Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:31, 4 November 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2008. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Zeitgeist Movement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Zeitgeist Movement at the Reference desk.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Recent Goldberg edit

Please refrain yourself SomeDifferentStuff from adding the Zeitgeist Movement viewpoint from their faq's material that the first movie is not connected in any way to the 'movement'. Despite the fact that you have/had no backing for your edit you have made this same claim over and over and over and are showing your tendentious failure of not getting the point, the reason you were blocked from editing these articles previously diff. I hate to upbraid you this way but you just keep doing the same thing over and over and removing information from a reliable source that contradicts your (Zeitgeist official view) gets tiresome. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never read The Zeitgeist Movement's 'faq' and even if I had it's not a reliable source. --- Regarding what an Administrator said about your edit warring here that has nothing to do with you failing to demonstrate consensus for your recent edit. --- And let's not forget these: & . -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That was one Admins opinion that did not understand what was going on in the article and did not translate to any sanction. This is the link which demonstrates actual edit warring on your part I hate to do it but if you continue to edit tendentiously I will report you. That subject of that information has been gone over and was thought by the neutral editors here minus the sock and meat puppets to be included. It appears that a topic ban is in the works on this subject for you if you continue to take away information from the Goldberg article and slant things toward your group. I have to assume you are a pro pov editor on Zeitgeist related subjects due to your pov edit history being manipulative to presenting their views instead of the neutral presentation that Misplaced Pages insists on. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Realistically I'm trying to remove any neutrality regarding TZM and I desire strong negative publicity of them because I don't like Open Source. But since there are no mainstream sources for TZM at all, the TZM article, the Moving Forward Article, the Peter Joseph article, should all be removed.Groshnte (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(Previous edit warrior returns against consensus. ProZeitgeist editor removes and soapbox's for the first movie not being connected, which the article says 'is'. Original research from the Zeitgeist Movement. Stop.

This "connection" is an obvious distraction away from what TZM's goal is; an Open Source society. Because Peter Joseph started a movement, a piece of work which doesn't relate to TZM's goals is related to TZM's goals because you want to reference an article which slanders TZM? That pretty much sums it up.Groshnte (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We do not need your opinions. You might think about seeing a programmer. You have changed identities now five or six times. You are what we call a sock puppet or meat puppet. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

saying "TZM members are sock puppets" or "paid to advocate TZM for deceptive purposes", is a lie which wiki editors seem to lovingly support.

"You are what we call"? is wikipedia a secret society now?

Science is not an opinion, you might want to check the meanings of the words you use.Nhtgrfjtf (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, 06:36, 21 July 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+385)‎ . . Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement ‎ (→‎Recent Goldberg edit) (current) An edit history of one edit.

But you are what we call a sockpuppet or meat puppet for a banned user.

Misplaced Pages has been a secret society yes for a long time, how you found out about it we will never know but we are checking carefully. Normally we never get called out about this but I guess you are super smart because of that damn Peter Joseph guy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Another user with a record of tendentious editing on this article removed the comment above and has followed me around to my talk page and other places to bother me. Stop S.D.S. - The person above a sockpuppet for a blocked user is being investigated now if anyone wants to add their two cents Otherwise, S.D.S. lets not get our roles confused. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep calling me SomeDifferentStuff? Are you not bothering to read who is making edits or are you trying to imply something? I filed the SPI in question and collapsed the above feuding with the apparent socks because it is pointless and disruptive. Just because a duck is quacking at you, does not mean you have to quack back. In fact, it is discouraged. Please, inform an admin or report the sock to SPI or ANI rather than feuding here or leaving comments on the sock's talk page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You and your editing partners are pretty much interchangeable on this article so it gets confusing. Sorry about that, but as I said elsewhere you also seem to relish any wikihounding my page or others that I contribute on. Guess I am tired of pro Zeitgeist editors harassing me with fake Ani's and annoying advice on my talk page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems you believe wikipedia is a secret society considering the self-referring of the term "sock puppet", the reluctance recognise the definition or hide behind it: Basically someone who's paid money to promote propaganda, to deceive or mislead, in this case the zeitgeist moment, and the reluctance to display any evidence whatsoever to support this accusation? There's still None by the way.Grsgrsgse (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. You have been checked out and your socks also

keep up that ostracism of zeitgeist members since they express views which you personally disagree with so you can misrepresent TZM as much as possible. Such as the belief science is a political movement, or Peter Joseph is the "leader" of TZM or TZM is a cult. None of which is backed up by any real evidence.Hngtjtdf (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Article rewrite

This article seems to advance the movement and is written for commercial gain, per WP:COI.

