Talk:Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Explain the "Multiple Issues"[edit]

   * It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2011.

It is a true summary of a film, the movie is the reference you need.

   * It may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Tagged since January 2011.

It is neutral. Identify a point where we advocate the reader to watch the film.

   * Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since January 2011.

It clearly states the movie position.

   * It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since January 2011.

It states what the movie states.

   * It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since January 2011.

It is the facts in the movie.

   * It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since January 2011.

It is the facts of the movie, no advertisement.

   * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since January 2011.

Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stp52x (talkcontribs) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is obviously no legitimate reason for a lot of these flags. I suspect trolling or personal motives behind this. (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to poison the well...I am not "trolling" this article. Rather, I don't see why it should be held to different standards than other Wikipedia articles. To address your points:

1.It needs additional references or sources for verification. The various sections contain more than just a plot summary for example the Zeitgeist:_Moving_Forward#Part_II:_Social_Pathology section states:

The other component is the monetary economy. The monetary system regulates the money supply and interest rates by buying/selling treasuries. More critical views of the monetary system are explained. In the final analysis the current monetary system can only result in default or hyperinflation. This is because when money comes into existence it is created by loans at interest. The existing money supply is only the principle. The interest to pay the loan that created the money does not exist in the money supply and must be borrowed repetitively in order to service the debt. Due to this exponential money supply growth, the value of money is eventually destroyed.

This requires sourcing...see WP:RS

2.It may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. The original movie has a criticism section (Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Critical_reaction). Please read WP:NPOV.

3.Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since January 2011. See response for #2.

4.It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. See response for #1. Also see Wikipedia:Systemic bias

5.It reads like a personal reflection or essay. The style and tone of this article is not in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) and WP:MOS. It is the facts presented in the movie without opinion. These arguments against this article are aimed at the movie's message not and have nothing to do with this article.

6.It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. See above answers and Wikipedia:Writing better articles

I hope this clears up why this article has been tagged w/ Multiple issues.Smallman12q (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Watch the film for yourself and come up with a description of its content, then. Everything described in the Content section is sourced straight from the film. None of the other Content sections in documentary film entries list the entire breadth of sources the documentary uses for its material...There are already sources that don't belong in the article, as they are sources that the film itself doesn't reference. (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Number 1 example is actually a description of the views versed in Addendum. Number 2 I am kinda wondering, because the criticisms expressed in about Zeitgeist: The Movie are on part 1 and are done by academics along with the skeptic community. No academic to my knowledge has commented on Zeitgeist Moving Forward, the film just released and you expect academics to have written criticisms or appraisals of it? This kinda makes your point about number 3 being moot. Also the article is mainly about summarizing the claims of the film, there is no need for sourcing a summation of the film. You can add citations for the claims as things go on, but to say that the article needs to be sources when its summation is just baffling. This makes the points you bring up in 3 and 4 completely moot. With number 5, your going to have be more specific. I view this mainly as an attempt of a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talkcontribs) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to refer to an ad hominem remark...I am no troll. I am merely asking that the article provide reliable sources per WP:RS to support its claims. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (WP:OR) which includes anything not covered by WP:RS. See also WP:FRINGE.Smallman12q (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Do not continue to add flags that are inaccurate. It does not read like an advertisement. If you are going to continue to flag it as such, please provide citation as to where exactly the article reads like an advertisement. At this point in time, it does not, as it simply describes the films accolades, and its content. It also does not include personal research. If you watch the film itself you will realize that the content section is exactly what it describes, the film's content. (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is WikiPedia an Internet REFERENCE whose purpose is to provide free and factual information on a given subject? Yes
Is Zeitgeist: Moving Forward a movie made by Peter Joseph with the four parts listed? Yes
If someone who has not watched the movie yet instead read this article first, would the article give an accurate summary of the content of the movie? Yes
Is the movie controversial in its content which has created large Internet groups both in favor of and in opposition to it? Yes
Is WikiPedia in the business of censoring information which explains what the subject that someone may be searching for is about because it is controversial.. ??? Gravitas73 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Smalltalk12q, but your objections appear to be erroneous to me as well. The article appears to be a fairly accurate description of the film's content. There is no advertising here. There's no "fringe" content here as per definitions laid out in WP:FRINGE.--Majicko (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Until an individual can clearly identify how this article infringes upon the following, I am going to remove the accusations:

   * It needs additional references or sources for verification. 


