![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Firstly, 'movement group' seems tautological to me - a movement necessarily involves multiple people, making it a group.
And secondly, why is the fact that the name 'Zeitgeist Movement' is trademarked significant? As far as I'm aware, no secondary source has discussed this, and I can see no obvious legitimate reason to use a primary source in such a manner.
I'll refrain from commenting on the notability of the movement for now, beyond suggesting that it is certainly open to debate. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll comment on the notability. Of the 20 references, at most 2 even help with the criteria in WP:GNG or WP:NFRINGE, and I don't think they help very much. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this article, it's pretty much just the group describing itself. No criticisms, etc. like on the movie pages. The topper on this talk page make me wary too, considering there isn't any history of edit wars, etc. It's like the Zeitgeist people showed up, wrote a positive article about themselves then said, "Now, don't touch this, it's sensitive" and left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.123.11 ( talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well that there should be a criticism portion in this article. It is a difficult subject to find 'official' references on because it is so counter-culture, and especially counter-media as to offend the basic structure of that media to which we seek reference. By offending and or questioning the media at such a level, the only retaliation they seem to even comprehend is silence.
I spent the entire year of 2009 traveling around the US showing the zeitgeist films, and the entire time I maintained a neutral stance on the specific points of the movement. this is documented on my non-commercial, non-affiliated website zeitgeistonwheels.com. I feel that I can offer some criticism points if there is some way that my own observations can be accepted as reference...
1. The grassroots model is poetic but as far as getting anything done or making any progress, it seems to be a hindrance. I have observed this in the Portland Oregon zeitgeist chapter, the Louisville Kentucky zeitgeist chapter, and in my own experience with the public when showing the film. People are excited to get involved, and promote the film, but at the local level there seems to be a wall blocking any action beyond that.
2. The Venus Project is a think tank type organization, they do not have the capacity, nor do they seem to want the capacity, to take action. This is from my own experience contacting Roxanne Meadows and conversing with her over a period of 6 months, showing up at their research facility in Florida offering free labor from myself and 3 other people, and then being turned away. Roxanne and Jacque both told me in person during a tour that the primary goal of the venus project right now (as of 6/13/10) was to produce a feature film targeting audiences that the documentaries missed. These films are really great, but again, the movement is preaching about action, and all that seems to be happening is talk.
I do not know if any of this could be useful, but I invite conversation about it here and at [email protected]. I am for the movement, but feel that we need to keep our perspective if it is going to survive reality. 75.92.248.87 ( talk) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)jeff-zeitgeistonwheels
Before anyone goes on deleting the advocacy part from the article, allow me to explain why it's important. Although the Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement are in very close cooperation at the moment, they are still two different organizations. It is misleading that the article had no reference to what the movement stands for, independent of the Venus Project. Thus, I see this as the most important section of the article and could even be augmented with alternative views, i.e. not only stating what Peter Joseph has said. Maybe the content relating to the Venus Project could actually be in its own article completely, so that this one would only mention it. What do you think? -- Astikain ( talk) 19:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have edited and updated the page so it should no longer be a redirect. Smallman12q ( talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion they should be removed, as Zeitgeist films are very critical about medias. And ye I made a little inquiry about Palm Beach Post. "Palm Beach Post" = "Cox Enterprises", chairman is James C. Kennedy, who is the 49th richest person in the United States. So, maybe as i am not easy to understand, all I wanted to say these media realeases are really easy to get attacked by Zeitgeist Movement. 91.127.87.237 ( talk) 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)pijemcolu, [1]
Recently Zeitgeist and Venus Project were banned from a social networking site in Germany that is rather large Studivz . The reason for the ban are anti-semetic tendencies expressed by TZGM [1] Would it be in the best interests of the article as to fairness to include that in a critical section?
This has something to do with something crazy about reptiles and lizard blood that many of the Zeitgeist people apparently believe that has infected some so called ruling class. Or something like that. Here is another reference to their recent ban Update: Studivz, German Community Site Shuts down Zeitgeist Movement groups., claiming "anti-semitism" is being promoted.
