Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 16 March 2012

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.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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

Is this a movement or an organization?

Im having difficulty with this page because the subject isnt really consistently defined. The first sentence of the lead claims that this is a grass roots movement which would indicate a sort of bottom up spontaneous movement that is independent of central organization. However, it seems that the article is actually about a centralized organization and not a movement following it, as the article dogmatically references an official website, and the second sentence even claims that the movement defines itself as a "sustainability advocacy organization." Furthermore social movements tend not to have things like official logos or central websites - those are elements of an organization. I think the article would be much more coherent if we consistently refereed to zeitgeist as an organization because thats really all this article is making reference to. Thanks! 70.112.184.148 (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"A Load of Trash" and A Sequel! "The Added Trash"

So I've just wasted about 4 hours including pauses watching the zeitgeist movies on youtube. In this time I could have made around $64 working. Average person so to say. Not that I am entitled to hurt the feeling of you people who believe in these two "haphazardous motion pictures". I am quite certain that you people "are aware" that a movie as this is a load of infantilism, lies, conspiracy ideas and allegoric theories that claim that there is a superior force controlling the world. That is absolutely grotesque. First of all, no organization in the world can fully understand the functioning of the world or even capitalism itself, because it is an imperfect system, with flaws, like everything else. But it's proven to be quite functional. You can't just blame a system for your misfortune. One thing to know: What is an Intelligent Person? Well to me it is a person who can adapt to it's surroundings. If you're with monkeys, learn to live like one. If there is no other choice... It sadly is like that, there are norms, social order and an established codes of behavior. Also people who seek change show typical dissatisfaction. There are several ways to note this: lack of social contact, political abstinence, corrupt moral values.

I find it funny, because I'm certain the person who made this movie believes in: a better world, is helplessly trying to be a revolutionary and is arguing with what is concluded to be exactitude. Gatherings of such an endeavor lead to problems. Sometimes, you just have to accept how things come. That's how people have been doing for centuries, although history is quite inaccurate I dare say if we go far into depth, but let's not lose our "valuable" topic. Freedom of speech gives it; this will probably be removed by some "Believer". Anyhow, Zeitgeist is probably one of these organizations that only have the power to speak for itself. The justice behind such a videos comes in willing to change the mind. I'm not sure who is being controlled here, but I won't give it a statement as it's quite obvious. Want a change? Work harder, try harder no matter what. That's how you advance in society. Not by wasting your time watching such videos. I even feel bad because I tried so hard to write and give this some attention, but in the end it's just another talk page on Misplaced Pages that nobody even checks regularly. So to you Mr.Reader. Do you really believe in something trying to make you "Aware"? (So as to have no balance of criticism on its Misplaced Pages page) Or does that show that Zeitgeist is just simply... Awesome... (irony) People I'm ashamed to say this, but now that I'm kinda done watching and reading about this, I'm off to do something more productive. Farewell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.1.38 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

wait, you spent four hours watching this stuff even though you realized it was trash? Then why do you complain? It is easy to waste time online watching silly videos, it happens to a lot of people. --dab (𒁳) 21:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

in the ideal of staying neutral i will say this if you disagree with tzgm i would say do not waste your time or valuable energy with statements like "Well to me it is a person who can adapt to it's surroundings. If you're with monkeys, learn to live like one. If there is no other choice... It sadly is like that, there are norms, social order and an established codes of behavior. Also people who seek change show typical dissatisfaction. There are several ways to note this: lack of social contact, political abstinence, corrupt moral values." in my opinion this is Cynicism (contemporary) and holds no place in a page that exist to supply knowledge not act as a breeding ground for negativity. for the record i am politically active, volunteer, am very social, and have amoral values. in my opinion there are 2 ways to live in the world as it stands, or the world you help to create. so f you would like to continue to live "withe the monkeys" please be my guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.93.129 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

criticism and decline

googling this, it seems that this project managed to attract some real attention during 2009, organizing meetings with close to 1,000 attendants. In 2009, there was an exodus due to the poor judgement and guru-like behaiour of "global administrator" PJ Morela. Basically, this was a one year fad based on public interest generated with an online documentary about 9/11 truthers and the Christ myth.

It was true in 1930 and it remains true in 2010, any leftist movement, no matter how well-intentioned, will immediately defeat itself by internal quarrels and poor leadership and fragment into numerous tiny infighting factions.