   * The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. 

-A film motivated by a global movement consisting of 120 chapters and nearly 15,000 members, with over 5 million views, is not notable?

   * It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since January 2011.

'Personal essays state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)' Where does this article express anyone's opinion? It is merely a summary of a film.

   * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since January 2011.

-Where? How is this summary poorly organized? Please identify particular passages in the article that supports this claim.

(Stp52x (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)) This article contains only the negative reception of the film, as though Wikipedia is trying to discourage people from seeing it. Wikipedia has done this with the previous two films as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

   * It needs additional references or sources for verification. 
One study discussed, showed that newly born babies are more likely to die if they are not touched. Another study which was mentioned, claimed to show how stressed women were more likely to have children with addiction disorders.

Which studies are those? If one decides to mention them, one should cite the source.

The "Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study" is mentioned to have shown that obesity and other health complications became common problems later in life, due to prolonged starvation of their mother during pregnancy.[3]

This has a reference, leading tothis page. Which one in this collection is the study in question? If it's in there somewhere, it should be cited directly...

Through the global application of existing revolutionary technologies in the manufacturing and distribution sectors, labor and money will eventually become obsolete;

It will? The movie claims it will. To maintain the "it will" here, it needs a source.

The city structure will consist of concentric rings, every ring serving one critical function necessary for the function of a self-sufficient city: agriculture, energy production, residents, hospitals, schools, etc.

As before: If it will be so, that claim needs a source or it needs to be written differently.

Not directly mentioned, currently the gap between the rich and the poor is wider than at any time since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

Is it? Source? And if it's not directly mentioned in the movie, how is it relevant?

And last but not least, in the Reception section the review and the Wessex scene review lack a proper citation.

Wollff (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


This article is sadly useless as a description of the movie, and instead seems to be merely a repeat or rehash of the verbal soup that is the movie. I had hoped that the article would be clearer than interviews with the documentarian. That said, I hope someone deals with the flags, as they're pretty much right-on. Regurgitating the content of a movie is original research. (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." - regurgitating content of a movie does not meet the criteria of original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


The reception article by Michelle Goldberg does not in any way deal with the actual content of the film itself, instead it tries to go on a rant about The Zeitgeist Movement and how it is antisemitic based on two of the previous films which are completely separate and bear no actual standing on the third film itself. The issue I find with this reception being added is that it should not be here since it goes onto to loosely associate the movement with antisemitic views all because of Charles Lindberg supposedly being antisemitic as well. I do not believe this review even needs to be there due to the fact that it contains really nothing of description, praise or even criticism of any kind related to the third film and only bashes the movement. Whether what Michelle says is true or not is irrelevant, since it does not pertain to the actual content film in either praising, critical or descriptory manner it does not need to be mentioned. I would like anyone else's input before removing it in it's entirety, because after I had removed it previously, it appeared again the exact same day after I removed it.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The revert summary says "rv unexplained deletion. Use edit summaries EVERY time!"
When you delete content from articles, especially when it's from a cited source, you should describe in your edit summary why you made the edit. Otherwise it's almost certain it will be reverted. -- intgr [talk] 07:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've readded the review, but only after removing most of the existing text which did refer to the movement, not the film. I added comments by the reviewer about the film itself. Ravensfire (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to get some RS concerns about the sources used in the reception section. First twinge was a review labeled as from the San Francisco Examiner (website, when it was really from, a self-described "pro-am" journalism site. Our article on them notes concerns about reliability and fact-checking. The reviewer's bio doesn't show a whole lot that may be relevant to the field. I've got a MAJOR concern about using Michael Ruppert as a review source - he appears IN the movie and is apparently a member of the movement. I've found no reviews in major sources and IMDB/RottenTomato do not have links to any major reviews. EDIT: I've removed the Ruppert review for the reasons above. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how a person who is critical of the ideas, who obviously isn't a member of the Movement, is allowed to be represented in this article, but a notable person, who agrees with the ideas cannot be represented as he was interviewed in the film in question. That is a double standard. Doesn't matter if he was in the film, he publicly gave his opinion on it, and he is a notable figure. Meets the criteria of the Reception section. (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging with the article on Peter Joseph[edit]