I would imagine that would have made news in Germany or somewhere. The service is largely comparable to other social networking sites. Studivz claims to be one of the biggest social networks in Europe, with reportedly about ten million members as of April 2008, Here is the other link I meant to give before [2]. This is apparently from the German social site to the Zeitgeist people The idea of gray eminences, elites or secret societies that control politics from behind the curtain is not new. The ZG movies extend these ideas to the economic system. And here the circle of the history of conspiracy theories closes: latent antisemitism, which shines through many of the formulated theories. Would their site would be a good source... that is the Zeitgeist site itself to make this information known in the media section? Is the Zeitgeist movement site a reliable source in other words... I suppose it is because it is used through out the article currently.
I think the reference to the grey eminences... is the thing about reptile or lizard blood aliens influencing mainstream politics... according to the conspiracy theory is what got them banned as some conspiracy groups link those ideas with certain groups of people sometimes connected with certain religions and so called illuminis conspiracy stuff. I think. Comments? - skip sievert ( talk) 00:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this misguided information about the German social network StudiVZ - as I happen to live in Germany: "Zeitgeist" has been banned from this social network, however, it comes down to one single person, Anja Kammer from Berlin, who has initiated this group on StudiVZ, but had nothing to do with the actual movement. Due to the fact that the Zeitgeist Movement is an open-source-network, meaning all logos, presentations, pic's etc are open for everyone to use, adapt and distribute, it's really difficult to "control" people when it comes to misusage. Additionally I'd like to mention that the group "Zeitgeist" on StudiVZ has been created straight after the first movie came out. Whereas "Zeitgeist Movement" has started after the second movie. On top of this: The word "Zeitgeist" is a very commonly used German word, hence is not only the name of the movement. If you google Zeitgeist on German plattforms you'll find heaps of other relevant examples. Please do more research on this. Patricia2011 ( talk) 19:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
"A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.
Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.
A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all."
The above quote is a citation from The Venus Project website written by Jacque Fresco. The resource based economy mentioned above is the central idea of The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement. This ideal has been criticized by individuals in the media, such as Alex Jones in his October 15 2008 interview with one of The Zeitgeist movement founders Peter Joesph, as being similar to the ideas of Technocracy. The envisioned governance of the resource based economy would be largely controlled by a computer controlled system similar to the proposed ideals of Technocracy( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement).
The above article was created by me and was removed several times, I believe it is an important article to include. If we could edit it together and come up with a final copy we can agree upon. The latest removal was due to incorrect format. Can someone teach me how to cite properly?
The encyclopedia article about the Zeitgeist movement should describe that what the Zeitgeist movement is about. User:Itachi007 keeps removing this information [5] [6] As he previously added a link to a blogger blog associating the Zeitgeist movement with a cult [7] I think we may conclude there is some agenda here.
The article is about the Zeitgeist Movement, this is what it should describe. 84.104.135.141 ( talk) 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If the Movement's goal is to make people aware of what the Venus Project is, and the main view of the Venus Project is the new economic system, it is very relevant and should be at least briefly noted on the Movement page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.81.132 ( talk) 13:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"I am trying to think of analogies - should a page on a Marxist group contain no information on Marxism? Should a page on an Anti-Racist group contain no information on Anti-Racism?" - The answer is, no, they should not. These articles should contain a link to Marxism and Anti-racism, respectively. The article about the group should define the group's activities. A link to the article about the group's philosophy is sufficient. 97.104.81.236 ( talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The mention of 1700 events isn't backed by the cited source - is there another verifiable source for it? 158.143.136.144 ( talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
For 2009 events view the Wiki. For 2010 events see ZDay2010.org -- Astikain ( talk) 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I made a very large change in these two edits: [8]
First, I would like to apologize for my comment "A lot of unencyclopedic nonsense has been added to the article." It was ill-considered and perhaps hurtful to other editors who work on this article in good faith. I am sorry.
Among the changes to the article are:
I think all of these changes are justified, but if any are controversial, I'm happy to talk about them. Perhaps some of these should be reversed. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for your help =)
Would it be appropriate to re-add this section without the "directory" part (the links)?
