Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Removal of large amount of material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tablet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No so. There is consensus that the Tablet and Michelle Goldberg are reliable sources. There are lots and lots of other sources for that information [[1]] [[2]] but its probably best not to over cite that material Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YouTube citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constant Biased Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Sources

As I mentioned at the reliable sources noticeboard, there are two scholarly articles that mention this movement and discuss its context. One of them even actually focusses on the "anti-semitic" issue. These academic articles are exactly the high quality sources that should be snapped up by serious editors and used to source and determine weight issues. For example, the fact that there is a scholarly article about the antisemitic issue would likely have a significant impact on the question of inclusion here. In case you missed it, here is the information about the articles again. One is this article (which I can send to any editors who don't have access to it, if they send me an email, as one person has), and one "Grauzonen der Antisemitismusforschung, oder: Versuch, den ‚Zeitgeist' zu verstehen" [Grey areas of anti-Semitism research, or: an attempt to understand "Zeitgeist"], is available here, with an abstract in English. German speakers available on WP to help [3] if you need it.--Slp1 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Possibility of legal issues?

The following is a copy-paste from TZM's official Q&A website. Does this represent a potential legal issue? Our article seems to contain material that may directly contradict this official TZM statement.

---

Question (11) - Is The Zeitgeist Movement related to Peter Joseph's Film Series?

No. While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.

The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the ‘The General intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era." The Term "movement" very simply implies ‘motion" and change, Therefore The Zeitgeist Movement is thus an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.

The Movement is not about Comparative Religion, False-Flag Terrorism, Economic Hit-men, Fractional Reserve Banking or the Federal Reserve. The films are unrelated to The Movement in detail and are personal expressions of Peter Joseph. There is often some confusion in this regard and in the most extreme cases some people have the knee-jerk reaction that TZM supports forbidden "Conspiracy Theories" or is "Anti-Religious" or the like. This type or rhetoric tends to be of a pejorative/insulting nature, used in the context of dismissal of The Movement by an erroneous and "taboo" external association. The fact is, there is no direct association whatsoever.

If you are not familiar with what TZM actually is, please review our extensive literature and video/lecture materials on this website.

---

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No it does not present a possible legal issue. Organizations say all sorts of things about themselves, and WP is in no way obliged to follow their perspectives and points of view. As a encyclopedia we prefer secondary sources with a reputation for fact checking, over primary sources such as this. See WP:PSTS. In addition, please see no legal threats. I realize that you are not threatening legal action here, but erroneous claims of potential legal issues are chilling and stifling to editors and article development.Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right that I'm not threatening legal action. I was only raising a question in order to get feedback and improve my understanding, and I strongly recommend that editors not be discouraged or stifled by this post. Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but if getting more information is the goal then maybe you should ask one person and wait for a response rather than firing off identical sections on multiple pages. Anyway, in the interests of reducing the chill effect, I am going to collapse this section.--Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward (Continued)

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

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

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

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

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

"History"

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

"Structure and Processes"

"Chapters "

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

"Teams"

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

"Projects"

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

"Coordinators"

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

"Fundraising"

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

"Activities"

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

I agree with Andy here on his thesis. I also copy edited, again, the article for neutrality and removed the weight tags on some critical information that an editor restored against consensus. There is no argument about whether the sources are good except by one editor and another editor that flames through here occasionally till they are blocked. Here is the diff. [4] IjonTichyIjonTichy your interpretation of what has weight or neutral presentation has been rejected. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another issue for the beginning and the 'critical' section is the claimed non violence of Zeitgeist, but their affinity for attracting violent people, and a fairly recent incident of someone inspired by the movies that tried political assassinations [[5]] Jared Loughner. This site also claims there is a huge undercurrent of violent action within Zeitgeist because of its either/or take on their way or the highway type of belief in conspiracy theory [[6]] Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Consider that no one else uses the lines

---

and that other people separate things without making the page idiosyncratic. Its confusing. Zeitgeist as cult? Ample reports and verifiable citations for that, so many that it is not even much of a question whether they are or not but more to what level of a cult they are [[7]] and [[8]] and [[9]] and [[10]] and [[11]] and [[12]], so as Wikipedia project members we just report those things by incorporating into the article. Something to think about. If you over use the word conflating it begins to sound silly. The movie obviously spawned the movement. It does not matter really critically thinking wise what Zeitgeist says on that except noting it but critical judgement, the movie started interest, that started the internet movement and more movies. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Info box

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