Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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:^Bite 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)

I don't know what you mean about 'recruitment'? Can you please specify? René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Censorship and biased opposing editors

Warning any attempts to deface this Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia assuming that everyone who disagrees with you must be biased against the Zeitgeist Movement. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia should be similarly marginal. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "get the word out", or help fight the censorship of the mass media (see Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

True. A description section for the movement, and a criticism section for, well critique. A pro/con section might be appropriate. René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 08:12, 4 April 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 Wikipedia 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:^Bite 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>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present]</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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Well, I'll try my best to explain it. The Zeitgeist Movement is basically supporting a "Movement in the spirit of the times", or more precisely a change in our behavior. Scientific research and 'common knowledge' clearly shows us that our current system (monetary system IN COMBINATION WITH technological improvement) is unsustainable. That is why the movement promotes an erosion of our current socioeconomic ways. This stems from the Venus Project (which should have most of the credit of the idea of a resource based economy). I hope this clearifies things a bit. It's easier for me to answer direct questions than give a full explanation of the train of thought within these new movements (Zeitgeist Movement, Venus Project, Occupy Movement, Freeworldcharter.org, Open Source thinking etc.) René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 08:21, 4 April 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: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, and maybe you'll agree that it's beneficial to keep the article in that project's scope. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 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. Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Reinventor098 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Listen Pro-Z person. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 [good sources] 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)

TZM is not about the original Zeitgeist film. What are you, high? If you want sources, I have hundreds, but I don't even see a point in trying to mod the article with all the fucking trolling going on. 68.106.97.206 (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding a criticism section is not trolling. Swearing, throwing around insults, and threatening to get people thrown off the website, however, is trolling. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Problem is not a criticism section, the problem is that there are certain individuals now that come up out of no where and wanting a crap load of stuff removed because they say that it doesn't have relevant third party sources, without naming parts of the article and even antagonistic towards others who would challenge their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't have a lot of reliable third-party sources, and a fair amount of this article does need to be removed or rewritten due to a blatantly promotional tone. Zazaban (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly are you referring to as "blatantly promotional tone?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What you just re-added isn't part of what is the issue, which is dubious claims about the widespread support and significance of TZM. Voiceofreason, please assume good faith, stop assuming that every edit you don't like is biased, and drop the confrontational tone. Zazaban (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem to be confrontational, I just think people should be wary of individuals using specific buzz words and what the history behind these words being used to describe the movement is to detail. That was my main purpose, that and I do have a sort of unconscious reaction towards these words being used to begin with. That being said, I haven't made any referent to an edit being biased just cause I don't like it. I have only ever done this once in my entire time and that was towards Dingle when expressed a personal opinion of why he edited the article. I did leave room for the article to be removed still by those who could at least demonstrate why it should be removed using Wiki's article. I have not disputed any of the changes that most of you have decided to make considering you base it off of the rules of Wikipedia and even though I am a member of TZM, I agree with the neutral tag as I have yet to dispute it at all. I have seen a lot of edit wars going on where one or two users would try to overtly abuse Wiki's rules in an attempt to draw controversy over an article to get it deleted where their was no dispute before the edit wars started. So apologize if I was starting to assume vandalism on anyone's part as a result where there was none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So is this an accusation of my "edit being biased" or is it a retraction of the accusation? It might be a good idea to review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially the part saying Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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

[1] 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.

• [2]"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. Wikipedia 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"[3]

Exactly the way it did a week ago.

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

Why should Wikipedia 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)

None of the sources provided offer any credible evidence of a global event. All "facts" regarding a large scale event such as 300+ global events needs some reliable sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seagram (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is constantly vandalized

Listen: If you don't like TZM- good for you. That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a correct, basic unbiased representation on Wikipedia. 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)

There is no 'movement', unless you can provide independent reliable sources that say so, as far as Wikipedia (and reality) is concerned. Just another insignificant cult... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy! Thats nice. Good to see how qualified you are to edit this page since you have a clear hatred for the group. Keep vandalizing so I can keep reporting you! Reinventor098 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating your stupidity and paranoia. I don't hate the group. I do however dislike people misusing Wikipedia to promote their organisations, whether they are large or small, significant or insignificant, and then hurling abuse around like a schoolboy when told that they have to conform to policy, the same way that everyone else does. And where have you reported me? Unless you have been editing under another name, you've not posted at anything but this article, and the one on Peter Joseph. Of course, if you do want to report me, I'd suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG first. Otherwise, unless you've got something constructive (like reliable sources for relevant information on TZM), I suggest you troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:VANDALISM and don't use the word "vandalism" to attack people who you disagree with.

I'm not sure what exactly is the nature of the perceived problem, but there exists a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and at the top of that page there's a box with links to other noticeboards. Choose the most applicable noticeboard to report people or issues at. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is prudent to understand that the only ones that ever use the term cult to describe TZM are individuals who's only interest is in defaming those associated with TZM for their ideological purposes OR they are specific trolls who frequent the forums of conspiracyscience.com Which are you AndyTheGrumpy or are you the exception to the rule that I have all too often experienced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I used the term cult as is it is understood in the social sciences: a small inward-looking ideologically or religiously-driven group characterised by a sense of its own uniqueness and an unrealistic assessment of its own importance, often seeing the outside world as conspiring against it. Of course, if you want to believe that everyone who refuses to acknowledge the universal wisdom of your great political insights is a Freemason, a CIA agent or a shape-shifting-lizard, I doubt that I'm going to convince you otherwise. In any case, all this ridiculous waffle about 'vandalism' is achieving is making the 'movement' look even less worthy of attention. If I'm wrong, an it has the massive support and mainstream credibility that it claims for itself, prove it: show us the evidence. That is all that is being asked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The majority of the people I have talked to, the lectures I have witnessed and even everything else regarding the social system in which they advocate does not warrant the claim that the group believes in a secret kabal of conspirators, and neither is that my view. What you just engaged in is an ad hominem thank you very much. As for your definition of a cult; their are psychological and sociological parameters a movement must meet before being given that reference. What is your evidence and psychological parameters your referring too? I also made a keen observation as to those who use the term cult to describe TZM Andy; it is a verified FACT that the only ones who have ever used the term cult are individuals on the internet with their only intent being is to defame the character of activists in order to get them to stop (my YT account was hacked by such trolls) or people with a deliberate dislike for the movement based on ideological differences. I asked which were you as a means to sort of flush out whether or not you would even dispute being apart of these and perhaps express confusion, since you have not I think it's a worthwhile guess that my assumption was correct. That being said, I don't mind if the article is deleted because of a lack of notice, I also don't mind adding a criticism section so long as the criticisms are actually valid and not just created strawmen. I am not against any of these things, what I am against is people editing the page with an apparent bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

None of this has the slightest bearing on article content. I'm not interested in reading more delusional conspiracy theories - and since it is a fact that I'm not one of the "individuals on the internet with their only intent being is to defame the character of activists", the fact that you imply I am - on the basis on no evidence whatsoever - confirms my characterisation. As for 'ideological differences', my politics are none of your business. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject of this particular thread is about the article being vandalized and since you were called out on it and made a derogatory remark about the movement being a cult, I pointed out a keen observation as to those who engage in such rhetoric. You then referred to me as being a conspiracy theorist in that I believe in an NWO regarding Freemasons, CIA agents or shape-shifting reptilians when in fact such a comment steams of only an ad hominem and adds nothing but in your attempt to get me to engage in a flame war with you. I also did not imply anything about you being these individuals, I am stating that the people engage in the use of the word "cult" to describe TZM are people who have engaged in such acts, and this is an EXCLUSIVE phenomenon related only to these anti-TZM trolls or people with ideological differences. My accusation of you being one of these in the first place with sarcastic to begin with (in the sense that I did not think you were, but considering your constant reference of trying to defame my own character just to make me look bad on this forum here seems to speak for itself. That being said, I only accuse others of vandalization based on their history of edits or based on the edits made. I don't think you are here to vandalize this article, but the more you try to character assassinate me here in this thread and the more you act antagonistic towards those who are asking for clarification or trying to correct you or even challenge your assumption as well as being generally disrespectful to those in this talk page who don't take your side, I am inclined to think otherwise. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay guys, take your personal disagreements outside or stick to discussing the actual contents of this article. While you take a moment to chill, have a read over WP:VANDALISM ("vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, don't just throw that word around), WP:AGF (assume good faith), and WP:NPA (no personal attacks). The above convo about trolls and cults is not very interesting or helpful for the rest of us. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that as originally posted, this section was in itself a personal attack on me. [4] - The next time I see this sort of behaviour, from anyone, I shall report it. Likewise, any accusation of 'vandalism' that doesn't come within the definition in WP:VANDALISM will be reported. Consider this a final warning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

It is not important or relevant that the current members of the group/movement don't want to be associated with The Venus Project, it's a historical fact that TZM acted as the activist arm of TVP (and was very largely inspired by TVP's ideas!). Please stop removing mentions of TVP from the article. You can present the movement however you like on your own websites, Wikipedia serves a different purpose. It's also true that the Zeitgeist films spawned the movement, whether they're officially considered to have done so or not. It's also true that people outside the movement probably can't name anyone else but Peter Joseph from the "leaders" of the movement, he is definitely a "key person". You'll notice there are other fields in the infobox for actual leaders and such -- we didn't use those fields. "Key people" is a milder term. It doesn't even mean anything official, it just means he's one of the visible people associated with the movement, which he is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We need to make this absolutely clear. This isn't TZM's article. It is an article about TZM, as reported by reliable third-party sources. That is the way Wikipedia works. This isn't optional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really. There is such thing called WP:ABOUTSELF which clearly states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" Avashurov (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, really. WP:ABOUTSELF:

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

If you are going to cite policy, read it first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I did. And the presented information about movement Structure, Activities, Direction, Organization, Projects, Affiliation and so on does not violate any of the counts. If you disagree point at the part that does.Avashurov (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - you are making repeated self-serving claims about the organization, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Do you rally think we are going to take the word of a political movement regarding the scope of its activities - and do you really think we care about every blog or press release from your organization, or about the vaguely-complementary remarks of an actor toward a film that wasn't made by TZM? The whole article is being transformed into a puff-piece for TZM, based on nothing but unverifiable spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just yanked out the "reception" section. It was pure quote-farm that was only positive quotes. It was not in any way encyclopediac in nature. Something like that is fine for a group's website but not for a WP article about the group. Ravensfire (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is Social movement, not a political one.Avashurov (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