Thanks again for all your help Luke Fusion Halo 03:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Grandthefttoaster has reverted to this version in which the infobox has been removed, sourced statements are removed, and sections are removed with the description Undid revision 362341260 by Smallman12q (talk) unencyclopedic junk, definitions of the word movement? lol. Should the current version be reverted to this version? Smallman12q ( talk) 16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I have copyedited this again to conform to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as my previous edits were blown away in what appears to be a sloppy edit war. Here are specific changes I have made. If you disagree with any of them, please discuss them here and provide support for your proposed changes from the Manual or its guides before making the changes. Thank you.
Ground Zero | t 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a criticisms section to make the article fair and unbiased.I have provided some evidence to these points.Now I know you might suspect that the Noam Chomsky quote is dubious but I have provided links to relevant forums concerning him.One can easily email Chomsky or the user [Unknown] to verify that.This article should have a criticism section as practically every NPO group has one eg.Greenpeace and Oxfam. Playboyoreo
I have removed the criticism section for the interpersonal relations issue denoted has nothing to do with The Movement's work and tenets. Just becuase people do not like The Movement or Peter Joseph doesn't warrant a section for attack. Also, the Chomsky quote was alleged and unsourced. If you have a referenced viable criticism by a large institution or publication which deserve recognition and based on the actual work of The Movement, please post. Otherwise, personal attacks are not justified. Also, criticism of the forum methods has nothing to do with anything. This would be like posting a critism of the fonts or the color of the website. No single person defines the actions of the movement so, again, your crtisism must be based on actual points related to the tenets and goals of the movement. --
Falcon2112 (
talk) 02:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The citicisms of The Zeitgeist Movement appear fair, it is only right that any criticisms of this movement are shown. The [unknown] email to Noam Chomsky can be verified on the movements own forum and is certainly real see here:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=7&id=18544 and here:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=232&id=211592&limit=10&limitstart=10#211705 there is no doubt he was emailed and contacted by zeitgeist movement members so there is no reason these can not stay here. All other criticisms are valid and should be there to view, this movement should not remain seperate from criticism when all others on wikipedia are not this is not inline with wikipedia norms. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dilligencedetails (
talk •
contribs) 11:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually No. the Chomskly Quote is heresay and the others points made are from childish idiots who have a history of harassment. These sites are not viable to present here. It is nothing more than advertisement for crap websites. Removed -- Falcon2112 ( talk) 15:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Criticisms can only applicable if they come from a group that has some diverse notoriety; while quotes made must be first person. People who hate the movement and make personal websites to attack are not viable as they are biased. Anti-cultist and Edward Winston are not viable critics as they exist only to harass the movement and are focused solely on that task, creating propaganda in an obvious way. This isnt blog/forum. Wikipedia must be neutral and any critical comments must meet a basic criteria of worth, meaning the people who present the criticisms cannot be showing personal vendettas. They do not deserve to be posted/advertised here just becuase they have an opinion. The fact is, this page is being used for advertising. Also, anyone could create "criticism" section on every wiki articles and express any "opinion"- this would be offensive and counterproductive. There must be quality control and these posts removed here are nothing more than personal attacks coming from a few people. Wikipedia isn't a blog where people voice their opinions. So please stop posting hate-filled websites that only exists to harass The Zeitgeist Movement. -- Falcon2112 ( talk) 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
And one more thing: To express the absurdity of these posts, imagine if I didn't like BP Oil Co. So, I make a single Web-press web page and post attacks against BP Oil. After I do this, do I have the right to post my unknown website on the official BP Wikipedia page under "Criticisms"? No- becuase I am nobody and my opinion is just that- an opinion. We cannot allow any random yahoo with a gripe to post their opinions on Wikipedia. Its that simply I think the Admins of this site would agree.-- Falcon2112 ( talk) 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The claim you make here "Actually No. the Chomskly Quote is heresay and the others points made are from childish idiots who have a history of harassment. These sites are not viable to present here. It is nothing more than advertisement for crap websites." Is an emotional response and not a factually intelligent response, Peter Joseph even states ion this radio address he knows the person who posted the emails and has no reason to doubt their credibility or how real it was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwvXLWGLOgA&feature=related. undone the removal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