In terms of secondary sources, all this "Zeitgeist Movement" has to show seems to be two newspaper articles. The 400,000 members claim is ridiculous. By now this essentially seems to be a private online community. --dab (𒁳) 11:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I also wonder if they realize that what they are proposing is simply stateless communism but with the machines in charge. They probably do, it just isn't opportune to use the C-word in America A century ago, communist utopia was a worker's paradise. The only difference now seems to be that people today don't want to work, even in paradise, so they are happy to leave both production and decision making to the machines. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It is not simply stateless communism with machines in charge. You are projecting into the idea, with irrelevant labels that have negative connotations. The foundational aspect of the RBE concept is resource optimization. Surveying the Earth’s resources, self-contained/sustainable/streamlined city systems, strategically (through scientific analysis and survey) designing the products and services while keeping in account the depleting resources, closed loop production and distribution (recycling) and managing everything according to the carrying capacity of the Earth. These are foundational aspects of the RBE. THE ENVIRONMENTAL aspect is central to the RBE, which is never discussed scientifically by the Communist leaders. Communism’s central idea is to have a justifiable LABOR SYSTEM starting with equal pay for equal work, and in later stages, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs),” but it somehow is unable to escape from the human labor element. In fact, it’s based on it. The RBE is bolder in its concept and is focused on eliminating the human labor system itself as much as possible. It’s a more Humane concept. So one could say that the RBE’s mission statement could be, “From each according to his needs, to each according to his wishes (and not just abilities).” No communist in history has ever tried to think how human labor can become irrelevant with rising technology. Also, according to Communism, more labor should be paid more. So it means that if you have a hammer and a driller with you, you will try to use the hammer instead of the driller (which reduces labor), because using the hammer will fetch you more money. So in this way, Communism’s tendency is to favor a human labor system, whereas the RBE is against such human waste and toil. It attempts to free humanity from such drudgery. Finally I would say that Communism still does not understand the fallacies of the “growth based system”, which is dangerous in the long run for the resources are simply not infinite. The system’s approach to Earth’s management of resources is central to the RBE, which has nothing to do with Communism. Communism was an ideal state where everyone will go according to one’s needs and will work according to one’s capability . Well that condition never reached . However RBE will never try to reach a final frontier or an ideal final state. People in future will always try to update that or even change that. 217.172.92.12 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, 217.172, Surveying the Earth’s resources, self-contained/sustainable/streamlined city systems, strategically (through scientific analysis and survey) designing the products and services while keeping in account the depleting resources, closed loop production and distribution (recycling) and managing everything according to the carrying capacity of the Earth, this is exactly how a technocrat would describe the concept of "the machines are in charge". As I say, technocratic stateless communism. You are basically just repeating my point in so many words. I am not saying this grew out of the existing communist movement, it is just people watching an extremely bad movie and then coming up with the same set of ideas the communists had a century ago, this time with the additional twist of free humanity from such drudgery by robot labour. --dab (𒁳) 12:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

First point to dab, Communism is by its very definition a stateless society where workers take over the means of production directly. Other than that, it is pretty ambiguous and very much undefined about what Communism is supposed to be. Second point, Communism is about elevating the working class as the highest and most prestige class; many Marxists and Communists agree that it is not that due to the very essence and nature that TZM wishes to eliminate class and take control of production through means of automization, this is completely opposite of Communism and saying that it is, is simply as the person said, a "projection" that is ill-informed. Finally, If you wish to discuss this issue on a forum, please do so. But not here, Misplaced Pages is not the place for forum discussions.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

'Reason and Logic shall always prevail' - except on Star Trek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.92.232 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie

Still not seeing enough independent coverage on this to justify its own article. I'm proposing a merge of any relevant content to Zeitgeist: The Movie. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