From our Political movement article: "A political movement is a social movement in the area of politics". A good enough definition in my mind, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that a movement with the objective of "the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered the Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions" wasn't operating in the area of politics. Not that it matters - we rely on how reliable sources describe such things, not our own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy again really? "Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social change." That is from Social Movement here on Wikipedia, so yes TZM is defined as a SOCIAL MOVEMENT as it is talking about and pinpointing structure, social, political and economic flaws in the systems that uphold them and advocate for a new social system without politics or monetary based economics. This is specific as they are targeting systems rather than a broad social arrangement, you're talking about the presentation for which they use to explain this, that is a totally different thing in and of itself. I think you might want to get your definitions straightened out before hoping to it.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is of no relevance whatsoever to article content. If secondary sources say that TZM is involved in politics, then so will we, if they don't, we won't. That TZM has a peculiar interpretation of the word 'politics' is their problem, not ours... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I have just removed a lot of detailed information about the organisation's activities sourced entirely to its own publicity. If the world outside has paid no attention to these activities, then neither do we. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy, if my comment is irrelevant to the content of the article, then you're comment is as equally invalid. I only added the clarification in case someone saw your post about it being a political movement and decided to add that tag to it or make a necessary edit as to it being a political movement. So yes, my comment is valid to the content of the article because it is defining what TZM would be, which would be apart of the article itself. You also seem to have made it a recent habit of stating that others' comments and responses to you for which you have no rebuttal or reply to as declaring it irrelevant even though you're previous comment before the reply would have made the exact same criteria. Either stop engaging in kettle logic and be consistent or don't reply to irrelevant posts. Now to Dingle, you engaged in a specific removal of information about the activities of an organization based on your own personal opinion, this is a violation of Wikipedia's standard editing process regarding Bias, I suggest you look it up yourself. I will be undoing your editing as a result of this, if anyone else wishes to delete this based on Wikipedia's rules then go right ahead, just be explicit about it is all that is asked.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Put it back and it will be removed again. It was not removed due to any personal bias, but because it was inappropriate in language and without third-party sources, as has been explained repeatedly by several different people. Zazaban (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The information that was removed was regarding the relevant projects by Dingle and he has done this in his own expressed words, "If the world outside has paid no attention to these activities, then neither do we." This is an expression of personal opinion, not an expression of it violating wikipedia's article. Now if you would like to give me an explicit reason based on the rules of Wikipedia why the information regarding TZM's project's should be taken down then by all means go ahead; but this is expressly about one recent edit that was made, not the previous edits made you're apparently referencing.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is an expression of this website's policy. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We do not need details of every small event that this movement holds, especially ones that only it reports. Zazaban (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question." "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This is not "personal opinion", it is a core policy. To spell it out in tedious detail -- the assertions I removed were sourced only to the organisation's own web site, a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF 1, 2 and 5, and hence not appropriate for the content in question. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I am having a hard time understanding the case being made here, might be because of a lack of sleep I do not know really. But for the record here is what I am disputing the legitimacy of it being removed: "Other projects include a weekly radio show that features different project and Chapter Coordinators [tzm_radio_shows], a media project, an official blog for contribution, a user submitted site for science and technology information. [5]" These are sources and everything that I did undid as a result. So Dingle, if you can explain to me how this violates what you say it does, it will be greatly appreciated as I am having a hard time understanding how a reference towards various projects TZM has going on is "unduly self-serving," "involve claims about third parties," and "the article is not based primarily on such sources." However, Dingle you gave the reason you edited it as "If the world outside has paid no attention to these activities, then neither do we," which makes no reference to anything regarding WP Standard for editing and read by anyone else, they would regard it as "your opinion. I apologize if I misunderstood you, but when in doubt clarify. Also, if Andy could give his reason for it violating the tags he indicated that would be helpful too. It might just a simple misunderstanding on one of our parts, or maybe its just the lack of sleep.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Material must be supported by "reliable, published sources that are appropriate". These are not, since they are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The exception for self-published material does not apply since the material is self-serving, in that it promotes the activities of the organisation, and in the state I found it the article was indeed based primarily, indeed almost entirely, on those self-published sources. We demand appropriate sources and if those sources do not exist then we do not, indeed cannot, write an article on that subject. A snappy summary of that is "If the world outside has paid no attention to these activities, then neither do we". Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see now, so it had to do with the content of the source itself rather than the way the source portrayed the original claim being made. I was a bit confused there for a moment so I guess I didn't understand Wikipedia policy like I thought I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is the nature of the source. That is, is it a reliable source on which we can base verifiable encyclopaedic content? Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

The reception section was a collection of carefully chosen, pro-Zeitgest quotes tossed in the article with nothing else. I removed the section as a quotefarm, POV and not encyclopediac in nature. Avashurov added the section back but removed the quotes, so it's now essentially a list of articles/sources. No context. No information. Just a list of article. I removed that with the edit comment of "Still removing the section - that's basically a list of sources. You need to write it in summary form and include both sides". Avashurov reverted that, saying it was my opinion. Rather than continue into an edit war, let's discuss this. The section, as it's written adds nothing to the article of an encyclopediac nature. That's contrary how article should appear on WP. A reception section is probably valid, but it MUST be written in summary style, based on sources and be balanced in it's coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This section is important as it adds to notability. It also includes both sides, for example New York Times criticized it "The evening, which began at 7 with a two-hour critique of monetary economics, became by midnight a utopian presentation 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." If you have other critique from reliable sources, please, fill free to include it.Avashurov (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it needs to be written in summary form. Not a collection of quotes. Not a collection of articles. A summary of the reception the group has had from various areas. As it currently stands, it's not something that should be in a WP article. Ravensfire (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There only dates, names and titles are left. Are you suggesting a summery of the articles instead. Then it would have to include quotes and would be about 5 times bigger.Avashurov (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, extensive content from the articles is even less needed. We don't need to detail the contents of the articles here, all that should be there is a list of where the movement has been mentioned, with sources, probably only a short paragraph. Maybe one brief quote from one article, but nothing more. Dates names and titles should go in the footnotes section and not in the main part of the article. Zazaban (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Venus Project section

The tag about copyright violation placed by Ravensfire is inapplicable as there is no copyrighted material presented. The information presented is important as The Venus Project has played significant role in The Zeitgeist Movement's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avashurov (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If material is copied from elsewhere, we have to assume that it is a copyright violation unless evidence to the contrary is given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What copyright violation? The information is from FAQ section of the movement's web-site it describes.Avashurov (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is - and at the bottom it reads "© Copyright 2008-2011 The Zeitgeist Movement ®. Portions Licensed under the Creative Commons License" - not entirely clear, but we have to be careful. Note that it is the wording that may be copyright, not the information - all that is required is that it be paraphrased. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. Avashurov, please read WP:COPYVIO for more information.

That's hardly the only section with possible copyright problems. Take any of the techno-speak phrases in the article and google them and you get hits. See From the lede and from the RBE section as examples. I suspect there were more but trimming and non-SPA editors revamping the language has helped. Ravensfire (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, there's nothing to prevent say small portions of the FAQ being quoted directly - as long as it is properly attributed. It's copy-and-pasting text without putting it in quote marks that is the problem - and actually, even if it isn't a copyright violation, an unattributed copy-paste is considered plagiarism by Wikipedia - we need to have a proper record of who actually wrote what. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Zazaban Please, provide justification of your neutrality dispute so I can improve it or remove the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avashurov (talk • contribs) 06:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that almost all of the article is sourced to TZM, rather than to third parties, I'd have thought it was obvious. How many times do you have to be told that this isn't your article, it is Wikipedia's? AS long as the article lacks proper sourcing, it will remain tagged - or be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing is the reason it's tagged with POV tag. I'm not sure about that tag as WP:ABOUTSELF seems to allow describing itself. Who better can define the movement's structure and organization then the movement itself? However the neutrality tag is not justified. If some part of the article is not objective enough, please, point it out.Avashurov (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No. We have already explained this. We don't give a rat's arse what the "movement" claims about its "structure and organization" - unless it is is reported in third-party sources it isn't going in the article. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

TZM is not a reliable source about itself, as, after all, it wishes to paint itself in the most positive possible light. Wikipedia never users primary sources. This article as it currently stands is essentially an advertisement. Judging from the talk page, there are members of the movement keeping an eye on the page to veto any additions that are anything but highly positive in tone, which is beyond unacceptable. The 'Activities and Publications" section should be cut to at most two paragraphs, and I just removed a pamphlet-like "and more" from the end of the list of events, and I should not have to explain why that does not belong. Zazaban (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Re neutrality, it's understandable that the pro-TZM people here can't see it but the overall tone of the article is subtly (or not so subtly) promotional or approving. That combined with the excessive use of primary sources and being written by editors with a WP:COI, warrants the neutrality tag, which should stay until the article is clearly neutral. Regular editors have been trying to fix the issues but the (Redacted) keep returning the article to its POV state. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy and it mandates at WP:SELFPUB that

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

At present it looks like this article is in breach of 1, 2 and 5. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the Philosophy section.

Can somebody explain to me what is trying to be said here? It is so stuffed with buzzwords that I can't make heads or tails of it. If it means anything at all it should be rewritten in plain English. Zazaban (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And Avashurov's revision of this [6] is even less intelligible. Can I ask that those making substantive edits to the article at least attempt to communicate in something approximating to the English language? AndyTheGrump (talk)

I have read it over and over again and even asked somebody else to try reading it, and the conclusion I have come to is that it is, more or less, an extremely fancy way of stating 'the movement promotes a society where the facilities of logic and the scientific method, though advanced technology, will be used to find the best possible solutions [imp. to the world's problems],' or something of that nature. Which is still vague almost to the point of meaninglessness. (What movement doesn't claim to aim for 'the best possible solutions?') Zazaban (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. A technocratic utopian socialism, of sorts. Tony Blair's New Labour 'things can only get better' meets William Morris at a Star Trek convention. Marxism without dialectics. Humanism without people. Political analysis without theory - or anything much in the way of analysis either. But that is my opinion, and as such irrelevant to article content. If TZM are capable of writing a coherent explanation of their philosophy, we can of course quote them directly. They are the best source for their ideas - but only when we can understand them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am attempting to improve clarity, but it is somewhat like wading through mud with metal boots on. Zazaban (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether we understand it, and the article talk page isn't a place for discussing its meaning or debating its validity. If the organisation itself puts out a suitable short summary of its own philosophy, then we can and should quote it directly, duly attributed, whether or not you or I think it makes sense. If an independent reliable source, or an identifiable consensus of such sources, can interpret it, or place it on the political spectrum, or in a social trend, then we include that interpretation, again duly attributed. What we do not do is original research to try to work out what on earth it means. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and I will revert back. Zazaban (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we are taking Avashurov as a source for TZM - and we can't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If the consensus here is that a certain portion of text (in the voice of the encyclopaedia) is meaningless, then of course it must be removed. But if a quotation is accurate, then our views on its meaning are irrelevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is almost meaningless, since what it states is so general that it could apply to almost every social movement, but it does in fact mean something. I don't think it's a direct quote, however, and it is about 70% wooden language. Zazaban (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no independent source for the organisation's philosophy, probably best to directly quote something from them that can be identified as a summary of the beliefs, if there is such a thing. If not, then we say nothing, because there's nothing verifiable to say. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the philosophy section is necessary at all, what we're aiming to cover can be covered in summary in the Activities section -- the section describes what they do and what they promote. It's not like they're a philosophical movement, most of their focus is on practical reality. If there's anything valuable in the current Philosophy section then I vote we rephrase it and move it to Activities (we can of course also rename that subsection if there's a better alternative).

Not that it's very important but I was a TZM supporter a couple of years ago (and still find TVP fascinating) -- I don't agree with the above notions that their actual views are vague and meaningless. I don't know what they're up to these days, but in any case the portion of text that you're confused about is not the same thing as their actual views.