Given that the film has over 4.5 million views on YouTube in roughly 2 months, I definitely don't think this article should be merged. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Youtube views aren't a reason for inclusion or a separate article on Wikipedia. What I think the best option is, is to merge this article, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Peter Joseph into The Zeitgeist Movement article. As that seems the best candidate for an overarching article. Maybe with merging the articles something decent can finally come out of it. Zeitgeist: The Movie seems proper enough to stand on its own. --Sloane (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is quite long. A merged article would be messy and long. And YouTube views are a factor; it gives an idea of notability. (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This article should be merged with toy dog. Then let's all dance a jig. SpiralofHope (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Ravensfire (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


It has been mentioned on Russia Today Russia Today --voodoom (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not of much use though - extremely short and it's just a very, very brief overview of the film. Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wessex Scene citation?[edit]

Here is the link for the article by Fouad Al-Noor by the wessex scene. Can you guys please update the citation list.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Click here to see how. Actually you don't need all those parameters; <ref></ref> would work too. Welcome to Wikipedia! jonkerz 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Rotten Tomates & IMDb Ratings[edit]

How are these not reliable sources? They are commonly cited on other films' Wikipedia pages, and other sites and media commonly reference them. Re: startswithj (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are more or less blogs where viewers probably can rate things a hundred times if they are in the mood. Its not like a real official poll by say Newsweek or USA today. Also as stats in general with little to no meaning its clutter [[1]]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we redirect this page to The Zeitgeist Movement?[edit]

Earl King Jr. proposes to turn this page into a redirect (ie, replacing the entire page contents with #REDIRECT [[The Zeitgeist Movement]]). There is an ongoing discussion here, which I encourage others to join. nagualdesign 19:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to personalize this by emphasizing what editor did what. Lets just stick with neutral editing and discussion. Mostly the conversation about this is on the The Zeitgeist Movement page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Redirection is a terrible idea. Moving Forward is a movie. A movie on Netflix and other outlets giving it total independence from TZM or anything else. This is a move being conducted by anti-tzm folk who wish to downplay TZM's true work, which is ubiquitous in hundreds of hours of online media, lectures and in their BookJamesB17 (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit as redirect[edit]

Could the person that recently edited the article to another of Peter Josephs sites that highlights his begging for money to make another movie please not do that anymore? Its bad enough that almost the only citation in the article is the Zeitgeist Youtube channel without giving another citation to Joseph asking for further funding. Using his Youtube channel once maybe, but not twice. That is overkill. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