NOOO... lEAVE IT ON HERE I LIKE IT!! :):) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafeson90 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because the article is constantly being vandalized. The movement has nothing to do with the The Movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.62.86 (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We have been through this all before. The pattern is for people to remove notable content from the page, then challenge it, and try to delete it, or move it back into the movie. In fact, this has been done once before, and then this page was created again. This is an extended edit war. The movement has numerous sourced media mentions in places such as the NY Times (although source references are continually edited out, both by critics of the movement, and by supporters). Whatever is said, an article about a movie, and an article about a movement, are two entirely different kinds of things, and it is not possible to objectively document both within one article without a lot of confucion. On a movie article, for example, one might refer to elements of the plot and characters which are fictional, as if they were real. In the context of a movie, if makes sense to do so. When talking about a social or political movement, such text is very confusing. A review of the edit histories of the movie pages and movement page makes this amply clear. The answer is not to repeatedly move the page, but to create an objective article which clearly cites the many notable media references, both positive and negative, and which contains a well documented and objective criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelhunter (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If merging articles is necessary, it would make a lot more sense to merge this article with The Venus Project, as it is a closely aligned organization as opposed to a semi-related movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.117.1.212 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Noelhunter, what "many notable media references"? Most of the article as it stood was sourced to the movement's own websites. I looked for sources a while ago, and all I managed was to add one about a musician being influenced by the movement. I would support a merge, but I am unsure of the correct target. Fences&Windows 21:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The films are the Movement's main recruiting tool, they are what the movement believes, they share a name with the movment itself and were created by its founder. If they were not then the official links to the films would be taken down and the films disavowed by the Movement. They have not been. Hadashi (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Censorship and biased opposing editors

Warning any attempts to deface this Misplaced Pages article is an act of censorship, let the information be provided as is an not be biased by the myriads of opposition, i ask that all mods of Misplaced Pages truly investigate into what the zeitgeist movement is before changing anything on this page. Please watch this(http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261) to truly get what the zeitgeist movement advocates and its goals. Move this into the discussion section once it has allowed to be seen by all who monitor this page. Whats wrong with how the article used to be written?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs)

I should get it out first that you won't get very far on Misplaced Pages assuming that everyone who disagrees with you must be biased against the Zeitgeist Movement. Misplaced Pages editors, ideally, are not for or against any movement. If we are, that is not supposed to affect our editing, which is guided by the neutral point of view, and not by our own feelings.

Anyway, the problem with that version of the article is that it was based almost entirely on the movement's own website, which runs into issues of self-published content and undue weight. This is a movement that has received only marginal attention from reliable sources, and so the depth to which it is covered by Misplaced Pages should be similarly marginal. It is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to "get the word out", or help fight the censorship of the mass media (see Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok i guess i was wrong, i thought this was an article on THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT. What other sources then the home of this movement could possibly be a better source in explaining what it is!!!? This is not about getting the word out, this is about having a reliable article about a movement. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, as such it should explain exactly what the movement is and its goals and advocacy's but nothing more, except maybe since its an online update-able encyclopedia movement events and updates as it progresses. When someone comes to this article on wiki they expect to find enough information to get what it is they where looking for, the zeitgeist movement. You can't write an article if you don't first understand and know what it is. Everyone who edits this page should have at-least seen the zeitgeist orientation presentation, unless its for minor edits regarding Misplaced Pages rules and style. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261 The content of that video could even be considered as a source as it is produced for the movement by its founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have coverage and external sources it isn't notable enough to warrant much more than a stub. Hadashi (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the criticism section

It looks like this article is unbalanced. We need 3 criticism sources that aren't blogs or forums. One would be Noam Chomsky's letter. Find more please or delete this article or tag it as unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.81.117 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be that this doesn't have any notability, just a bunch of people active online who try to pretend it has notability. Something that doesn't have notability will also not get too much criticism, positive or negative. If you have a statement by Chomsky about this, feel free to add it. --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased. I have put on the POV-tag.HopeBox (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd do a lot more help by telling us where the bias is so we can fix it. We can't read your mind. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that virtually all of the content on this page is sourced to primary sources affiliated with the movement itself. As such, it reads like a vanity page written by proponents, and there's no critical viewpoints represented. Only that which can be confirmed by secondary sources should be written about. (And that's where the notability guidelines come into play - if something isn't noteworthy enough that reliable sources have written about it, it's impossible to write a reliable article on Misplaced Pages about it.) Fran Rogers (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have some newbies demanding the article exist because it's so significant. It somehow exists in the near-complete absence of reliable sources, and now we're stuck with an article sourced almost entirely to primary sources. This is why the whole Zeitgeist movement/movie/Fresco/Venus affair should be on one page. Every year or so there's a tidbit of news coverage about it – never enough for a whole series of articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is in getting a merge accepted. There's always a group of believers who oppose it, and we wind up spinning our wheels. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the Merge proposals is that people keep wanting it to be merged with this article which makes absolutely no sense. People need to try to make it merged with the article on it's founder instead to make it more relevant. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The article still has the problem of being esentially a press release touting this "movement", based on primary sources. Then there is a "Media reviews" section which consist entirely of four soundbites.