If anyone has time, the fourth and fifth faq may be useful (in looking for their own description of their philosophy): http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq4 — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be important to mention somewhere: "Out of a general respect to TVP's work with what they consider to be the proprietary notion of a "Resource-Based Economy" [RBE] and its definition, some in The Movement prefer to adapt to the term "Resource-Based Economic Model" [RBEM] to separate from the Fresco-specific association/definition and allow for a more general flexible understanding of the Train of Thought." (The movement itself uses the term/abbreviation RBEM, which should be mentioned in the article.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right about the summary being the same as their views, but as I said, we have to go by what the sources say. If no independent reliable source has thought it worth commenting on this philosophy then there is nothing we can write about it, and so we should write nothing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed the movement really really likes technical sounding buzzwords and abreviations, and it likes capitalizing them too to emphasize their importance, but I don't know if they all need to be mentioned here just because TZM likes to use them. 'RBEM' is essentially insider jargon, meaningless to the uninitiated. And, pardon me, the differentiation between it and 'RBE' strikes me as an attempt to assert uniqueness though semantic hair-splitting. Zazaban (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I vaguely recall that the term 'Resource Based Economy' was trademarked or something of the sort by TVP, so using an alternative term might've been because of that. (And on a sidenote, I don't believe they deliberately over-do it with the jargon.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven at one blow

The article has just been tagged for advert, fansite, globalize, onesource, technical, refimprove and toofewopinions all in one go. Discussion of one, some or all of those would be useful. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they're all unjustified. Basically all statements have been properly referenced (in the current version, but watch out for the fanboy edits), and since it's an organization then I don't see why it would be mandatory for critical opinions to be included. Of course if such opinions existed in RS then I'd include them but if they don't then I don't think the tag is very helpful either. It's not like we have put undue weight on the org's own views here, I think we have barely enough, in fact. The article should sufficiently explain what their views are and what they do, to actually be informative, if it's written in NPOV then it's not an 'advertisement'. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as including critical opinions is concerned, we need to accurately reflect what independent reliable sources say. If it so happens that they are largely critical, then we give due weight to that. (I don't say whether or not they are in this case.) Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Duh, but they're not, that's the problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What are "direct scientific resource management" and "crowd sourced volunteer technicians", which both crop up in the lead. Such terms should serve as page links or be expressed in a more readily understandable manner; the article currently is a very grim tale. The last paragraph also excessively details minor insignificant details in an undue manner. It is not an encyclopaedic article but an aggregation of minutiae that would be better condensed into a couple of lines.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, are you sure you know what you're doing? Why did you revert that edit of mine? I made the part about the 2011 and 2012 ZDay events a bit shorter since they didn't receive outside coverage. If that wasn't okay then I'm sorry I'm not a mind reader and can't tell what your actual issue was. And can you or anyone maybe point out where these alleged 'buzzwords' are so we'll know what to fix? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 23:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General practise is to try to identify the problem before a removal of a tag and a subsequent reversion. You may not be a mind reader but you also appear not to be much of a page reader either. Read the post immediately above yours; perhaps the language was too technical for you to understand it first time?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the buzzwords, the tag and necessary repetition. For example, a "resource-based economy" covers the meaningless argot of "economic decisions are arrived at using scientific resource management". I have similarly removed unverified claims.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to unwatch this now, feel free to ruin the article as you please. Ankh, I had edited both of those terms that you quoted and either way they didn't seem to qualify as 'buzzwords'. But thanks for insulting me anyway. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, buzz-phrases or buzz-sentences would be more apt. Removing "direct" from "direct scientific resource management" was hardly a significant improvement to your incoherent mumbo-jumbo. I suggest your confine your proselytising attempts to your "numerous global events" and stop treating Wiki as your pulpit.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, I didn't write the original sentence, and you really seem to be mistaking me for someone else here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my previous allegation; my mind is somewhat addled from explicating the inpenetrable blabber.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

neutrality-delete?honeypot - who cares= delete

The article, which bases mostly on orginal sources, cannot be held neutral, because of zg people trying to influence it in their way of thinking. It should better be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blogotron (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More false accusations of 'vandalism'.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated false accusations of 'vandalism' etc at The Zeitgeist Movement article. Since the person reported isn't the only one making such false accusations, I suggest that other TZM supporters take note, and consider their actions before engaging in such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see we have a new batch of TZM sock/meatpuppets attempting to spin the article. This isn't going to work. THere are only two possible outcomes: (a) a neutral article on the movement, based (with the exception of statements about what the movement believes in) to reliable third-party sources, or (b) no article at all. Wikipedia rarely appreciates POV-pushing, and appreciates it even less when it is done in complete disregard for every policy and guideline we have. This infantile behaviour can only reflect negatively on TZM, in any case. If TZM wants to be taken seriously as a movement, this is a bizarre way to go about it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that someone made false accusations, and to see that any individual is 'responsible' for the entire movement.

The article still doesn't reflect what the movement is, and that is unfortunate. For example, the critizesing of the fractional reserve banking system, needs further explanation. The socalled 'critique' stems from observation and research into the current socio-economic system. It would be great if we could come to an agreement of what should be written in the article and what should not. And for the criticism source; a criticism section. For the sources from the Zeitgeist Movement; they are the main description of the movement, as they are from the movement. Not forum posts, but mission statement and such.René Bjerg Madsen (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and it would also be great if someone could point to some independent reliable sources that would allow us to give a neutral description of the movement. Cusop Dingle (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that this organization is barely notable. It only gets in the media when it occasionally releases a movie or holds an event (and that one time a kid spray-painted the word "Zeitgeist" on the side of a building). And even in those cases, reporting on what the movement actually is is limited to journalists regurgitating what it self-reports rather than doing any real research. It's a sad fact, but some articles will never be complete or even good, because they only just barely farted across notability line. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The education of a newbie

Ankh.Morpork, thank you for the feedback. Could you please explain exactly what is meant by 'more POV gobbledygook' and your objection to the resources I cited. I believe the resources are reasonably reliable. They contain articles in the NYT and the Huffington Post, and interviews in Russia Today (RT) and on the Larry King TV show in 1974. The references also contained books by Jacque Fresco and James S. Albus, a US government engineer and prolific inventor and author. As regards the reference by Elbus, I clearly articulated he does not mention TZM in his book, and I mentioned there are differences between Elbus's solutions and TZM's proposed solutions, but I also I explained that there are significant similarities between Elbus's views of the problems of the current global socio-economic system and the views of TZM. So respectfully could you please explain why these resources are considered 'unreliable.' I realize they are not peer-reviewed articles in academic/ professional journals. But the vast majority of resources in the vast majority of wikipedia articles are not peer-reviewed articles in academic/ professional journals. Why apply a different standard to this TZM article? Or am I wrong on this or missing something?

This may be an issue of Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. If I'm an inclusionist and another editor is, say, perhaps a deletionist, does the wholesale removal of my edits imply that the deletionist must prevail? Is this some sort of power play? Not sure.

But perhaps the most disturbing thing that happened is that all my edits were reverted wholesale, without a single edit remaining. This included not only the wholesale reversion of my attempts at trying to explain the basic principles of TZM/ RBE (since several previous readers commented on this talk page that they still don't understand the basic principles of TZM/RBE), , using what I believe was a reasonably neutral tone (and considering it is probably impossible to maintain a perfectly/ ideally neutral tone on such articles, because the subject matter is considerably out of the mainstream consensus). But perhaps just as disturbing is the wholesale deletion of my other edits which were only minor and moderate corrections of typos, modifications to clarify (but not significantly modify) existing sentences that existed on the page previously to my edits, and other similar minor to moderate edits that did not contain any POV (unless one applies a very liberal definition of POV)... all these edits have been censored, without exception, even those edits that had nothing to do with quoting sources (whether 'reliable' or 'unreliable') .... respectfully please explain. At the present time, these actions are very disquieting and disturbing. Best regards and thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is you that is doing the explaining: as has been pointed out multiple times, Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on the opinions of contributors. Find an article (or a TZM webpage, since it is their views you are writing about) which explains TZM's politics, cite it, and base your contributions on that. And please stop making allegations of 'vandalism' - the revision was clearly nothing of the sort. Regarding minor edits, fixes etc, it is best to do those separately to major changes that are likely to be problematic. It is easier to revert only the contentious material then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop fly-tipping inappropriate sources and links into this article. It appears that you are arbitrarily sprinkling around various sources throughout the article which hold little direct relevance to the content that they purportedly support. For example, you readily agree that James S Albus made no reference of the TZM, yet he is adduced twice to support material relating to TZM. A source is not simply an abstract academic text; it must directly and objectively support the material in the article, without personal interpretation or idiosyncratic delusions.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I believe we should not ignore the fact that the views of Albus on the problems with the current socio-economic system do indeed directly and objectively support the views of TZM on the same issues. In my view it may be better to expose the reader to an important, well-written and well-supported book such as (for example) that by Albus and let the reader decide for themselves whether there is a connection between the Albus book and TZM (even if it is only a partial connection, as they disagree on the solution, but they seem to agree on most important aspects of the problem(s)). And then, once the reader determines whether there is (or is not) a connection, they can read further and find-out for themselves the nature of the connection (if any). 2. This is also part of the reason why the 2 external links were included in the 'See Also' section. The Technocracy.org website does not mention TZM, but their views - on both the problem and the solution - are very similar (although not exactly identical) to those of TZM. And the freeworldcharter.org (FWC) website, which says it is independent of TZM, also holds very similar (almost identical) views to those of TZM, and it even mentions TZM (please see the free world charter Q & A). However, I admit to having made a mistake here. From reading WP:SEEALSO I now realize that external links do not belong in the 'See Also' section - the section is reserved for internal links to related Wikipedia articles; thus I apologize for my oversight for including external links there. But I do believe these two (external) links are relevant to the topic (TZM) and probably belong elsewhere on the TZM page. Please note that WP:SEEALSO states: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant...." 3. I am curious - why were the following references removed (I'm referring to the sources that were included in my prior edit, not today's edit)? (a) the two interviews with Peter Joseph on RT (Sept. 14, 2011 and Dec. 2, 2011), and (b) the interview with Peter Joseph on TheMarker. The removal of these references is surprising in view of the fact that there is already an existing reference to (another) RT interview with Peter Joseph on this (TZM) wiki page. Having access to the two additional RT interviews (and the TheMarker interview) could allow a reader of this TZM wiki page to gain further knowledge on the views/ ideas/ proposed-solutions of TZM, esp. considering some readers' comments alluding to the fact they still don't understand what TZM is all about even after reading the TZM wiki page. If the already-existing RT reference is relevant and acceptable, why aren't the two proposed RT references (and the TheMarker reference) also relevant and acceptable? Thanks and regards. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In answer to (1), what you believe is irrelevant. Unless you can provide a reliable source that makes the link between Albus and TZM, his book doesn't merit referring to. As for links, see WP:ELNO: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid... Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming". And the article need not contain repetitive links to multiple sources that aren't actually being cited for statements. If people want to find out more about what TZM's position is, we have already provided a link to their website. Given the failure of anyone to actually provide a useful published source for what TZM thinks, it is hardly surprising that our article is inadequate in that respect - but that is down to the fact that such sources appear not to exist, and until they do, we cannot report on it. This is an article about TZM, based on published sources. It is not TZM's article about themselves. That is the way Wikipedia works... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully I probably disagree on almost every point. (a) I agree we should not link to a petition. (Although the FWC is a charter, thus I'm not sure the authors of WP:ELNO would classify it as a classic petition.) But please note that WP:ELNO also states that "one should generally avoid: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I think I established above that the two external links are relevant resources and thus there would have been a high probability that the two external links would be included in the article if it became a featured article. (b) I'm not sure what is meant by 'repetitive links'. The references/ resources already provided on this TZM wiki page and the three additional articles I proposed (two interviews with PJ on RT, and one print article published in TheMarker {Israel} offering a relatively detailed analysis/ study of the key ideas/ positions/ proposals of TZM, based in part on an interview with PJ) are not 'repetitive'. Yes, I agree that all interviews/ articles on TZM (including those already listed on the TZM wiki page e.g. the RT, NYT and HuffPo articles) have some areas of overlap/ repetition, but that is only natural because in each public/ TV/ newspaper/ media appearance/ interview, PJ (or any representative of TZM) is asked to repeat the key ideas/ key positions of TZM. But all the aforementioned articles and interviews on TZM are also distinct and each offers some thing(s) the others don't, and together, collectively, they contain more information/ insights/ knowledge/ analysis of TZM than any subset of the same articles and interviews (the sum is larger than any part). Arbitrarily limiting the access of the readers to a subset of the larger possible set of articles and interviews deprives the reader of readily-available further insights/ perspectives/ knowledge of the ideas and positions of TZM.... Anyway, thanks for providing feedback and for your time and effort. I'm looking forward to reading all answers and comments on these inquiries. Warm regards and take care, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review your amendment for examples of 'repetitive links'. You have cited in one place seven references and in another, eleven, some with the most tenuous of connections. It is irrelevant that they "collectively... contain more information", their inclusion is dependent upon them directly and objectively supporting the material in the article. This has already been explained to you previously.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edits

"... The movement campaigns against the "monetary-market" economy which they argue should be replaced with a resource-based economy in which money would serve no purpose. The movement is critical of fractional reserve banking ..." This is confusing. Isn't the latter part of this quote somewhat redundant? Fractional-reserve banking is a subset of banking, which, in turn, is a subset of a monetary-market economy. Since the movement advocates against the monetary market economy - the superset - and argues for its replacement with an economy without money, then the movement automatically advocates for the abolition of subsets such as all forms of banking, including sub-subsets such as fractional reserve banking... I propose shortening the above to: "The movement advocates against the "monetary-market" economy which they argue should be replaced with a resource-based economy in which money would serve no purpose." Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Zeitgeist Movement was inspired by Peter Joseph's film Zeitgeist: Addendum,[2] the latter of which described The Venus Project as a possible solution." I'm confused by the term 'the latter of which'. What does 'the latter' refer to? Does it refer to the latter portion of the film, as opposed to the former portion of the movie? Or does it try to distinguish between Peter Joseph and his film? I think the sentence would be clearer if the term 'the latter of which' was removed entirely. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The descriptions/ analysis from Globes, TheMarker and the NYT are provided by the journalists; these citations cite the journalists, not TZM members. They cite what the journalists reported to their readers, not what the TZM members told the journalists. Also note that in the RT interviews the journalist (Lauren Lyster) makes specific allegations/ challenges (for example challenging the TZM member on utopia, technological unemployment, etc.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why were my additions to 'See Also' removed? These links to wiki pages satisfy wikipedia:see also. No explanation was provided for this arbitrary removal of valid material. This was not a proper action. A careful reading and close study of Anarchist communism, Communalism (political philosophy), Direct democracy and Technological unemployment would reveal that these come very close to describing TZM's ideas/ positions. So why were they removed? By the way, they were added separately originally, in a separate edit from, for example, the citing of journalistic sources. So even if there was an issue with the other edits, there's no excuse this time to delete these additions to 'See Also'. One cannot escape the thought that perhaps these wiki pages were not read at all (or perhaps not read properly, maybe there was a comprehension problem?) before a quick, convenient, easy reach for the 'delete' button.... Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that editors please study the materials carefully, go over them a few times to improve comprehension and understanding. Further study could help the reader realize that the citations are valid (verifiable). Thanks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the allegations that the edits are 'promotional' and that the edits suffer from a 'sourcing problem' are absolutely ridiculous. These characterizations of the edits are baseless, unjustified and unsupported by the facts, since these published sources are independent and verifiable, and since these sources contain both a description of some of TZM's positions as well as severe criticism of these positions. And please see my comment above regarding the edits to 'See Also.' If anything, the rampant censorship on this page is promotional and problematic - promoting the POV of the censor(s), which deleted valid, verifiable citings from reliable indep. sources. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing 'rampant' with this article is the endless bullshit coming from the supporters of TZM. Frankly, if they are representative of the movement as a whole, it is unsurprising how little attention the movement gets. Endless whining about 'censorship', ludicrous conspiracy theories, and a complete inability to grasp the concept that this isn't TZMs article seem to me indicative of rampant lack of clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is fully agreed this should not be TZM's article about themselves. That's why I would like to read a careful explanation on why the edits were removed/ deleted. I think we would all also agree that dismissing citations from independent (non-TZM-affiliated), published, verifiable sources (The NYT, Globes, TheMarker, RT) by simply characterizing them as 'bullshit', 'promotional' or 'problematic', does not constitute a valid explanation as to why these citations were removed. The citations from these four sources satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. At least one editor of this page is/are still awaiting a rational, clear, convincing, well-supported explanation to justify why, exactly, these citations were removed. (And similarly, a convincing explanation is also needed for the removal of the links to wiki pages that were included under 'See Also' -- please see my longer comment above regarding the 'See Also' issue). Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why were 'see also links removed'? "A careful reading and close study of Anarchist communism, Communalism (political philosophy), Direct democracy and Technological unemployment would reveal that these come very close to describing TZM's ideas/ positions". Once again you are adding material based on your own opinion. Find sources that make the link between 'Anarchist communism' etc and TZM and we can consider their relevance. AS for the sources you'd cited, the question has to be, what were they being cited for? If this [7] revert is the one you are referring to, it seems to me that the sources were being used as a cover for yet more badly-written, unencyclopaedic promotional fluff. And does TZM really think that it invented the phrase "international bankers"? If proper sources are provided, anyone of reasonable competence should be able to explain what TZM stands for, from the sources themselves. And if such sources can't be found, the article cannot be justified. As I've already pointed out, published TZM material can be used to some extent - but only for what they explicitly say. If TZM claim to be anarcho-communists, for instance, we can quote them on it - as a statement of their claims, rather than as a factual assertion. Otherwise, nothing belongs in the article that cannot be verified from proper sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Regarding the issue of 'See Also', please note that your requirement to "Find sources that make the link between 'Anarchist communism' etc and TZM" is not part of wikipedia:see also. Instead, wikipedia:see also states: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." I'll be happy to provide such annotations, if necessary. Please also note that wikipedia:see also additionally states: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages." Based on all this, (as well as on wikipedia:Use common sense) I have still not seen a convincing argument on why the aforementioned links don't belong in the 'See Also' section.

Regarding the second issue, that of the removal of citations from verifiable, independent, published sources, it is claimed that "it seems to me that the sources were being used as a cover for yet more badly-written, unencyclopaedic promotional fluff." Again, this does not constitute a coherent, rational, convincing, fully-justified reasoning not to include the citations. As already indicated several times over the last 4 days, these citations cite what the journalists are reporting to their readers and not what TZM is telling the journalists. (By the way, TZM members are also quoted at length in these published articles, but none of the citations that were provided in the edits to this TZM page were based on quotes from TZM members; the edits were based strictly on what the journalists were describing or analyzing to their readers, in the journalists' words [not TZM's words]).

I'm not sure how I can respond to the allegation of 'cover for...' Is the editor indirectly accusing another editor of not acting in good faith, or is the editor making some another accusation of having some other ulterior motive? Or something else? Not sure.

As for the allegation of 'promotional fluff', may I refer the editor to Wikipedia:FLUFFYBUNNIES. (a) The published sources that have been deleted are independent of TZM, and (b) the descriptions and analysis of TZM's positions/ ideas provided in the deleted citations are verifiable. Both (a) and (b) negate the empty allegation of 'promotional fluff'. It is legitimate for an editor to have a POV of TZM's positions/ ideas that disagrees with the description and analysis provided by these particular independent journalists. If that is the case, this is not a sufficient justification to delete/ remove the citations from these verifiable, published sources; instead, any editor who has a different POV from the analysis and descriptions provided by the quoted/ cited journalists should, as editors have indicated many times on this page, find his/ her own verifiable, independent, published sources that present contrasting, differing sets of description and analysis, and cite from these sources.

Next, I don't know how to respond to the allegation of 'badly written' except to characterize it as an attempt at a personal insult that does not contribute to this conversation. A more constructive form of criticism or feedback would be to actually study the aforementioned verifiable, published sources and employ the editors' writing skills to improve upon any text which an editor may consider to be 'badly written'.

As for the allegation of 'unencyclopaedic', this is an extremely vague and generalized feedback/ criticism --- could the editor please be more specific (unless by 'unencyclopaedic' the editors means 'trivial fluff', which was addressed above).

Next: "And does TZM really think that it invented the phrase "international bankers"?" Um ... I'm not sure how to respond to this question, but I'll give it a try. As far as I know, no, TZM does not think it invented the phrase. I've seen the phrase used in the "Zeitgeist" film series. However, what I know about TZM's usage of the phrase is, of course, irrelevant - the only relevant issue is the words used by the journalist when he reported on the usage of the phrase. I'll gladly go over the original article, and over the citations from the journalist's description/ analysis of TZM, and try to re-ascertain and clarify what the journalist wrote, exactly, regarding the usage of the phrase 'international bankers' and how the phrase was used by the journalist vs. how the phrase was used by TZM, and I'll definitely consider the feedback provided here to improve the clarity and readability of the usage of the phrase to try to reduce/ eliminate any potential misunderstandings or confusion regarding 'international bankers'. I'll be happy to go several more times over the edit where the phrase is mentioned, and write a brief summary of my research on this talk page.

Next, the editor writes: "If proper sources are provided, anyone of reasonable competence should be able to explain what TZM stands for, from the sources themselves. And if such sources can't be found, the article cannot be justified. As I've already pointed out, published TZM material can be used to some extent - but only for what they explicitly say. If TZM claim to be anarcho-communists, for instance, we can quote them on it - as a statement of their claims, rather than as a factual assertion. Otherwise, nothing belongs in the article that cannot be verified from proper sources." Yes, I agree with all of the above. But is the editor implying that the sources listed above (NYT, Globes, TheMarker, RT) are improper, or that they are unverifiable? Not sure. If indeed it is implied the sources are improper or unverifiable, can the editor please explain why these sources are improper or unverifiable for this wiki page?

Next, the editor writes: "... from the sources themselves ..." This is confusing. Is it implied that, in general, wikipedia pages should restrict themselves to only providing links to (verifiable, of course) references, but refrain from providing relevant summaries/ descriptions/ analysis of the subject(s) of the wiki page, as discussed by the author of the source (in this case, the journalists)? Not sure if that's what is implied. Or is this implied only in particular, i.e., only regarding this wiki page, in a departure from the general?

"If such sources can't be found ...." But they have been found: they are listed above, and were included in the edits which have been removed/ deleted.

"... published TZM material can be used to some extent - but only for what they explicitly say. If TZM claim to be anarcho-communists, for instance, we can quote them on it - as a statement of their claims, rather than as a factual assertion." I'm in full agreement. (a) Again, please note the independent, verifiable, published resources listed above are definitely not published TZM material. (b) Yes, I fully agree we must make a clear distinction between a statement of TZM claims, as opposed to a factual assertion: we always must make this distinction abundantly clear. That's why, in my edits, I included, in addition to the independent, external, non-TZM-published material listed above, a citation from a TZM published material (The YouTube lecture by Jason Lord entitled 'Visualizing a System's Approach.') Based on both this lecture, as well as by TZM's response to a question in the RT interviews, I carefully wrote " ... the movement claims it does not believe in utopia and that, instead, it believes in a continuous, emergent, never-ending process ....'. The same applies to all my recent edits. I was very careful to use a neutral tone and include terms such as 'the movement claims,' 'TZM claims', 'in their view', 'they believe', etc.