In anticipation of Earl accusing me of turning the OP into some sort of advertisement for the TZM YouTube channel, I simply added the reference in response to you adding the word "reportedly", contrary to WP:ALLEGED. It's an easily verifiable fact how many YouTube 'views' it has had. Quite what this number means, and whether such statistics should be included at all, is another matter. nagualdesign 01:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove reliable sources in the article nagualdesign such as the American Spectator as you did here [2] It is not easy finding good sources of information for the article and this is a reliable source. Also another redirect to a Zeitgeist link like their Youtube station is not needed. We can keep the information without giving more links to the primary source which is already linked with all their information at the bottom of the page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The 'reference' you cited has nothing to do with the American Spectator. It is a link to a Youtube parody video. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, must have grabbed the wrong link. Could you restore it with proper citation? [3] Thanks. here is the proper edit 'An article in the American Spectator described the movie as featuring "a parade of “experts” — mostly academics — touting the supposed benefits of collectivism and the purported evils of private property, profit, and free markets. Using a barrage of pseudo-intellectual terms such as “Unified Dynamically Updated Global Management Machine,” the movie essentially concludes that Fresco’s vision is the only way to move forward."[1]
Your citation is for The New American, which is not a reliable source; "Published in the United States as an educational tool for The John Birch Society" -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You may not like the John Birch Society but their paper has been around a long time, the group is presented on Wikipedia and its a reliable source and that particular thing is well written. Left or right wing publications can not be judged if they are legitimate because someone is of the right or left as an editor here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on The Beano - that doesn't make it a reliable source. And if you seriously think we should be citing the John Birch Society here, I suggest you raise it at WP:RSN, for a start. And then explain why the opinion of far-right extremists merits inclusion anyway. Personally, I see no reason why their views are even relevant. Would we cite the views of TZM in the article on the John Birch Society? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not a real discourse, just your opinion. Its a legit magazine, and been around for a while and the article is very good. As to Zeitgeist comments on John Birch that is not the issue, is it? Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
So are you going to raise it at WP:RSN? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are concerned about it, do that. Otherwise my plan is to put the information back in the article. The paper interviewed people involved. Its well written. It covers things well. It does not matter what their political beliefs are. Its a legit paper with a very long history. The Christian Science Monitor is a good paper in general though run by a special interest group, if you know what I mean. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not a good source Earl, regardless of how "well written" you think it is. If you put it in the article you are going against the general consensus here. Take it to RSN if you insist on using it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Two against one is not a general consensus. The burden is on you if you want to check the link. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. nagualdesign 21:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Black Sabbath - God Is Dead[edit]

The music video directed by Peter Joseph (see the headline/subject) includes a lot of material from Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. The article should probably mention this. If nobody does it before me, I'll get to it next week. Khokkanen (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any published information on that? Otherwise it can not be included. It has to come from a reliable source. The paper link you gave is some right wing zealous crazy Libertarian site that has anti global warming stories Dr. Arthur Robinson, co-founder and president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, destroys the myth of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming in this interview I seriously doubt its a reliable source for anything. It looks like someones hobby site for their views. It does not mention what you are talking about either about footage. Try to find a good source from one of the other articles where it mentions 'Moving Forward'. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The reference below (at the bottom of the talk page) isn't mine. I have no clue what it applies to but it obviously has nothing to do with the music video. Khokkanen (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

2011 Theatrical Release is Confirmed - This needs to be listed[edit]

Zeitgeist Moving Forward was released in over 300 theaters and this data can be found all over the internet. What is this a problem?

The official website still has the map with 300+ in listings

UK ticket site archive:

Another ticket site archive:

Another ticket site archive:

Another ticket site archive:

Another ticket site archive:

Another ticket site archive:

Festival Theatrical:

Promo for Tickets, Archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetGirlLove (talkcontribs) 19:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

One reporters post ( Not a blog)

IMDB references multiple countries:

Truth Activist lists the global release:


There are countless online reviews which source the data, with people seeing it in theaters

Michelle Goldberg, who hated it, saw it in a theater in New York City

Another review, citing the theatrical:

People talking about theateral

THERE ARE 100S OF THESE SweetGirlLove (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Its already mentioned in the lead that it had a theater release also so really its already there. It does not need to be sourced for the lead anyway. It makes just about zero difference, but stop putting up Spam citations where some blogger basically wrote some glowing review of the movie and praises it like an acolyte. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Earl, but a 350+ theater release that is validated across the internet is not properly noted and your interest to downplay this work is clear. The notability of this reality is clearly worth expressing as an accomplishment. Also there is no SPAM here at all. Only corroborating evidence to support this page: which shows all global screenings. SweetGirlLove (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Get thyself to a deprogrammed attitude. You can not be the resident Zeitgeist promoter on the article or if you are a member of this group that does not give you the right to use primary sources from Peter Joseph to make statements like a Faq's report in the article. Its mentioned that it was released in theaters also already. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Probably best for you not to get too hot and bothered because you could end up having problems if you continue to edit war information. The article is fairly good now and presents a well rounded view of the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Far from it. Just trying to assure some level of honesty.  :) SweetGirlLove (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your idea of honesty has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works. You have to have consensus for your edits and they have to be of reliable sourcing and pertinent. I warned you on your talk page about this already. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^