To clarify- This isn't to say that there shouldn't be a Criticisms section. The issue is that the criticisms posted must come from reputable sources which are not solely in existence to put down The Zeitgeist Movement becuase they simply don't like it or have a personal problem. This is a form of "trolling" which is occurring. -- Falcon2112 ( talk) 16:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Peter's comments do not confirm certainty- however, I agree it is okay. I have clarified the post to show the 3rd party nature of the communication.-- Falcon2112 ( talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Also this: Members of The Zeitgeist Movement are actively encouraging their members to remove any criticism of their movement on their website see here: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=229&id=270305#270378 This is not a credibility issue in their eyes it is a propagandist emotional issue to them, and they are removing any factually proven dissent against them on wikipedia. Surely this goes against the presentation of facts wikipedia ? It seems to me the movement is removing factual information they dislike and nothing else. Dilligencedetails ( talk) 16:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"It seems to me the movement is removing factual information they dislike and nothing else" - I agree even suggesting it should be locked is extreme(The forum post has been deleted now,further showing the lengths they have gone to protect themselves from criticism).The facts are these:
1.Anticultist has been the victim of character assasination.The blog provides an alternative view and has been trolled itself.Questions over the feasability and legitamicy of the movements aims are raised and ignored or condemened.Yes it has ad hom's and strawmen here and there but it consists of a group of people with varying opinions about the movement that express concern over the issues of the mo .The blog is meant to keep an eye on the practices of the group the same way newspapers and columnists/journalists comment and keep track of politics and as well as NGO's.It may seem he has a personal grudge but overall most of the articles on the blog have valid foundations in providing information that would otherwise be suppressed elsewhere.Its probably the only place alternative views can be discussed.Its not the best but its the only one there.Whether this is not be included remains to be debate
2.Conspiracy science has articles that do offer constructive criticism outside the realm of the forum and some of this criticism is relavant.It is a reputable site for skepticism on conpiracy theories of which TZM is associated with and yes admitadly the forum can become the equivalent of childish name calling and gassing(of the prison variety) but its the articles that are relevant and give another alternative opinion - and are more mature than .The mentally ill comment also comes up in the article regarding peters comments( http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/2010/05/07/a-response-to-the-zeitgeist-movements-diagnosis-of-intellectual-inhibition/)Again like the anticultist blog it provides an quasi-alternative(as a few members still advocate the goals of TZM on both sites)that keeps track of the movement again in the same way as columnists and journalists.Conspiracy science also has articles criticising Alex Jones and as well as David Icke and other conspiracy theorists it is not a direct attack on Peter Joseph or TZM,TZM just happens to have conspiracy theorist members and Peter Joseph just happens to be a conspiracy theorist(although not as vocal or well known as Icke,Jones et al).Conspiracy science is a third party group they have been around since before the formation of the Zeitgeist Movement and the release of Zeitgeist:The Movie
Since both blogs advocate the goals of TZM they are not hate filled propaganda they agree with the core principals of TZM but they have criticisms regarding the current affairs and the methods employed by both members and the administration.Its like Patrick Moore and his criticisms of Greenpeace.Patrick shares fundamental ideals with Greenpeace but he does have criticism about the group and vice versa.
3.As for Anonymous their activities are even mentioned on the Scientology page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Scientology_and_the_Internet) so why should TZM be different when they have evidence of their claims.Some of there videos are ad hom filled as well but some are relevant evidence of practices that are continuing in the movement(as for example the video detailing advocation of entrapment by some of the moderators) that are serious problems in the movenment that is usually overlooked and censored. Listen this article needs a criticism page.Perhaps we could rephrase what was written as "former members/advocates of TZM have expressed criticism over the practices within the movement" or "Commentators have observed" The events such as remarks to and from critics is no different than what occurs to other groups but as is necessary lets keep them clean,sourced and unbiased(lets not have the same problem tha was had with the Scientology page).
The protest letter/trademarking part should stay: it involves an event that is even charted on the venus projects website:( http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/rbe-trademark) PWA and other groups have been faced with legal action over the use of the RBE term.Should that be put on the The Venus Projects page where it belongs? Should we at least mention the other RBE groups that formed from breaking away from TVP/TZM to keep people iformed as to the history of the movement? Should we have the mentally ill comment on the Peter Joseph page(he did say it after all).There is documented evidence for the valid criticisms prsented all over the internet. One things for sure this page(and discussion page) must be monitored frequently by those who have had no affiliation with TZM(to prevent biases from rearing its ugly head) and have remained neutral with regards to the movement since its inception Lets keep things civil and unbiased - . Playboyoreo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.0.210 ( talk) 18:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Since my last claim in this discussion [@16:34, 26 June 2010] link evidence above has been actively removed by their admin I have taken the liberty to provide evidence of this with a screen shot taken since I expected them to do so, this can be viewed here:
http://img709.imageshack.us/f/wikistatementadmintzm.jpg/
"The protest letter/trademarking part should stay: it involves an event that is even charted on the venus projects website" Agreed it can also be viewed in full here on the patents and trademarks office website, the full dispute can be seen:
http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No&TEXT=77829193# and a dialogue about it all as it occured here:
http://anticultist.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/legal-contest-of-trademarking-resource-based-economy/
Dilligencedetails (
talk) 18:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The "Anticultist blog" is a run by a single unknown random person with a clear vendetta against the zeitgeist movement. This inclusion in the "Criticisms" section in anyway is merely an advertisement for this website and is spam. It is not allowed here. To be included the Criticism section is must be viable with regard to the movement's actual goals and must be made by a figure or group with a large degree of notoriety, such as Noam Chomasky. Otherwise, this will turn into a debate blog. -- Falcon2112 ( talk) 20:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding :"Also this: Members of The Zeitgeist Movement are actively encouraging their members to remove any criticism of their movement on their website see here" Produced no link. If it was removed, then the case doesn't stand anyway as it is a past occurrence and hence overridden by the act of removal -- Falcon2112 ( talk) 20:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding: "The protest letter/trademarking part should stay:" I disagree. The Venus Project is not The Zeitgeist movement directly. Such a trademark has nothing to do with the The Zeitgeist Movement as it was not directly involved. These are two associated but different organizations. -- Falcon2112 ( talk) 20:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In that case we should agree the RBE dispute is relevant to TVP criticism and should be placed on that page. Dilligencedetails ( talk) 20:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"Regarding :"Also this: Members of The Zeitgeist Movement are actively encouraging their members to remove any criticism of their movement on their website see here" Produced no link. If it was removed, then the case doesn't stand anyway as it is a past occurrence and hence overridden by the act of removal --User:Falcon2112" Incorrect you have overlooked that they deleted it after seeint this dispute and I then provided a screen shot of the matter in my timestamped message [18:09, 26 June 2010 ] above with the following link: http://img709.imageshack.us/f/wikistatementadmintzm.jpg/ The matter is still relevant and the evidence is there to be seen. Dilligencedetails ( talk) 20:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC) ----"The matter is still relevant and the evidence is there to be seen." No, by all logic it isn't relevant if it inst there. You could say the same argument if it happened 2 years ago. Sorry- no dice.-- Falcon2112 ( talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC) -- You do realise it is frowned upon to get your own members to edit a wiki page about yourself, remember scientology [rhetorical question] they did that, tzm are doing it here too. Dilligencedetails ( talk) 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding: "Conspiracy science has articles that do offer constructive criticism outside the realm of the forum". This website is just as unnoticed and arbitrary as Anti-cultist. There is no notoriety and Wikipedia is not a "blog" where anyone with a website can post their complaints. CS is also a "debunking site" for conspiracy theory and has nothing to do with social movements. It is like a car website criticizing abortion. -- Falcon2112 ( talk) 20:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"To be included the Criticism section is must be viable with regard to the movement's actual goals and must be made by a figure or group with a large degree of notoriety, such as Noam Chomasky. Otherwise, this will turn into a debate blog" - Agreed "In that case we should agree the RBE dispute is relevant to TVP criticism and should be placed on that page". - Yes it belongs in the TVP page due to its relevancy - Playboyoreo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.0.210 ( talk) 20:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"Conspiracy science has articles that do offer constructive criticism outside the realm of the forum" These should be placed on criticisms of the movies, I am assuming there is a wiki page the zeitgeist members have made for the movies too ? If so Conspiracy Science articles are thorough and very well written criticisms of those movies. Dilligencedetails ( talk) 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding: "If so Conspiracy Science articles are thorough and very well written criticisms of those movies." That is your opinion. Likely No- CS is not a reputable source of anything. It is the opinion blog of an unknown person. If you look at the Zeitgeist Movie wiki page you see that the critics are well known, working in general media professionally or certified in academia and also diverse. Posting CS there will be removed as well as it is merely a blog website with no basis/precedent of integrity. -- Falcon2112 ( talk) 20:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
User Falcon2112 keeps removing this link from the article:
http://anticultist.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/noam-chomsky-on-zeitgeist-venus-project/#comment-825 As you can see it is a comment made by [Unknown] , the person who emailed Noam Chomsky he acknowledges he made the emails in this post. This is another confirmation the emails are valid and made by him, I propose it is in there as a link, he keeps edit warring it out, so I will leave it up to the rest of you out of courtesy to wikipedia not him.