I do not have the impression this movement is in anyway notable. It is an online fad, and as such automatically generates an inflated number of google hits. Its impact outside of chat fora and social media is minimal. There have been a few meetings of a few hundred participants each. Well, the same is true of every tour of any notable rock band. So in these terms, the "movement" would be comparable in notability to, say, Virtual XI World Tour. We have a Virtual XI World Tour article, so we can well also have a The Zeitgeist Movement article, but people need to stop trying to inflate the topic's notability. As long as such attempts are being made, we need to keep the article tagged for NPOV review. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

When dealing with the question of "real world" notability of online fads, it is useful to turn to google books. Online phenomena which are truly notable will eventually turn up in print. Check out "Facebook": about 130,000 hits since 2008. Take this as a benchmark for the number of google hits for an online product with undisputedly significant impact on the "real world".

Now, how many hits for "Zeitgeist movement" since 2008? two. Two mentions in three years. Of these two mentions,

• one is a citation of the zeitgeist.com website in a bibliography. The movement isn't even mentioned in the main text.
• the other, single remaining mention that turned up on google books is: Michael Sturgulewski, The Zeitgeist Movement and the Historical Jesus: Separating Fact from Fiction CreateSpace, 2009. CreateSpace is an online self-publishing outfit where anyone willing to pay for it can turn their pdf files into ISBN'd books.

That's it, that's the entire notability of this movement over the period of three years. In other words, I very much doubt that this topic can be argued to have a notability even approaching that of an article like Virtual XI World Tour. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone who is well informed about this movement and is not biased willing to rewrite the "criticisms" section? It looks like the criticisms sound like being a debate; for example, the phrase "which is false" sounds authoritative. What do you think? Raigainousa (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT

<ref></ref>

Request Full protection

{{editprotected}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs)

Why? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You guys crack me up. You’re a world wide organization—I have no idea what your world wide strategy here is, but good luck with it because it must be succeeding :) ---(Gharr (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Technocracy - born in the thirties, indistinguishable to me - where's the link to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.145.192 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter Joseph on 'Russia Today' Sept 14th '11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_btXktBTEi8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is part of a Zeitgeist profile-raising and advertising campaign

This article is fundamentally partisan because it was created specifically to raise the profile of the Zeitgeist Movement in their attempt to get more traffic so they can market their merchandise.

Groups like the Zeitgeist Movement are obsessed with using the figures of their traffic and email recipients to build an exaggerated image of mass membership because they know it raises their profile. A Misplaced Pages article is one of their ways of creating this false image of significance. The Zeitgeist Movement's membership statistic is based on an email list, which accounts mainly for people who merely hovered on their site for minutes and then left. The notion of mass membership is false. There are at most 20 people involved in the management of the Zeitgeist Movement and they are mainly trying to sell merchandise such as printed t-shirts through hype. Even Jacques Fresco, the person ZM is supposed to be supporting, is not a member of the Zeitgeist Movement and has discouraged the movement. This article is essentially an ad for a minor cyber-sect, it has no informative purpose for Misplaced Pages browsers, and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.150.96 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Article does not explain what movement is

I came to Misplaced Pages because I didn't know what the Zeitgeist Movement was. After reading this article, I still don't. Is it possible to put aside the various disputes on this talk page long enough for someone to write a few sentences about what the movement is, what its goals are, who participates in it, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.243.210 (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement

I propose we clean this page up, it bears all the hallmarks of something written by the guys who run Zeitgeist and I think most of it needs to go. I vote we remove the 'Rational Skepticism' tags because, frankly, as much as I think 'Rational Skeptic' is generally code for 'holds a very biased and negative view of certain subjects which they are committed and determined to debunk no matter what', we are talking about a group of admitted and rather dotty conspiracy theorists here. Real 'rational skeptics' don't like them very much.