"Joseph's films which form the basis of the Zeitgeist movements ideas are critical of market capitalism and the price system in general. Joseph created a political movement according to The Telegraph, that assumes future generations will view religious ideas as a misleading method of controlling society and embrace sustainable ecological concepts."

Should be rewritten to:

"The Zeitgeist Movement..." explain that it was the product of Joseph's films. The Telegraph reference should be removed, with multiple references at the end of the section.

Dark Liberty (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is in a conflict of interest? Are you saying that an editor here is? The second paragraph of what you said is not really intelligible. I probably have to say there may be a competence issue here with your editing. Could you explain other than original research on your part why a citation such as The Telegraph is not acceptable? Are you saying that Peter Joseph is somehow involved in editing the article for his personal gain or one of his employees or supporters? That is highly doubtful given the history of the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reception section's focus on the movies

Although the emphasis on the movies in the reception section has been a recurring problem, this most recent edit by Earl has made it worse. This removed details about the diversity of the movement among other details, but kept commentary that was solely about the movie. It also removed an article from the Palm Beach Post that was entirely about the movement and could be useful in further expanding content on this page. We have multiple reliable sources that are almost entirely about the movement and only mention the movies as necessity requires yet the reception section, which constitutes about half of the article, is almost entirely commentary about the movies. This problem needs to be rectified.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. The movement is a spinoff of the first movie. It is overwhelmingly sourced that this is the beginning of the Zeitgeist group. Joseph was supposedly asked about alternative ideas connected to the first movie and introduced Zeitgeist in the second movie as a ready made movement or internet cult type of culture that rapidly found an audience though that audience has perhaps declined now. We know this from reliable sources. My guess is that because you have been blocked so many times T.D.A. for tendentiously editing and edit warring on articles concerning conspiracy things like this article, to the point of even breaking your editing sanctions and editing even more, that it is going to be hard for your edits to be thought of as reasonable since you seem to have a stake in presenting Zeitgeist things more toward their pov, that is more toward their primary sources and presentation and not so much from other sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that this article is about the movement, yet you are gradually removing any material that is actually about the movement in favor of material that is about the movies. I mean, this isn't even a POV issue. We are just talking about a problem where the reception section says basically nothing about the movement itself, but a lot about the movies that all have their own articles. Not sure why you go into attack mode over such a thing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not attacking just stating some things. As said we can not use the Zeitgeist material to form the article here. Their party line says that the two things are separate, 'movie' and 'movement' but most reputable outside observers differ to that line of thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say we should use Zeitgeist material? I said we should use the reliable sources such as The New York Times, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Weekly, VC Reporter, and even Tablet Magazine, to detail various aspects of the movement and its reception. All of those discuss the movement itself in some detail and not just the movies. I am not suggesting we avoid mentioning the movies, but that we recognize that this article is about the movement and thus we should only discuss the movies insomuch as they relate to details about the movement. A lot of details about the movement mentioned in these reliable sources are not mentioned in this article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You just keep repeating that and that is the crux of the argument, in which you have mistakenly taken that view point. The Movies and the Movement are integrally entwined. The movies are the movement. It is an internet based phenomena of people watching the Zeitgeist movies. Reliable sources repeat that over and over. It is only the Zeitgeist enthusiasts that differ on that point. I suppose that you fit into that camp because you espouse their approach to perceiving the information, that the movies and movement are separate things, which pretty much goes against most all reliable sources. So, its not right for you to use the pov of the Zeitgeist website on the article unless its backed by something else. There is zero serious news or articles about Zeitgeist now and I doubt whether there is a real social movement these days. I can't find any outside info. on it by reliable sources except from years ago now. The movement might be history at this point. Most of the things they predicted never happened and they have taken a lot of heat for their extreme theories also. Fresco leaving them did not even make news. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, the New York Times article has exactly three paragraphs that mention the movies and that is mostly to note that the movement arose from the films. The rest of it is devoted to discussing the movement, its members, and its ideology. I have rarely looked at anything on the Zeitgeist site and only then when it is a page already cited in this article or others. We have an article for each movie and that is where reception of the films belongs. An article about the movement should have reception of the movement. Nothing even remotely POV about that and I am not suggesting we act like the movies and movement have nothing to do with each other, just that we actually make the material in this article about the movement rather than the movies because this article is about the movement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Then we should merge all this stuff into one article. There is no "movement" for all practical purposes...its just a scam or internet meme.--MONGO 05:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It would seem The New York Times, VC Reporter, Orlando Weekly, Palm Beach Post, The Daily Telegraph, and even the rather biased Tablet Magazine disagree with you on that front. All of them consider it to be a movement distinct from the movies, albeit closely related to them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Another option is to simply have your edit warring nonsense put to an end with a topic ban on this topic. I've reached the point that I see an edit from you almost anywhere on this website and I feel it should simply be reverted on sight just on principle.--MONGO 05:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