Dilligencedetails (
talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the link is not viable or relevent. Re-posting this spam link to the Anticultist is not needed, for one. It is illogical to have a 2nd source for the Chomsky quote for it originated on TZM's forum. We dont need to see sources that are 3rd party when we have the closest thing to first party right on the site and sourced 3+ times. This is the origin. Stop it. Anti-cultist is also not a viable source of anything for there is no integrity and notoriety and the site shows an obvious personal vendetta of opinion. [Unknown] made the same comment on the Forum site. The issue is if he was lying or not. Probably not, but the need to show it is a third party claim is important. All this is found on the TZm forum , as linked 3 times-- Falcon2112 ( talk) 20:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are there so many links pointing to their own lectures and videos as well as a pdf ! ? Is this really necessary ? It looks like they are promoting their propaganda in the links as opposed to providing any real external links of sites that discuss them. The majority of these links are simply promotion and their own materials. Should there only be actual external links and all the advertsiement and self linking junk removed ? Dilligencedetails ( talk) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Your use of the word "Propoganda" reveals your biased intent. The materials link are merely the materials/data/info put out by the movement. This is perfectly in line with the nature of the wiki article which is to express what this movement is. --
Falcon2112 (
talk) 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are you questioning my intent through the use of a word this is not a forum for debating one another, concentrate on the matter at hand and stop being so emotional, stick to the facts.The external links section is cluttered with self promotional materials that are not external links, they should be removed
Dilligencedetails (
talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
External Links are to be neutral and relevant. Posting resources put out by The Movement is not a position of Bias. It is simply information The Movement provides. It would be different if "fan sites" were posted as that would be biased. Same goes for "hate site". These biases do sites have no place, but basic info officially put out by the movement does.-- Falcon2112 ( talk) 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple links to the same site, for instance link to the website, and then a link to the same website with the pdf they created, then a link to a different website with a video version of the pdf, this is multiple links unecessary. A simple link to the movements website would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Removed 14 links all of them pointing to the same ten minute youtube video. They were embedded into this article as sources for different claims, all of which are not verified within the ten minute video. Not only is youtube an unreliable source, the video irrelevant to claims but it was repeated far too many times as a source. I have left one link in there for fairness, this being link source 1 [3 phases of the movement] But even then its still an unreliable source, Dilligencedetails ( talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"""In the July 2010 Monthly Newsletter, a summery of The Movement's ideas/goals are included: "The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) seeks to transition into a new social system, called a “Resource-Based Economy” which seeks to base social organization on Resource Management and Preservation as the initial starting point of all relevant earthly decisions. In turn, we wish to see Science and Technology be used liberally for the greater social good, including the scienti!c reorientation of Labor, Production, Distribution and hence Industry at large. This can be done through a “Systems Theory” approach to a global technological management infrastructure. “Politics”, as we know it today, is considered outdated in the view of The Movement, for it is an institutional byproduct of ancient folkways of human relations that pre-dates the advent of modern scienti!c understandings. Politics inherently prefers “opinion” to “fact”. In other words, Government today acts in accord with vested interests, not objective scienti!c reasoning." [2]""" This section is somewhat ambiguous in that it states that politics does not use the scientific method to conduct any of its decisions, yet we can easily argue against this when we look at the global warming issue. The political motivations are driven by their research and suggestions from the scientific arena and they are certainly conducting themselves based upon the scientific method here. Consensus should be reached as to whether the zeitgeist movement can actualkly truly state things like this and it remain 100% fact. Not only this it is promoting banning of governmental agencies in the above statement through the use of subjective opinion and has no real substantive founding in any evidence provided other than a pdf written by the zeitgeist movement founder. I therefore think it is not neutral and also irrelevant. Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I am going to remove the "further reading" section from the article. None of the books in the article are about the Zeitgeist Movement or related to it except for the Fresco book. The point of having a further reading section is to list books that are about the articles subject, for example a biography about Marx could be listed on the Marx article. The books on this list are just taken from Jacque Fresco's "recommended reading" list. Grandthefttoaster ( talk) 02:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Now wait a minute, remember that the Movement is multidisciplinary in what it discusses. How are we to draw the line of where this association stops? Personally, I feel that all of the books on the list were related to TZM, it just depends on how specific we want to get. For example, TZM advocates machine automation because of the trends of Technological Unemployment. This is basically the main subject of Jeremy Rifkin's book The End of Work (one of the books in the further reading section if you remember). So, are we supposed to leave this out because it does not directly reference TZM? These kind of connections exist in all of the books cited. I see no problem in listing books with subjects concerning what the Movement talks about even if just in theory. It's not like we're referencing books about the 1932 Winter Olympics, the relations do exist if you grasp the larger picture of what we are trying to point out. Another example, Stuart Chase's book The Tyranny of Words is about the subjectivity of our language and the inherent problems encountered when we speak to each other. To an outside observer this point might seem irrelevant to a social movement that advocates creating a sustainable social design, but as a long time member of the Movement, I feel it is safe to attest that this is one of it's main points. Our entire social framework from money to politics to religion are all based on contrived human subjectivity and opinion, not on real, objective physical processes. This is why we stress so much the importance of The Scientific Method. Too much of our interaction is based on opinion and ambiguity. So if you're following, the connection is once again present. So, I guess my main concern is in where the line is drawn. What's the real problem with listing as many related books as possible even if they're outside of the direct activism intentions of TZM? Should we instead list them under The Venus Project article? Even Fresco's book doesn't directly relate to The Movement, should we not even list that? I feel, that this guideline that Grandthefttoaster states above is a bit too rigid, but I would very much like to hear what everyone else thinks. So before I hear feedback, I will simply repost The Best That Money Can't Buy along with the Orientation Guide and wait for your responses. I hope I made myself clear :D
Imyoda69 (
talk) 08:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Talking of other literature, would you be interested in my book that has just been published? The title is "A DiFfErEnT PoInT Of ViEw". I shall have a blog of it very soon, but the book is not transmissible electronically. You really need to see and feel the paperback to get the experience of it. For instance, my front and back covers display the Earth, as yours does, but mine is upside down. Although I had no knowledge of the Zeitgeist Movement, but much of what I write supports the philosophy they put forward, especially about the redundancy of money and efficient use of resources.My book is a gift to anyone who asks for it. We have RRP of A$13 marked on it, and we ask that everyone pays that. Apart from maintaining our supply of funds, it gives the recipient the opportunity to demonstrate that can overcome any sub-conscious waryness about the number 13. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
180.216.34.218 (
talk) 06:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
he Zeitgeist Movement wikipedia entry contains the following points listed under "Concepts advocated by the Zeitgeist Movement"
Did anyone else notice this?? I'm not all that familiar with the editing process of wikipedia, but is it really that easy to maliciously change entries like this??
The citations they used dont contain any of the text that they are suggested to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L thetruth ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Hello wikis,
I humbly ask for a completely new wiki-article on this matter. What the Zeitgeist Movement is all about is spreading awareness of the social design which the Venus project proposes. Mr. Fresco of The Venus Project has designed another economy, and a different way of running society. These are ideas. The Zeitgeist Movement is only concerned with spreading his ideas.
Jinx55 ( talk) 22:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Welcome. That isn't going to happen, but if there are specific errors or omissions you would like to correct, just specify the text and provide a reliable source. Thanks.
Celestra (
talk) 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Dadude:
I agree with Jinx55. The whole tone is just distorted in this article.
For example: Zday is not celebrated, thats sounds wrong. It is held as an awerness spreading event. Fix this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadude4 ( talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadude4 ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |