it is RS for this fact too. So either you throw it out completely, or you use it. You don't cherry-pick. Also, that standard for would have to be applied to all the hostile sources, too. Where did they get their information? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 16:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. That logic fails. Editors have to exercise judgement about content in a source . There is no real source anywhere of the number of members. Is a member of a blog or forum a member?Unknown. Earl King Jr. (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To aid you in your quandary, blogs do not have "members". By definition, blogs are written and published on the determination, origination, and activity of individuals.. Movements do have members, however. We are discussing whether this is a source on the number of members. Your argument that "there is no real source" is simply begging the question. You know what that means, right? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 23:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you are tendentious and like to make points by being insulting. I know that Zeitgeist information and movies and movement was thought to be a right wing anti Semitic organization that promoted classic stereotypes about Jews. That clear enough? As you know the movement or so called movement and its debatable whether a movement exists, was banned on a common German social networking site. It appears that was taken out of the article but no doubt should be returned into the article. Your talk page seems to indicate you have a dog in this contest Slade. Anyway, the source for that information of members is not known. Membership is secret. It is not public information. There is no way to say a number and expect that is true. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All those violations of WP:CIVIL do not make a hill of beans. It is a reliable source used in the article for some statements critical of the subject, but not good enough for statements supportive of the subject. That is a significant problem of WP:NPOV. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 12:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The right wing neo Nazi aspects of Zeitgeist

Probably not a bad idea to put back some aspect of this information [[4]]. Its one of our few reliable sources. From the link, Most members, particularly the new ones, are probably unaware of the Jew-baiting subtext of the documentary that launched their movement. Many were genuinely baffled in 2009 when a German social networking site, studiVZ, banned Zeitgeist groups because of their implicit anti-Semitism. Others seem a bit embarrassed by the first Zeitgeist; they’ll often say it’s “irrelevant”—one of TZM’s favorite epithets—because it came out before the movement got started. But no one is disavowing it, and so a growing global movement of tech-savvy idealists continues to promote a work of far-right paranoia. “I’m willing to accept that the filmmaker is a person who has a great energy and tremendous ignorance who inadvertently replicated the Nazi view of money manipulation,” says Berlet. “In which case he needs to repudiate it.” That seems unlikely. In a video interview available online, Joseph rails against his critics, “the self-appointed guardians of the status quo.” The first Zeitgeist, he insists, “is based on pre-existing information. There isn’t one thing in that film that doesn’t come from a source.” True enough. The problem is what the sources are.

So opinions about using some aspect of Zeitgeist movement having been banned from studiVZ ? Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another of your comments fades off into gibberish. Would you like to clarify? Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify? Asking for comments on Zeitgeist being banned on a social networking site in Germany, whether that merits being in the article. Are you pro or con Slade Farney? You are that Slade Farney right? Your old signature would imply a certain bias on this issue? Anyome ever tell you that your signature is annoying? Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your comment is non-sequitur. I am "pro" making an encyclopedia. People can call each other names until the crows sport flowers, but not all name-calling is encyclopedic. You may recall that Benito Mussolini called for making the trains run on time, but that does not turn every train schedule advocate into a fascist. Editors must use common sense. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 20:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Holocaust denier and subscribing to the theories of Jewish conspiracy of banking etc. does not preclude one from editing. As a public person with a theory of denial about history that is considered fringe, a little caution is probably needed. The subject on the talk page is whether to include the basics of the 1st Zeitgeist movie which conjured up the Protocols of thr Elders of Zion and the outlook of Nazi Germany and its theories aboit Jewish culture being a large aspect of the 1st movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should back off on your personal attacks. You should conform your conduct to the standards of Wikipedia. Consider yourself warned.
  • None of the movies mention the Elders of Zion or the Nazis. Such associations are hysterical mud-slinging. The Nazis proposed both Social Security pensions and broader public education before America saw fit to implement them. That fact does not turn Roosevelt into a Nazi, nor is the association appropriate for the Roosevelt topic. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Goldberg citation says otherwise as do other reliable sources that are not hysterical. The group/movement was banned from that German networking site for promoting antisemitic ideololpgy.. Your public website advocates shall we say fringe thinking on these things. It appears you are trying to influence the article with conspiracy thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Goldberg accuses Roosevelt of Nazism, feel free to add it to the topic. Let us know how it goes. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 22:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Neutrality and constant biased vandalism by Earl King Jr.

Recently, a thoughtful and updated edit was made to this page, expressing a clearly neutral and informative position for the ZM, including its legal 501 c3 non-profit status. This was reverted by Earl King Jr., who has consistently reverted any attempt to allow for a respectable, honest page here. This is an insult to Wikipedia and needs to stop. Since 2012, his edit history has been very clear: Make sure the ZM appears as fringe and nonsensical as possible. Despite controversy, many highly reputable articles have been written that define this org as per Wikipedia standards. This need to embraced to provide the public with a true picture of the organization.

Having looked at the history or what is highly violating and immoral behavior of Earl King Jr., I suggest the full banning of him, as was partly done before for the same reason. His history of non-nuetrality and bias speaks for itself if anyone reviews it and he does not belong anywhere near wikipedia.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:Earl_King_Jr.reported_by_User:Somedifferentstuff.28Result:_Stale.29

He has also been reported for destruptive behavior here: [5]

He has also been reported for harassing editors here: [6]

He also violates wiki rules by deleting the info on his own page, trying to hide his history and many other problems. JWilson0923 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your non-NPOV edits which also broke half the refs. --NeilN talk to me 22:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a administrator, how can you sit by and watch this constant extreme NPOV editing coming from single purpose editors like Earl King Jr. and not do anything about it?! JWilson0923 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing something - discouraging blatant whitewashing from SPAs. --NeilN talk to me 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Fatima 77"'s edits were the most honest edits this page has ever seen and Earl needs to be banned, along with his friends. This is neutrality and should be incorporated.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=727026331&oldid=726969718 74.80.228.162 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it will come to something as Earl is the enemy of honesty. All this is cumulative evidence of his extreme bias. He roams every zeitgeist page with the same stuff and people like you, who are clearly biased as well, come in and pretend to have any honest interiority and defend him. Amazing. JWilson0923 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement&oldid=727138852"