All of them consider it to be a movement distinct from the movies, albeit closely related to them. end quote T.D.A. - What? Why is it that you have the information upside down and backwards? It seems a waste of time to try to explain this over and over. The so called movement is just a bunch of people that watch Youtube and meet in some coffee shop to talk about the ideas of Peter Joseph who makes some money selling C.D's of these 'movies' on his websites, Amazon, etc. To say the movement and the movies are different?? does not make a lot of sense. Oh and knock off the for fucks sake kind of response in the future it is not cute and probably counts as personal attacking. This is not your local bar. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on reception section

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Religion and philosophy Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the reception section focus on The Zeitgeist Movement or the Zeitgeist films?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• This article is about the movement and it is rather silly to have a reception section that pretty much only mentions what people think of the movies. Plenty of material about the movement itself is present within reliable sources such as The New York Times.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, the whole Zeitgeist belief is predicated entirely on the movie, there is no "movement," not unless one could consider Star Trek fandom and Star Trek conventions a "movement." The movie is fantasy fiction, it is not a real phenomena, the movie is not a documentary and people who believe otherwise are not a "movement," they are fans of the movie, ergo the focus of the article should be on the movie.

The Star Trek Wrath Of Kahn movie, for example, could not be considered a "movement" if a significant number of people believe that the Genisys Device is real and that the events as depicted in the movie actual;ly happened. A Misplaced Pages article covering the movie should not talk about the film in the context of a "movement" any more than Zeitgeist should. Damotclese (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The question implies a bright distinction, that there are the movies and the movement, and that these are two wholly different things. That's not the way the sources present it. Tom Harrison 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• It only implies a distinction in terms. When sources talk about the movement they are talking about the movement and when they talk about the movies they are talking about the movies. At present, this article about the movement has a reception section that barely talks about the movement and talks a lot about the movies, which have their own articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should the reception section focus on The Zeitgeist Movement or the Zeitgeist films? end quote from request for comment by T.D.A. Again you are failing to understand the dynamic of this. The movies are the movement and the movement is the movies. Probably all of the 'films' could be batched into one article. Maybe the film articles and the movement article should be put into one article. Right now it just reflects the inordinate enthusiasm of pov editors that created the multiple articles. There is no reason for so many articles on this subject which many consider a dead letter that virtually no reputable source has written about for years. I suggest all these movie articles become redirects into 'The Zeitgeist Movement' Misplaced Pages article. Or all the movie and movement articles be redirected into the original movie article, Zeitgeist, the movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Even if I were to agree that The Zeitgeist Movement is nothing more than the fan following of the Zeitgeist movies, it would not change that the article is about the movement. The article on the Star Trek fandom does not give people's various thoughts on the franchise. It is about the fandom because that is what the article is about even if it is just the people who enjoy the franchise. We have an article about the movement and other articles about the movies and that separation has been discussed many times. As that is the case, this article should be about the movement and the material written accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume that your pov which you have from the Zeitgeist movement and its theories is your reason for the discussion and that you are not going to change your opinion and you just want to argue your point over and over T.D.A., waste peoples time and give the Zeitgeist movements 'party' line about what it is which differs from what reliable sources say. Since you have been blocked and banned numerous times for edit warring and tendentious editing on the conspiracy articles I would suggest that a topic ban is in order for you. Another one on this conspiracy based article so that you stop your disruptive editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think that the articles should all be merged into the main Zeitgest article or The Zeitgeist Movement, and that having a separate page on every film isn't warranted by the sources. Per that statement, the reception section of the combined article should cover both. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 02:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Would you be interested in doing those options either of which is fine. I would support putting the movie articles, in greatly reduced form, into the Zeitgeist movement article or any other option of reducing the pointless articles on this. If you want to boldly redirect the movie articles into the movement and just put a section on the movies in the article that would probably suffice. Part of the problem here has been the Zeitgeist supporters that swamp the neutral editing editors. Your suggestion was attempted a while back and was met with a barrage of misdirection and interference from the Zeitgeist supporters that show up here in multiple guises as sock puppets meat puppets etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What a farce Earl King Jr. You're not some neutral editor. You already made your anti-Zeitgeist sentiments abundantly clear by calling it a cult or a scam. Biased bigots like yourself should have no place on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.168.153 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If not a scam, it is objectively a cult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no "movement" I was called by the 'bot. There is no such thing as a "Zeitgeist movement," there is only a fantasy fiction movie of that name and people who believe that it is real. For the RFC itself, the focus should be upon the movie since the article is covering a fantasy construct which is predicated solely upon the movie.