But please also note that it can become extremely cumbersome, repetitious, tiresome and clunky to begin each fragment of a sentence, or even each sentence, with some variation of 'they claim that' or 'in their view'. Thus some sort of trade-off must be reached: Once an editor clearly, unequivocally, unambiguously establishes that the subject under discussion is what the movement believes, in subsequent sentences they should continue to make it clear they are describing the view of the movement, but the editor should also strive for clarity, readability, lack of "clunkiness" and the avoidance of tiresome, repetitious phrases. Here, if I may, could I make a suggestion. If a different editor feels that, at a critical point (or points) in the text, a qualifying phrase such as 'They believe that' or 'in their view', etc., is missing, then it may be a good idea, he/she should feel free to re-edit the text to insert the missing phrase. But that's very different from removing/ deleting the entire sentence, the entire paragraph and the entire citation/ description/ analysis, including all resources, leaving no trace of the originally contributed edit.

In summary of this lengthy response, at least one editor is still, four days later, waiting for a coherent, rational, well-supported, well-justified explanation as to why these citations (and 'See Also' links) don't belong on this wiki page. Thanks and warm regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Rather than writing long-winded screeds here that nobody is going to bother to read, how about giving us a short list of published sources which we can use to determine what TZM's politics are, so we can look at them for ourselves, and then come to a consensus as to how best to summarise them. And no, untranslated sources in Hebrew aren't much use. And we don't use copyright-violating links like the YouTube one appears to be as sources either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone just could not resist the temptation to lob yet another attempt at a personal insult ('long-winded screeds that nobody is going to read'). Again, this incivility does not contribute to the conversation (except in a negative way). The above lengthy post deconstructed every allegation/ complaint/ criticism provided, and, out of respect and compassion for the editor who posted the allegations/ feedback, and for the larger group of editors of this page, the above lengthy post attempted to fully address and respond to each and every item, point by point. Yet the response to my attempt at a comprehensive, in-depth, careful discourse was an insult.

OK. Now, regarding your specific suggestion: you already know perfectly well what the short list of sources would contain -- they are all the sources that have been removed/ deleted from the page over the last 4 days, and are fully listed in the link you provided in your previous post here on this talk page. Regarding the Hebrew articles, any editor can easily use a free online translation service (such as google translate, for example) to translate to english, and/or use Wikipedia:Translation to gain access to other potential translation sources. In the next few days, I will post the translations of the 2 Hebrew articles here on this talk page. (If any editor is aware of a more suitable location/ space on wikipedia to post such articles, please comment below.)

Moreover, I'm not sure what you mean by "copyright-violating links like the YouTube one appears to be" -- are you talking about the Jason Lord lecture Visualizing a Systems Approach? If that's the case, why do you think it appears to have violated copyright? Please provide some details. By the way, all YouTube videos that I sourced (Jason Lord, and the two RT interviews with TZM [which are also available on the RT website]) adhere to Standard YouTube Licenses - Creative Commons.

Finally, I am open to the suggestion of formally providing a short list of verifiable sources and using it to try to build consensus. But before I commit to formally agreeing, I would like to invite all editors of this page to comment on any and all aspects of this suggestion. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia pages before linking them, Wikipedia:Translation relates to requesting translations of articles of foreign-language Wikipedia articles into English: "Note that this page is not for requesting translations of copyrighted sources outside Wikipedia". As for copyright issues regarding YouTube, Wikipedia cannot take the declaration by the person submitting the video to YouTube that it doesn't violate copyright as sufficient evidence that it is legitimate - if there are any reasonable grounds for doubt over this, we don't link such sites. If you wish to cite a YouTube video in an article, you will almost certainly have to provide better evidence regarding its copyright status. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Andy's proposal is a good idea and I am glad that you are receptive to "providing a short list of verifiable sources" that you wish to include in the article. Large amounts of information are being added, sometimes poorly attributed, along with a host of links and sources which are not all suitable, making it difficult to isolate and preserve the positive additions. As a side note, you might find this article useful.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback on the copyright issues and on paragraphs. (I've now broken my original lengthy posts into shorter paragraphs to improve readability).

And you are right, Wikipedia:Translation is not the right page. Sorry, my mistake. I believe the correct page is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (section on Foreign-language quotations). According to this page, if I understand it correctly, only direct quotations from our two Hebrew sources should appear in English translation. How would you prefer to proceed from here? We have two options: (a) Would you like to view the translations of only those sections that I used in my original citations on April 27, or (b) would you prefer to have access to the translations of the full text of the two Hebrew articles? My own preference would be for the first option, since translating the full text of the articles is very time consuming, and since the full text contains lengthy statements by TZM members, statements which might be pointless to translate because we ignore them, since we are not citing them on this page. Please advise as to your preference. Best, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at what Google translate makes of the article, I'm unsure what particular use it really is anyway. The paragraph it was used to source is basically repeating the statements of TZM supporters, rather than any actual analysis by Globes itself. Why de we need an article in Hebrew to source this? More to the point, doesn't TZM publish anything itself which actually explains its politics? We don't need secondary sources which tell us what TZM supporters advocate - we can cite the movement itself for this. There also seem to be contradictions between the views of TZM as described in Globes, [8] and those in the NYT article - [9] the latter seemingly portraying a world where "machines would control government and industry" (which incidentally hardly fits in with suggestions that TZM advocates anarchist communism). And both appear to be discussing the Venus project as being central to TZM - which as I understand it is no longer the case. Again, we need sources which clarify such matters. Maybe I should see if I can find some sources myself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A good resource to learn about TZM positions is the TZM Q&A (a link to which already exists on this wiki page). However we cannot rely on this Q&A page exclusively, because per wikipedia policies I believe we need to avoid self-published sources. In contrast, the Globes article and the TheMarker article are the kind of sources wikipedia policies prefer: verifiable and independent of TZM (non-affiliated with TZM). These are mainstream-media publications (in Israel), and again wikipedia generally prefers mainstream media sources. Globes is a financial/ politics journal mostly geared towards older, white, male, high-income, affluent readers. TheMarker is also a a financial/ politics journal but it is mostly geared towards younger, more ethnically diverse, both male and female, engineers/ scientists/ doctors and other professionals/ skilled workers/ etc., middle- to-higher-income readers.

From quickly browsing other wiki pages on policies regarding citing references/ sources, it seems the kind of potential contradictions you outlined are not rare --- they seem to be normal, a somewhat expected and relatively common occurrence. Please read my translation of the Globes article, it may actually show that the contradictions you alluded to may actually be much smaller than it seems. Regarding anarchist communism, from studying the TZM Q&A it seems TZM has a good deal of overlap with anarchist communism, but the two philosophies are not identical, which is one of the reasons anarchist communism was included in the 'See Also' section and not under, say, 'Activities' of TZM. Regarding the issue of the Venus Project, I suggest we not worry about the issue of the differences between TVP and TZM as it is not critical to the understanding of TZM's ideas: focusing on the differences, rather than the similarities, between TVP and TZM could potentially distract us from focusing our editing efforts on providing (verifiable) descriptions/ analysis of more important TZM positions/ ideas. For example, it may be more important to relay to the reader the fact that a resource-based economy is essentially the basis of both organizations. Best, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"A good resource to learn about TZM positions is the TZM Q&A" No, unfortunately not. Not because it is a primary source (which is perfectly acceptable in this context), but because it seems to consist of the same shallow and repetitious sloganizing that other sources have already reported. An encyclopaedic article about a political movement needs more than jargon about 'resource-based economies' and the like to actually pass on meaningful information to readers. As for your comments about what is and what isn't "critical to the understanding of TZM's ideas", says who? Yet again, you are trying to tell us what the article should be about without providing any sources to back it up. Why should we take the word of an anonymous contributor on this? We don't. If TZM are incapable of explaining their politics in plain English (which from my research seems to be the case), then Wikipedia isn't going to do it for them. Can I suggest, that as a TZM supporter (which I presume you are), you suggest that they find a literate supporter to actually explain in some sort of publication (without buzz-words and jargon), what it is that the movement is trying to achieve? So far, all I seem to be able to ascertain is that (a) they don't like the existing capitalist economic system, and (b) they want to replace it with something else based on 'the scientific method', and technology - but the form this 'something else' would take seems to veer from 'a dictatorship of the machinery' to anarcho-geekist utopianism, without ever actually being explicitly defined. Until TZM tell the world what they stand for in comprehensible language, Wikipedia can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"... the form this 'something else' would take seems to veer from 'a dictatorship of the machinery' to anarcho-geekist utopianism, without ever actually being explicitly defined. Until TZM tell the world what they stand for in comprehensible language, Wikipedia can't."

In the sequel, I'll list a large number of sources. Before rushing to respond that these sources are not verifiable and should be disqualified from citing on this wiki page, please note that I'm not implying that all, or any, of these sources should be directly cited on this TZM wiki page. I'm providing these sources/ references as part of my response to the comment above to help the editor find his own answers to his questions, not necessarily as a suggestion for inclusion on the page available to the general public. (End of Disclaimer.)

From spending many tens of hours (a) viewing the dozens of TZM lectures, documentaries, presentations, town-hall meetings, Q&A sessions (post town-hall meetings, post-presentations, etc.), (b) reading the materials on the TZM website (including e.g. their Q&A, the TZM blog postings, their newsletters, their weekly audio podcasts, etc.), (c) studying the references which were deleted from my April 27 edits, (d) translating the Hebrew articles into English (the translation of the TheMarker article will be posted in a few days), (e) studying the materials on The Venus Project website, (f) studying the book by Jacque Fresco, (g) and more, from a careful study of all these sources, it seems TZM does not claim to have all the details of all the solutions to all the world's problems. They seem to admit, in several different places, that the solutions they advocate are general, big-picture in nature. The movement seems to believe that its proposed solutions are more of an overview of the solution, a general description of the outline of the solutions, than an attempt to provide explicit details. They seem to claim they are an educational/ awareness organization that, at least up to date, has seemingly focused, they claim, mostly on trying to articulate what they believe is the problem, why they believe these are problems, what, in their view, is the impact of these problems on humanity, and a general overview of what they believe is the solution.

They seem to claim that the fine details of their proposed solutions, the more explicit details, should be worked out by qualified people --- engineers, scientists, physicians, skilled workers, teachers, artists, etc. --- and not by filmmakers (such as the creator of the Zeitgeist film series), not by supporters of TZM or TVP, and not by politicians, lawyers, bankers, corporate CEOs, etc. The movement seems to advocate that only people who have specific, proven, verifiable knowledge and skills in specific areas should contribute to these areas. TZM seems to claim that the process of providing the necessary details of the solutions should be the domain of the creative, innovative forces within humanity itself - and not the domain TZM. They also seem to believe that this process will be continuous, evolving, emergent, never-ending, without a finality. They seem to believe that the process of solving humanity's problems will be an adaptive process, always adapting to new innovations and new discoveries in science, technology, the arts, education, healthcare, etc. They seem to believe that, as a result of all of the above, nobody can provide the explicit details, indeed that nobody should provide the details; they seem to believe that it would be futile, impractical, impossible and a waste of time to attempt to articulate, at this time, the details of the solutions, because, as already mentioned above, they believe that the scientifically correct - i.e., scientific-method-based - solutions need to emerge naturally and evolve and adapt to rapid changes, as already mentioned above. Moreover, they seem to claim they believe in a flat (horizontal) method of decision making (similar, they seem to claim to believe, to an adhocracy, wikipedia, BSD, bottom-up decision making, etc.) and thus it seems they believe that it would be against their core principles to advocate for imposing, from above, any precise details of the solutions (for example, the precise details of the role of machines in decision making).

In summary, TZM seems to believe that they are trying to tell the world what they stand for in a comprehensible language (although they claim they are open to feedback in order to continue to improve the comprehension of their positions/ ideas). However, at the same time, TZM seems to believe that their solutions cannot be - moreover, should not be - too explicitly defined: they seem to believe that it is best to leave it up to you, and everybody else you know, and indeed everybody else in the world, all working cooperatively and in solidarity, to decide, in a truly democratic fashion, (but without the interference and limitations imposed, in their view, by financial considerations, or imposed by any form of top-down decision making, or imposed by any movements, including TZM), on more explicit definitions of their (currently more generalized) proposed solutions.

I hope this helps. But please note that, as explained above, an attempt to pin-point precisely, with almost-infinite precision, the explicit details of TZM's solutions, i.e., an attempt to remove all ambiguity and individual interpretation and individual understanding of TZM's solutions, is doomed to fail from the start, by definition, and would only result in further lengthy delay of the development of this wiki page. Wikipedia pages are not written to accomplish the impossible dream that each and every reader of the same page must reach the same exact understanding, insights and comprehension of the subject. Fully uniform understanding/ comprehension of Wikipedia subjects does not seem to be a goal of Wikipedia. Instead, from quickly browsing wiki policies/ rules/ regulations regarding citing references/ sources, it seems the kind of potential contradictions, potential lack of full comprehension of the topic, potential lack of full understanding of the subject, potential lack of full (100%) clarity, are not rare in Wikipedia. In other words, it seems that some reasonable level of potential ambiguity in Wikipedia subjects is normal, a somewhat expected and relatively common occurrence, and should not be used as a reason for wholesale, easily-accomplished, quick deletion of valid citations from verifiable, independent, published sources, and removal of valid additions to the 'See Also' section.

As I already mentioned, in the next few days I will post the translation of the TheMarker article. After that, in an effort to move the editing process forward instead of continuing to spend enormous amounts of time on responding to comments, I would like to invite all editors to propose specific citations and quotations [of the journalists, not TZM members] from our numerous existing verifiable sources for inclusion on this TZM wiki page. (I'm referring to the verifiable sources which have been deleted wholesale from my April 27 edits: the translations of the Globes and TheMarker articles, the NYT article, The HuffPo article, the 3 RT interviews, etc.)

Best, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I'll soon propose a specific addition to the article based on the translation of the Globes and TheMarker references, at which time an editor could, if he wishes to do so, for example, insert some sort of qualifier regarding what he perceives as an apparent contradiction between sources, and, for example, some sort of qualifier regarding what he perceives as an apparent issue w.r.t. the Venus project. And yes, I agree, correct attribution will be necessary.

By the way, with respect to perception of the TVP issue, any quote or citation from the Globes translation will identify the Hebrew original and clearly state that the (Hebrew) original was published in 2010, which was prior to the separation between TVP and TZM; note the current version of this TZM wiki article states that "... The film described The Venus Project as a possible solution..." "...Until a split in 2011, the movement acted as the activist arm of The Venus Project, and still advocates for a global society where resources are sustainably shared...." Thus, the reader would be able to independently compare the info provided in the Globes reference to the info in the TheMarker reference, which was published in Jan. 2012, (and to the RT interviews in Nov. & Dec. 2011 and Feb. 2012) and the reader would be able to decide, for themselves, independently on their own, the current relevance of the material in the Globes reference.

Thus, I would suggest we consider waiting until I post the translation of the TheMarker article before we discuss the TZM/ TVP separation issue further.

(A minor issue: earlier I promised I'll get back to you on the issue of the term 'International Bankers'. In this case, the journalist was alluding to the fact that this term is of the spirit of the times, i.e., of the Zeitgeist.)

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation of Globes article on TZM

"Imagine," by Tzaela Kotler, Globes, March 18, 2010. Original Hebrew article available at: http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000547764.

Translated from Hebrew to English by IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Imagine

Money is an outdated concept that should be discarded, the world will be based on resources and not based on profits, anyone would be able to live anywhere they want and do whatever they want without having to work. The machines will work and engineers will govern, not politicians. Welcome to the future. Or not.

By Tzaela Kotler

It's eight thirty in the evening on a sweaty Wednesday in March 2010. A good time to change the world, and at "Sub Kutz Scholarship" restaurant in the Florentine district, 25 young people who are determined to do so have gathered. A young woman named Spring, with fluorescent green dyed hair, takes a seat, Dor with with the wild hair sits down beside her, Tom Levy, the ponytailed redhead settles down, and, fashionably late, some fresh "India veterans" arrive slowly and are received with smiles.

Ophir Avigad, 23, opens the meeting and asks each person to introduce himself or herself and describe why he or she came here, to the place from which the message of the revolution will begin to spread. Shay says he is searching for the future, Oz is determined to do things more important than the daily routine, others say they just came to listen, while Joab with the thick sideburns humorously concludes "I'm here to meet girls."

Relax, it's not an audition for the next season of "Big Brother" or some other TV reality show. The youth of the Israeli branch of the global Zeitgeist movement are interested in reality itself. The ideological basis of the movement is a transition from a money-based economy to a resource-based economy, and in other words: a world without stock certificates, money-notes or coins in people's pockets, and without any financial interest. The monetary system, they claim, is not adequate for our times and harms humanity. Money is actually rolling debt, and the democratic model does not really allow freedom. According to their method, the answer for a corrected, civilized society lies in science and technology - and then there will be no more poverty, social gaps and wars. All that technology and science need to do is disconnect from commercial considerations, and provide access to the resources for all human beings, taking into consideration the environment, using renewable energy, and using advanced technology to manage and distribute the resources to enable abundance for everyone.

Sounds delusional? Not to over a thousand Israelis that are members in the movement and operate cells in Tel Aviv, Haifa and soon in Jerusalem too, and not to nearly 400 thousand activists around the world (see map on next page). The future, as has been widely laid-out on the movement's Web site, is designed around cities drowning in wild greenery, in round structures emerging from the sea, in clean and efficient transportation, and egg-shaped cars; images that seem to have been taken from a movie, and not coincidentally. The Zeitgeist Movement (Zeitgeist is 'the spirit of the times' in German) indeed started with the film created by the American activist Peter Joseph in 2007, that swept millions of viewers and fans across the World Wide Web. The film, with a conspiratorial nature, dealt with the sources of religion and the economic system, and raises questions regarding the interests that drive the global economy and world politics.

In light of this success, Joseph created a sequel in which he connected with Jacque Fresco, a 94-year-old scientist and industrial designer, who has conceived, created and is focused, over the last several decades, on the Venus project, conducted in Florida. The Project, in which Fresco himself resides, is a kind of a prototype for a city in a utopian world, that can exist provided that money, politics, property and the legal system will exit the equation of our lives. "The Venus project is different from all the models that existed before it," says Roxanne Meadows, Fresco's partner. "It's not similar to socialism, communism or fascism. Power is in the hands of the mass of humanity, the hindrance is that not enough people are familiar with the Venus project and are aware of it."

When, to your opinion, would the vision be realized?

"Maybe when a sufficient number of people lose their jobs and lose their homes, they will sober up and realize that the political leaders can not solve problems. Then they will start looking for other, alternative solutions".

"People will not buy houses"

It is easy to dismiss out of hand the highly alternative ideas offered by the members of the movement. Most people live their daily routine, and prefer fewer shocks in their lives, whatever the cost. The world that the young people gathered in Florentine yearn for, who on last Saturday marked, for the first time in Israel, ZDAY, the global Zeitgeist Day, is built for internalization. "In the Venus Project there is no property," says Yuval Katz, 25. "This concept is difficult for a person who grew up in the existing system to understand, and it sounds distant. People will not buy homes, because there would not be money, they just would choose their home and they would also be able to replace it when they would like to switch to a another home, based on their wishes. Because there would be no meaning to property, there will not be the desire, familiar to us today, to own the biggest and most expensive home. The demand would be for a house that would be appropriate for the person at a specific period, whether in the city or the village - whether a house suitable for the artist or the engineer. There is plenty of land, and there will be an abundance of housing."

Who will build the buildings? Who will pave the roads?

"There will be machines that would construct the buildings, and humans would oversee the process. This is what actually happens today - I stand on a roof in Tel Aviv and see tall buildings being constructed mostly by machines. The technology already exists and there is no need to invent it, so to a large extent we already are in the Venus Project. The problem is that it's simply expensive for the owners of the companies and there are commercial interests, so it does not materialize. To a large extent, the machines have already liberated us, it is us who have not liberated ourselves. "

It's all good and beautiful, but what would be the incentive for future engineers to put their mind to future developments and innovations if their actions would not have any economic horizons?

"The classic answer to that is open-source software. We see that today people contribute and develop something new for the benefit of humanity. Most people who study for a doctorate in mathematics, for example, know that a financial reward does not await them at the end, but they study the subject anyway."

Who's going to manage this society? Politicians? Mayors?

"No. Our conception of politics today and the payment of taxes is wrong. The reason we elect representative officials, whether for the state government or a municipality, is so that they would serve us, but it's not what happens. What has the Prime Minister done for you lately? Our taxes do not really return to us. It is not the politicians who build our roads, but rather the engineers who are planning and executing. The politicians may make decisions, but none of them is a professional or a scientist. Moreover, even for basic needs such as water and electricity, taxes and politics do not address our needs. And we all pay for these too."

If we cancel the money, then we would not be required to work for a living. What would the billions of human beings do?

"People do not lack things to do, we all have lots of hobbies, but people forget them because they work all their lives. The Venus Project encourages learning and mastering many areas; a person can learn both music and physics, he or she will have the freedom to do all of these on the road to true self-actualization, and there would still be jobs in society - such as supervising the machines".

But why would we want to work if we do not get rewarded?

"The remuneration we would receive is internal, a feeling that the person gives of himself or herself and as a result society sustains itself. People think it is a naive idea, but the fact is that Israel has tens of thousands of people in non-profit organizations and people get things done and contribute, despite the fact there is no monetary reward. I do not think people will miss the incentive to make money, and in the meantime, until we get there, you can reduce the work hours. "

What does that mean?

"You can see how in plants when new machinery is introduced, which replaces manual labor, they fire half the workers. Why fire? It is possible to keep all the workers and reduce the work hours, to give people freedom. Of course under the model of the Venus Project many professions will disappear from the world because these professions would be superfluous, for example advertising. Then these advertising professionals will perform work that is necessary and needed, and reduce the work burden on others. The media and communication professions will change too, and it is possible to see it happening already today, with the development of the Internet. "

And what about laws, would they all be eliminated?

"Our contention is that in an evolving, developing society there is no need for laws. Laws create negative conditioning, according to studies, and in a society that is truly advanced we should have seen a reduction in the number of laws. The only law I recognize is 'Do not hurt others', in the full variety of all its meanings."

What about wars and conflicts, chaos and anarchy, how do we solve it?

"One of the first things to do is share the wealth, then we will witness a reduction in aggression. Statistically, educated people are less violent, and when the society is more educated the entire society is less inclined to violence. So, first you have to share the abundance, provide food for everyone, and then provide education to all the people who demand it, then, statistically, the rates of violence in society are supposed to decline".

"Money is not correct in our time period"

It is difficult not to hear the words, draw a half smile at the corner of the mouth and establish that these are the words of dreamers that will never be realized. "But once they also claimed that humans would not get to the moon or fly," responds Tom Levy, 20 years old, "and then two people showed up, the Wright Brothers, who were actually bicycle technicians, and because they were not exposed to these limitations they succeeded in their endeavors. It's the same thing today: to a person living in a world full of wars, disease and hunger it seems impossible to live in a world devoid of all these, but this is due to lack of knowledge. Already today there is advanced technology controlled by the elite, there is peace in small pockets, and plenty of abundance in still smaller pockets. We are saying it is possible to deepen these pockets. Money was right for a certain period of human life, but it's not right anymore for our period of time."

"Like everyone else," continues Levi, who is also responsible for the Internet website of the movement in this country, "I became acquainted with the subject after I viewed the first film, which shocked my perception of reality. Then I watched the second movie, where the director succeeds in delivering a large motivation for change and solution. I took that message into my own hands, and simply started to establish every platform I could to join other people who share this vision."

"Many people realize that the present system is problematic," continues Katz. "I do not know of even a single person who claims that our way of life is wonderful. Everyone knows there are problems and that the current system is distorted, but we are not educated to seek solutions. The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement encourage solutions."

"At one of the meetings a request was made that we provide a lecture at an alternative youth seminar," says Ophir Avigad. "We downloaded a presentation from the movement's global website and translated it. We provided a lecture in front of fourty youth, who drank the contents with a passion. After the first lecture we realized it was an excellent tool to convey the ideas, so we turned to Salon Mazal (Information Center for Social Change in Tel Aviv, T. K.) six months ago, and asked to deliver an additional lecture, to practice. Then the idea was floated to lecture in colleges and universities. I turned to the dean of Sapir College, we met, and although he was cynical about the ideas he provided us with a lecture room. We prepared a new lecture, and it was amazing. The students stayed two hours after it was over and asked more questions. We lectured as well at the University of Beersheba, in front of 65 students. In the upcoming Boombamela Festival and in the Activism Festival to be held in May, we will establish an information booth for the movement. My message to those interested is that it is not necessary to be in agreement with the ideas of Zeitgeist, but it is important to recognize them".

"What is special about lecturing to 16-17 year-olds," adds Katz, "is that although they have been quite embedded in the system and its methodology, there is still a portion of them who are used to learning new things. Adults find it more difficult to accept new ideas."

Moses Mankin, 27, who runs the Zeitgeist group on the social network Facebook, addresses the audience of those who raise their eyebrows: "The name of the movement is not that important, and even the Venus Project is not the main point. The main principle is to give a chance, to hear. Our group actually believes in providing a forum for every idea calling for progress, calling for improvement of living and quality of life. If someone has another idea or project that he thinks can do good things for people, why not come and hear him? Even if you think this idea goes against your way of life, it is possible that you may discover a better way. At least listen. " Convinced?

What would you like to add to the article based on this translation? Bear in mind Andy's previous observations of apparent contradictions between sources, that this describes the position of the Venus project from which TZM has separated (so I am uncertain as to its current relevance), and that correct attribution will be necessary.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation of TheMarker article on TZM

"The Filmmaker Who Recruited Millions for the Protests of the Bottom 99%: Everyone is Busy Trying to Survive," by Asher Shechter, TheMarker, January 19, 2012. Link to original Hebrew article: http://www.themarker.com/markerweek/1.1620957

Translated from Hebrew to English by IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Filmmaker Who Recruited Millions for the Protests of the Bottom 99%: Everyone is Busy Trying to Survive"

Peter Joseph was a minor artist until a documentary film he created received tens of millions of views. In an interview with TheMarker he lays out his philosophy and explains a redesign of the economy

Zeitgeist (Zeitgeist in German): the spirit of the times; the collection of ideas and world-views characterizing a time period, distinguishing the social and cultural atmosphere of the age.

Peter Joseph had never planned to become a full-time activist, a cultural icon or a prophet of doom, until an audience of believers knocked on his door and demanded it of him. Joseph, a rather shy filmmaker and performance artist from New York, always felt something was wrong in the world, that he was not being told the whole truth, that the world's real managers make dubious deals in dark rooms at public expense, which at the time has not yet earned the nickname "the 99%".

He was disgusted by the corporate world and felt disgusted with himself, for he was, he said, enslaved to the system, but could not find a way to express it or escape the cycle of debt and bondage. In 2007 he created a documentary film called "Zeitgeist", designed to accompany an art exhibit he held in Brooklyn. It was a personal project designed to allow him to feel better about himself and his place in the world. Then he posted the film on to the Internet.

What happened next can only be described as a wildfire. The film, which combined conspiracy theories about world religions and the capitalist system and a harangue against the corrupt nature of the global socio-economic system, was posted for free viewing on the World Wide Web and spread extremely fast.

Millions watched the film, web-surfers shared it on Facebook and other sites, posted it on video sites and quoted it on blogs. The video quickly became a Web phenomenon, and Joseph became a guru for hundreds of thousands of activists, skeptics, and just plain lovers of conspiracy theories. In an era when relativism of truth is a fait accompli, the film became for many a trusted reflection of the truth, or of the spirit of the times.

"It was not an average documentary film, it was much more abstract than a normal movie. The film is designed to take people on a journey, make them think about extreme things, which is why it was so effective. That was also the reason that many did not like the film, but it was an art project, not a documentary. It was designed to inspire. My other films are much more traditional," says Joseph, 33, in an interview with Markerweek in advance of his visit to Israel next month.

On February 6, Joseph will speak at the Z-Fest Tel Aviv 2012 event, to be held at the Zionists of America (ZOA) House. The event was organized by the Zeitgeist Movement Israel Branch, the Israeli J14 protest site, the Cooperative for Renewable Energy and the Admama Center for Sustainability.

(Photo caption: Demonstrations on Wall Street: We are the 99%.)

The first Zeitgeist film was, to say the least, controversial. It amassed tens of millions of views online (Joseph in 2009 estimated that more than 50 million people watched the film), and along with them much criticism, too. The film, which is reminiscent of a video art project more than serious investigative reporting, starts with a debunking of the Christian faith and the other monotheist religions, claiming that much of the beliefs and traditions related to them were borrowed from pagan astrological doctrines, before turning to its true purpose: the bankers.

According to the film, the economy and modern society were enslaved, since the early 20th century, to an international group of bankers, that led the U.S. to World War I and II and the wars in Vietnam and Iraq to increase the bankers' economic power.

To do so, said Joseph, they created the Federal Reserve bank, which forced the U.S. into the wars so that the US would borrow money from the bank, and engineered events such as the sinking of the British ship Lusitania - that contributed to the U.S. entry into the First World War - and the attack on Pearl Harbor that led the U.S. to enter World War II.

The September 11 attacks, Joseph claims in the film, were the result of a government conspiracy designed to sow fear among the public, and to allow the regime to limit democracy and freedom of expression and strengthen the control of the financiers and politicians on the public. Their goal, he claimed in the film, is to unite the U.S., Canada and Mexico into one state, on the road to the final goal - a single government ruling the world.

The evidence presented by Joseph in the movie was, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity. Nevertheless, Joseph received severe criticism: criticism in the "Irish Times" called the movie "absolute nonsense" and accused Joseph that his surrealistic claims stain real struggles against real problems.

However, despite the criticism, the film was a huge success. The film successfully captured the spirit of the times, and addressed a generation raised on conspiracy films and a reality which tries with all its might to prove how much these films were right. The correctness of his claims was not critical: the skeptical tone of things was what attracted many, who knew that reality is not as it seems.

Today, with two sequels behind him, and while he is busy creating a fourth film in the series, Peter Joseph is more relaxed. He is now a full-time activist, and spends most of his time promoting global economic and social change. The success of the first film and the second film "Zeitgeist: Addendum", which he released in 2008, were used to establish the Zeitgeist Movement, which seeks to change the economic and social system and holds, he says, more than 1,000 branches operating in 70 countries around the world.

(Photo caption: a poster for 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward', the third movie in the Zeitgeist series.)

The members of the movement are mainly engaged in raising awareness on the issues discussed in the films regarding the inherent unsustainability and the structural corruption of the current socio-economic system. They endeavor to raise consciousness through, among other things, 'ZDay', the yearly Zeitgeist Day, that the movement holds every year from 2009 to date, and which will take place this year on March 10th.

Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film - an updated version of the film, released in 2010, dropped the claim on the unification of the U.S., Canada and Mexico - and argues that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because they are designed to create a dramatic effect. "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do. "

Even if you do not agree with everything Joseph says - and large portions of the claims and conclusions of the members of the Zeitgeist movement may sound far-reaching even to particularly radical readers - it is impossible to ignore the underground currents that the movement represented. The Zeitgeist Movement symbolizes the atmosphere of suspicion and doubt in all the government agencies and large businesses with which an entire generation came of age, a generation which witnessed in recent years how reality aligns itself even with the most delusional conspiracies - as the doings of "international bankers", to use the Zeitgeist term, delivered a major blow to the global economy.

Zeitgeist found a following among the tens of millions of people, because it speaks to the two most dominant components in our lives today: the fear of change, and the knowledge that change is certain to come. When the global economy is in an unprecedented crisis caused by the financial industry, and social activists in the West complain of restrictions on democratic rights and corrupt connections between the wealthy elite and politicians, it is understandable how Zeitgeist has become a representative of the spirit of the times.

Joseph says he does not particularly care for the celebrity status forced upon him as a result of the success of the films. He does not even have a public-relation picture of himself. The movement, he says, was formed almost by necessity. "The first film was a personal project. I did not have a production company, I had nothing. I uploaded it online just to see if I'll receive any reactions. I did not think it will become a hit, but it led me to create the second film. Following the reactions I had to form the movement. The reactions to the second film were so strong, and the community relations so strong - people burning CDs with the movies, asking what to do next - that I wanted to allow this community that was created to form itself, thus giving birth to the movement. "

Today, as discussed earlier, Joseph distances himself as far as possible from conspiracies. "There is no conspiracies," says Joseph. "I'm not interested in conspiracies, because every element of society today is conspiratorial. This is a system based on ruthless competition between individual humans, between countries, between corporations. Every person and every party is competing for contracts, jobs, and resources. This is world today - one big self interest. This is the major flaw of the system, because everyone is busy surviving and nobody wants to think for the long term. Every political party, every country, every corporation and every person are concerned with their personal survival and fighting the others. Each party or each person advances at the expense of someone else. This is theory of the market. No one is willing to work together in a way that is necessary to our survival as a species. To me, this is anti-economics.

"I present information that leads people to understand that we are not being told the truth, that we have problems in our socio-economic system that make the system corrupt in nature. When I talked about the conspiracy to hide the truth about the September 11 attacks, I did not do more than display information, but some people would say that this is a conspiracy theory. To claim 'conspiracy' is an easy way to avoid dealing with the information and to deter people, because no one wants to be associated with the margins of society and to see the film on the conspiracy. It's a great way to control people. "

The first film in the Zeitgeist series was released at the same time as the subprime crisis which brought down the U.S. economy. The second film, which expands on the arguments of the first, was released almost simultaneously with the escalating financial crisis after the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, in the background of central banks rescuing the major banks using public funds without transparency.

In June 2011, when the third film "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" was released and criticized the current monetary system, claiming it could lead only to one of two possible scenarios - insolvency or hyper-inflation, Joseph's claims sounded, to many people, less delusional. The European debt crisis was in full swing and the United States, too, seemed to teeter on the brink of insolvency, in the midst of the debt ceiling crisis. Currently Joseph is working on a fourth film, which he said will focus on criticisms of beliefs, value systems and dominant institutions in society, and would raise the question: "Is your value system and belief system sustainable?"

In a certain sense Joseph is also the prophet of the global protest movement that erupted around the world four years after the release of the first Zeitgeist movie, and reflected faithfully the spirit of skepticism of the film regarding the actions of the governing authorities, bankers, and the distorted relationships between them. The third movie also described a scenario of a dramatic global uprising. "I do not know what was the impact of the movies on the protest", he says, "There are all kinds of speculation on the matter. I will not be surprised if the films planted a few seeds here and there".

Last fall, Joseph appeared in the protest tent of the Occupy movement in Los Angeles and spoke to those present. "The current period is an incredible moment of open-mindedness. I do not know if the global protests will lead to something tangible, but if so, we are working so that we can assist it. At this stage there is nothing much that can be done. I do not want to create a government which would impose its ideas on others. I want to liberate people's consciousness and cause humanity to share a common vision. The only way to do this is to plant seeds and hope they will grow."

The future, he predicts, will do only good for the movement he heads. "2012 will be really ugly, I do not look forward to it. The largest natural disaster imaginable is happening right now before our eyes, and that is the failure of our socio-economic system. The real natural disaster is the human catastrophe which is happening now. This will serve as a tremendous catalyst for the movement. Over a billion people are starving, we are burning through our resources quickly, and instability is increasing. I do not see us continuing in this process for long, unless we are willing to transition from a state of a billion hungry people to a state of 2-3 billion hungry people and widespread environmental destruction."

The future belongs to computers

Joseph was born in 1978 in North Carolina to a middle-class family, to a postman father and a social worker mother. From childhood he showed an interest in music and art, and doubts about the validity of social norms. "I never liked people telling me what to do."

He enrolled as an undergraduate student, but left during his second year of college, even as he aspired to become a classical musician - according to him, because he understood that the debt he accumulated as a student "was not worth it". The U.S. higher education system, he claims, was intended to impose such a huge debt burden on you, "that once you leave the university you will become a slave to the system." He began to work in video editing and later found himself in the advertising industry. After he resigned, according to him because he hated the industry, he began to play in the stock market to earn some money, and did so for years. According to him, he managed to earn a moderate profit.

In 2007 he created the first Zeitgeist film. After he released the second movie he established the Zeitgeist Movement, which he said was intended to change the global economic and social system through technology and science. "I never expected anything like this. It does not suit my character to stand aggressively in front of something. The way in which we operate the movement is by empowering other people all over the world. They all work without a leadership structure. It is very dangerous to be a leader.

If there is anything that should disappear from the world, then that is the concept of individual leaders, whether it is a president or a parliament. It is an outdated, obsolete idea that encourages a personality cult, and as it continues people just continue to follow it. I do not want to be seen as a source of authority, I have no power. I'm just explaining what I think and what I do, and hope people will understand".

He can not explain the fact that both he and many of the revolutionaries around the world, including Daphni Leef and many initiators of the social protest in Israel, are filmmakers. "I guess it's easier than writing a book," he laughs. "But yes, I guess my artistic background allows me to be more open to new ideas. Einstein and other famous thinkers were also creative people. In the movement we have lots of artists and scientists."

His main partner since the publication of the second film is Jacque Fresco, an engineer, industrial designer and futurist. Fresco is a 95 year old Frenchman who in the 1970s created what came to be known as the "Venus Project" - which is trying to promote the transformation of the global economy to a "resource-based economy" in which money will not play a role, and the allocation of resources, products and services would be managed by computers that will provide for the needs of the residents according to supply and demand.

Yes, you read that correctly: According to these theories, the future economy will be managed by computers. And if that sounds like a recipe for a futuristic-dystopian movie in the style of "Terminator" or "The Matrix", where machines rule the human race and exploit it to their benefit, then, says Joseph, you have seen too many movies.

"I meet so many people who are afraid of this idea, and when you think about it this fear is quite silly. First of all, already today machines make decisions for us. Machines are more efficient and faster. When you drive a car or when you are doing something else, pay the rent for example, you make technical decisions irrespective of your race, nationality or religion. In the future no one will sit in a room and design cars. A computer will plan it, think which design is the most effective and what is the most efficient way to produce it. I can not think at my best all the time, I can not compete with a calculator.

"The use of machines for making decisions and social management, in the broadest sense, is the next step in our evolution. I do not understand why people may be afraid of that if we already do it today. If cars will drive themselves, accidents will disappear almost completely. It just shows how these concerns are obsolete. With the aid of computers we can gather people who will reshape the world, we can feed everyone, provide everyone with a good quality of life. All that is needed is that we change our values. Today, the present system is based on a large and inefficient battle, which bites into the social and natural resources of the planet. If we continue to conduct ourselves this way, it may lead to the extinction of humanity."

In addition to Fresco, says Joseph, he was also influenced by the architect, inventor and philosopher Buckminster Fuller, inventor of the geodetic dome, who dealt at length with the way humanity needs to manage the earth's resources. "We live today in a system of anti-economics. Our system is not effective, and in fact is driven by lack of efficiency. The physical and mental diseases from which we suffer, the shoddy education, the money that is not invested in education and infrastructure, are all the result of a system collapsing into itself. We're trying to invent a serious social approach, which takes into account all of humanity and the planet, because we cannot continue with our current approach".

Expand the sense of survival

What distinguishes the Zeitgeist movement, according to Joseph, is that it aims not only to change the economic system, but to turn upside-down the entire design of society. The Zeitgeist is an extreme voice, both in its ideological background and in its requirements for the future. But it represents, perhaps more than any other movement, the spirit of the general chaos that exists in the world today - a world where current methods are bankrupt, and a new method, even if extreme, may find a foothold in the public discourse. The Zeitgeist films address an audience who knows not to accept everything the movies say as sacrosanct. The goal, he says, is to instill in people the spirit of things, not the facts, so that they would work to change the system.

"In my view, all the crimes in the world are the product of the system itself. The social system is based on a very old, obsolete way of thinking - 'survival of the fittest' - which is based on the assumption that there are not enough resources. The grand unfolding, in my view, is that there are sufficient resources and have always been, but we did not have the required technology to realize this. We never thought of designing a city where food production would be organic and local, and it can be done easily using semi-automatic systems which will take care that no one would go hungry. We have solar power and geothermal energy that can be converted into electrical energy. We all know today that we can feed all the people in the world, but we do not do it. The question is why.

"The current system is inefficient and destructive, and if we won't pull ourselves together, and soon, the system will destroy us. In China, for example, some of the cities are so polluted you can hardly live in them, and they can not become more efficient, because efficiency is expensive and it will hurt growth. Our system operates on inefficiency. Efficiency is the opposite of what leads to GDP growth, new jobs and the movement of cash. Therefore there is no chance that the system will survive, because it is fighting efficiency."

On his way to changing the economic system Joseph needs to deal with quite a few bumps and obstacles. First, a matter of degrees: Western culture, he says, is obsessed with the importance it attaches to academic degrees. "They say I'm just a musician," he said in a documentary filmed in 2009. "Throughout history, the thinkers who pointed to the biggest failures are those who arrived from outside the system. Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian doctor who raised the possibility of bacteria and called for doctors to wash their hands, died penniless in a mental hospital. They believed he was crazy.

"The establishment has always fought those who used scientific knowledge in a way that unsettled the establishment and the status-quo. In every intellectual class, and especially in the academic world, there is a desire to preserve all that they have learned. It is particularly common among economists. It's like a religion. But I'm not excited. To be a thinker of culture means to live at the margins of society. The Wright brothers, among the greatest inventors, and Nicola Tesla, the most prominent electrical engineer, were on the margins of society. That's where you can always find great people."

Another obstacle is perhaps the greatest: human nature. The idea that a global society will be conducted efficiently and peacefully, where the responsibility for the allocation of limited resources would be placed on computers, without wars breaking out for control, itself sounds like science fiction. "We are so divided. Since the beginning of humanity we are fighting, and this can not continue. Today we have nuclear weapons. We have technology that can destroy large parts of the planet and destroy us.

"I agree our nature is to want to live at all costs. If the circumstances are such that we have to fight to live, that's what we will do. But what if our sense of survival expands, what if we learn that we should work together to survive? I do not deny human nature, but it always depends on the environment. Our interest is our survival as a species. In the short term you can fight, but in the long run it can kill you. The only solution is to adjust to a way of thinking that is not based on conflict. "

At the moment, Joseph is not showing optimism. "The likely scenario for the future is an ongoing breakdown. What is happening now is unprecedented, and it has no solution because governments are trying to solve the problem using the same methods that created the problem. In the short term I do not see a positive future. But in the longer term, after a "sufficient" number of wars and conflicts and riots, people will understand that fighting is not helplful. At this stage new social approaches will appear, and they will be promoted by movements like ours. We are only one movement among many, and we do not invent new ideas here. A new group of people, probably technology people, will start working on a method for resource management that will not include the anarchy of the modern market, where everyone does whatever they want with the money, and they will try to find a way to allow civilization to survive.

"The problem is the value system. Most of us grew up under terrible circumstances, so we only care about our personal interests. I did not grow up in a wealthy environment, and everybody were concerned only about themselves. I still have these aspects in my personality, and I can not free myself from them. It will take an entire generation to see the results of this deterioration in values, because we have to overcome our emotional baggage, which hitherto seemed to us to be normal. In an ideal world, governments would join forces to create a method that will lead us to an economy with efficient and economical management of resources, with a public health system that would take care of all of us. It can happen, but I doubt whether it would ever happen. There are too many conflicts, and everyone only care for themselves ".

The crises reinforce the extremists

The Zeitgeist Movement's message is extreme for many, but the fact that it is voiced at a time of an almost unprecedented economic crisis makes it much more popular than could have been during the boom that preceded the financial crisis. Economic crises, after all, lead people to listen to conspiracy theories, and many times increase the demand for change and the extent of change required.

Previous economic crises also led to the rise of extremist movements that promised to revolutionize the system. Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany rose to power largely thanks to the widespread resentment created in the public after the economic crises that occurred in these countries in the 30s of the last century.

In 1932, after NationalBank, one of Germany's largest banks, collapsed following the financial crisis, the number of unemployed people in Germany jumped to more than 6 million. Hyper-inflation and the continuing deterioration in the living standards made life in Germany intolerable, allowing the Germans to believe the theories of the Nazis on a bunch of Jewish "international bankers" which brought down the world economy to derive a profit. Those years led to a revolutionary mindset on the left, too, and to a blossoming in the activities of revolutionary movements on the left and right wings - which created the chaotic atmosphere of the time. Soon the public demanded the restoration of order, and this led to the rise of Hitler.

Even the current crisis, the worst since the 1930s, is characterized by escalating demands on the left and the right to change the economic and social system. On the left side of the political map it ignited, in the meantime, the Occupy protest in the U.S. and the global protest movement. On the right side of the map it ignited the American Tea Party movement. In Hungary an extreme right-wing political party came into power, known by its official name as "The Movement for a Better Hungary", and it seems that the country is on the fast lane to a fascist regime.

Last November the British newspaper "The Independent" warned that the world would suffer from years of social unrest and instability because of the economic crisis, which is expected to only worsen. The Economist Nouriel Roubini of New York University, who already in 2006 predicted the crisis, warned that the popular protests that erupted in the Arab world, Israel, Greece and the U.S. will spread and intensify in the coming years - in parallel with the growing crisis of capitalism.