The Zeitgeist movies are farcically bad, so bad they would be funny if they weren't so outright manipulative, their creator is a troll who accuses anyone who criticizes them as being 'insane', a fair few of their supporters think the Haiti earthquake was a man-made conspiracy and even quite a few of the 'Truther' movements are against them. Hadashi (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done some clear-up, however I think this will probably be reverted immediately. I couldn't get the system for placing the same citation (<ref name=ZD2009 />) twice to work so there are currently two instances of the New York reference. Hadashi (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

About WP Rational Skepticism, if you're sure this article isn't within their scope of interest, you should take it to the project's talk page to actually ask the actual members of the project. Before that, please read about the goals of the project here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, and maybe you'll agree that it's beneficial to keep the article in that project's scope. — Jeraphine Gryphon  15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ok, that seems fair enough, I only raise this because TZM members often identify as 'rational skeptics' and I was trying to discourage this as they are plainly not. Hadashi (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lots of maturity here. I don't know who all you trolls are but this is absurd. Those of you that choose to manipulate this page to paint an unfair picture of TZM will not be tolerated. Misplaced Pages is about what is happening and what is stated when it comes to an org. Not what your opinion or disagreement is. TZM also is a seperate idea from Peter Joseph's films so those posted such references are also out of line. Please people - have some respect and get your facts straight. Reinventor098 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding criticism to a page does not "paint an unfair picture", and nor does it make us 'trolls'. Your language makes you seem positively totalitarian. I've heard these same arguments hundreds of times before - your movement is not immune to criticism. If the criticism is invalid, fair enough, but the stuff that was put on the page relates to a film made by the founder of your movement as a way of spreading its ideas. Hadashi (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Skeptic Project" flamers need to stop trolling this page

Listen Anti-Z people: You can fight it all you like in your little blog world. However, Misplaced Pages is about what is happening and provable, not what you think the quality of TZM is. It just pathetic to those who come here and post crap blog rants about TZM about pretend it is a source. Live and let live. I will be watching this page to profile you trolls who continue this and will make sure you are removed from Misplaced Pages. Reinventor098 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Listen Pro-Z person. Misplaced Pages isn't here as your own personal soapbox. And throwing threats around isn't going to improve the article. Find proper sources for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You just exposed your bias and hence your epic fail. Listen- this is an article about what TZM is. If you don't want them on Misplaced Pages, then ask for the articles to be removed. Otherwise, you are just trolling Reinventor098 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. And how do you know what my 'biases' are? In any case, this article must be sourced properly, and primary sources affiliated with the movement aren't unacceptable, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Skeptic project has plenty of from what I can see. The films you guys made (which you are rather embarrassed about and keep editing) has none. TZM is not immune to criticism, people have (and will continue to) criticise you. Organisations like this all have criticism sections, and need them. Hadashi (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are sourced from third-party reliable sources.

Except this one apparently, which has precisely one source (a 2009 NYT article) that isn't a product of the 'movement' or its associates. Before I delete swathes of this article as the unsourced puffery it clearly is, does someone care to find evidence that anyone is actually taking any notice of them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Third Party sources depend on the context. In the section regarding what The Zeitgeist Movement is and does, only its own internal sources are valid. This is not an issue of opinion but an issue of fact. Reinventor098 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

NYTimes and Huffington Post coverage suffices, I'm sure they've been covered in at least one other reliable third-party source, so notability is clear. You can also see from the previous AfDs that this has been discussed earlier. And besides that, it's okay to use primary sources as references, just not for all kinds of statements.

And, people, please keep it cool. WP:CIVIL is a policy. — Jeraphine Gryphon  01:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary TZM sources can be used for their opinions, certainly. They cannot be used for statements of fact. So no, the NYT and Huffington Post coverage can only be relevant for what it says - and the vast majority of this article isn't sourced from them. It is for those providing content to provide acceptable sources - and that is all I'm asking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly do you have a problem with? — Jeraphine Gryphon  02:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with assertions of fact being sourced from TZM. The article still has far too many of them. If this movement is as significant as the article claims, there should be more evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I get it, but which ones? All of them? Or which ones do you think are so controversial or dubious? According to Misplaced Pages's policy, references are needed for statements that have been questioned or can reasonably be expected to be questioned. I wouldn't have expected that someone would question the fact that the first Z-Day was held in 2009 if primary sources say it was. If you're biased against the subject and want to question every single statement just to have a maximum amount of contents removed from here, then I can't even WP:AGF anymore. Try to be more compromising.

The article doesn't claim that the movement is "significant", btw. — Jeraphine Gryphon  02:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"WP:CIVIL is a policy", as you said earlier. Again, I'm being accused of being 'biased against the subject'. I'm not. I'm biased against articles that use primary sources to promote organizations. Where are the third-party sources to support the 'Chapters' section? Where are the third-party sources reporting on the media sections? And how is Travis Walter Donovan of the Huffington Post a reliable source? His article seems to be another TZM puff-piece. I suppose that we'll have to ask at WP:RSN, but his piece hardly reads to me as a neutral assessment of the movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

CIVIL is irrelevant, I said I can't AGF endlessly when you're acting like an antagonist. I really don't see what the problem is in using primary sources to describe how their own internal structure and such things work. It's to flesh out the article.

If you think there's an issue with the HuffPost author, take it to RSN yourself. The article is published on Huffington Post and that's good enough for me. — Jeraphine Gryphon  12:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you "really don't see what the problem is in using primary sources to describe how their own internal structure and such things work" then I suggest you read WP:RS. Organizations can and do make all sorts of claims regarding membership, structure and the like. We have no way to verify if they are true, and no need to anyway - if such material can't be sourced elsewhere, there is little reason to include it in an article, given that it can be of little interest to anyone other than those already involved. I've now done some searching, and there seems to be little media coverage of this 'movement' - certainly not enough to make "claims to hold over 1000 regional chapters across 70 countries" seem remotely plausible. If it is true, then provide the evidence.

As for the HuffPost blog, I'll need to look into this further, but I suspect it will end up at WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a "blog"? — Jeraphine Gryphon  19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what the source says - just above the author's name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

misrepresentation of the topic and eating up the article edit by edit

The organization is specifically about replacing opinions with the scientific method. This shows you not to know what the topic is. Perhaps we need to word this more clearly. The way you grab the microphone and pretend to represent the organization isn't appropriate. That part is obvious.

Also replacing the mention of 600 simultaneous events with a single one not just seems like an attempt to marginalize the topic.

original text:

• In March 13, 2011 there were more than 300 events held in 60 countries around the world. Lectures were given to an audience of 1100 at "Friends House" in Euston, London.

Your idea of coverage:

• In March 13, 2011 lectures were given to an audience at "Friends House" in Euston, London.

Clearly an attempt towards marginalization. The source might be primary, it will do just fine unless some one objects. Your objection appears nothing more than an attempt towards misrepresentation. We already had a lone admin who thought it was cool to lock the article and misrepresent the movement pretending it should be perfectly cool with everyone while it obviously is not.

http://zday2010.org/zday-events/zday-2011

That and the number in the NYT should be good enough.

• "the Worldwide Zeitgeist Movement, which, its organizers said, held 450 sister events in 70 countries around the globe."

But what am I even talking about, you've basically deleted the entire article line by line.

An historic event only has to be note worthy in that time frame, when such notability is established it doesn't just vanish over time.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The NYT wrote that Zeitgeist "organizers said" the events were held. It isn't a source for an assertion that they were. If events have taken place, provide reliable third-party sources that actually say they did. As for 'historic events', I don't think that you are quite in the position to make an objective judgement. We aren't going to hand the article over to you to spin. Misplaced Pages articles are based on reliable sources. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources are good. Just deleting the entire article line by line does not qualify as productive editing. You are not improving anything. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It now says: "Zeitgeist claims that In 2009 there were more than 450 events held in 70 countries around the world"

Exactly the way it did a week ago.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should Misplaced Pages be interested in what Zeitgeist claims? Our articles are supposed to be about notable events, not unverifiable spin. If Zeitgeist wants to claim things, it can do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This Article is constantly Vandalised by "Andy The Grump" and others

Listen: If you don't like TZM- good for you. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a correct, basic unbiased representation on Misplaced Pages. I will be reporting all actions from here out if this biased vandalism continues. There is a basic set of simple data about Press, Actions and true references to the Mission Statement of The Zeitgeist Movement. If you want to "invent" their purpose to spins it -- please do so on the many hate blogs out there -- have some respect for what wikipedia is supposed to be doing here. Seriously.Reinventor098 (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages requested images of Society