Wholly agree. There is zero evidence to support the existence of any organization, much less a movement, which expounds the views expressed in the Zeitgeist films. At best we are talking about a collection of fans. JamesBay (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There are obviously believers who employ religious conspiracy non-complex cognitive thinking who will argue that there is a "movement," and there are Editors who fall in to that class so I expect people will argue the point. However for accuracy and encyclopedia needs, I recommend focus on the movie. Damotclese (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. I would support your line of thinking and support you if you care to get involved by boldly redirectly most of the mess of the articles into the original movie article. Keeping the original movie article and updating it with information from a 'so called internet' movement which is not real in my opinion also. I see the whole thing as a marketing campaign. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Damotclese, but you don't go far enough.

Really, anything zeitgeist or venus project doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages since it's the promotion of a scam.The-Land's-Way (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

O.k. I more or less agree with The Lands Way and others here that currently we are over-killing with these articles. So lets do redirects of the various Zeitgeist articles into one article. I guess the first movie article? Zeitgeist the Movie is appropriate since that is what started the ball rolling. Its either that or make all the movie articles go into the so called 'movement' article. Which is best? Does someone want to boldly do either one? It looks like the Zeitgeist supporters that edit here will buck that idea but NPOV editors seem to agree that it would be better that way. Thoughts? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I merged, redirected, the movie articles, three of them into this article page The Zeitgeist Movement. Zeitgeist the movie, Zeitgeist moving forward, and Zeitgeist Addendum. I hope this is close enough to the consensus here of slimming down this multiple article over kill of Zeitgeist related things. It probably is doubtful that there is a real movement beyond a kind of commercial enterprise I would agree with others here. There has been virtually zero written about Zeitgeist and its ideas for years as far as serious journalism. Anyone willing now can make one section to lump the movies together in this article (The Zeitgeist Movement) and I would suggest that not more than a title of each movie is really needed, when they were made and a one sentence idea of what they were about. I have no doubt that the Zeitgeist supporters here are going to freak out but lets just say that the consensus is not for Misplaced Pages to advertise these movies or the movement and maybe cursory space is appropriate for them. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Once more proceeding with your soft deletions of the other Zeitgeist articles I see. You do not have consensus for what you are doing, nor have you provided any sources. What you are doing is arguing on the basis of your opinion, which appears to be what others are doing above. Consensus is guided by reliable sources and policy, none of which are being cited here to justify this move.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with Earl King efforts to merge these articles into one piece of article space. I don't yet know what what the parent article should be. I would think since the movement is nonexistent that the first movie should probably be the only article.--MONGO 01:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I hate to talk about you, but you are a pov pro Zeitgeist in all its multiple needless articles, editor. Did you read the comments above? There is almost no support for those extraneous articles above except by yourself T.D.A. and you have a block history as long as your arm for tendentious editing, edit warring on conspiracy articles and were blocked multiple times for that and taken to task multiple times for that and sanctioned from even editing them twice previously. So lets cut the crap and consolidate these articles which many people here think are overkill to this subject, which as someone above said, is not really even a social movement probably and mostly internet generated junk to sell DVD's or Pay Pal donation click button stimulus. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous deletion discussions and merge discussions that rejected this exact move and previous rejection of unilateral efforts by you to redirect these articles to a single target suggest otherwise. Also, you "hate to talk about" me? Since when? Seems whenever we have a discussion all you do is talk about me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Merge all zeitgeist stuff into one article so readers don't think there is more than just the one thing in multiple formats. --DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly... which article though. I'm going to move all the articles into Zeitgeist: The Movie in a day or less since the only person arguing against that is The Devil's Advocate and he's overdue for a site ban anyway.--MONGO 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• You are not even allowing a formal discussion of this issue. All you are doing is hijacking an RfC on another issue to try and force a decision that has been rejected in more active discussions that were actually about this issue. None of you have pointed to where reliable sources actually support this action. Every argument you have given has been essentially your personal opinion on the subject without any regard to sourcing or policy.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, merge all the articles into one. As a first step, the movies should all be merged. Tom Harrison 10:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alright. Could you or someone else then take that step please, with support from this discussion? It seems like this is as good a time as any to do this in one fell swoop also. I don't think that T.D.A. is going to let anyone do anything unless he is reverted by the N.P.O.V. editors. He is just rejecting any redirects that I do and turning a blind eye to the overwhelming consensus of consolidating. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Let us first decide which article will be the one they are redirected to. I would think, as I mentioned yesterday, that the article about the first YouTube movie should be the only article.--MONGO 14:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but the same people who have been pushing for eliminating these articles still pushing for eliminating these articles are not a consensus. You are going to need to start a new discussion in a formal process and I will be sure to notify any other parties who have an interest.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No reason to be sorry T.D.A. about all this. Also, you are way out of sync. with the other editors here. Also, canvassing other pro Zeitgeist or middle of the roaders as I see you have started doing is called canvassing and that is not a good idea. This RFC has pointed out a lot of things from uninvolved parties and gets right to the core of why all these promo articles mostly by the movement members and hangers on are not really good for Misplaced Pages. O.K. so lets put the movie articles into the first movie then. Lets go with the first Youtube movie then Zeitgeist The Movie. Redirect the 'movement' article and the other 'movies' into that one. If someone wants to do that now I support that idea. Also noted that redirecting articles is not 'getting rid' of them. In this case it is just sparing people the trouble of unwarranted bits and pieces of information spread out over Misplaced Pages about this subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where the discussion should be, but there only needs to be one article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As a first step, I've merged and redirected Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum, and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward to the (already existing) Zeitgeist (film series). Tom Harrison 11:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Did not know there was a "film series" article but now that I do, I see that your merge and redirect is an excellent plan. Other articles should probably soon merge into the one you found as well. This article should also be merged there I should think....and the template at the bottom should go to TFD after that.--MONGO 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'll trim the movies a bit, then see about merging more in, or anyone can jump in and do it without waiting for me. Tom Harrison 20:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it, why does wikipedia need to have any articles for anything zeitgeist? it's a confidence trick, a fiction, false advertising, peter joseph's cult and so forth.

In see also it already mentions, Technological utopianism, if not scam, anything zeitgeist should just redirect to that.

Is Misplaced Pages in the business of allowing deceptive, malicious groups a platform? Zeitgeist doesn't need article, either no recognition or redirection to the appropriate article.The-Land's-Way (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is Misplaced Pages in the business of allowing deceptive, malicious groups a platform? Yes, in a limited way because it tells a lot about many subjects some not cute in some peoples minds. Misplaced Pages itself does not take a stand on the issues its covering but just presents things. There may have never been a real movement or if there was one it could have peaked and could well disappear. We don't know but time will tell. Its an adhoc group. Its not a company or corporation etc. Its probably impossible to tell the number of people involved, its doubtful there are any records. The article is fairly good now. Its not really complimentary and its not too hard on them either. Doubtful its a real movement now because there are zero citation sources from recent times.

Reminder, if you can find a notable journalist or essay or book that has your opinion then that would carry some weight. But, as a person that just 'thinks' your thoughts on this, that is not going to count unless you are published or notable in connection with this subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, it's great that you POV-pushers have found a way to hijack an RfC that wasn't even about this issue to achieve a goal you had been pushing with no success for years because of your own personal beliefs rather than because it was supported by sourcing or policy once nearly all those who would object are finally not paying attention or have been successfully driven away by your toxic hostility, but nothing you are doing is actually addressing the initial concern raised about reception of the movement actually being reception of the movement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New York Times Select Quote

This NYTs article is about The Zeitgeist Movement and therefore any quotes from the New York Time Article should relate to the writer's view of The Zeitgeist Movement and not the films. peter joseph or the like.

This is basic, common logic.

The following as been added to describe The New York Times actual statements about TZM's work:

The vision of "a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life."

The prior statement: "An article in The New York Times noted that Zeitgeist The Movie may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job” 'perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population', a point of view Mr. Joseph said he "moved away from" (as of 2009 in an interview)

Has nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement and ignores everything the NYTs reporter has to say about the actual movement's work itself and the event he attended. This is clearly being placed here to distort the view of The Zeitgeist Movement by people who prefer to not properly represent TZM.

SweetGirlLove (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You omitted the context of "The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation of..." That quote is more about how TZM sees themselves, not how they are seen by others. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment