Talk:Peter Joseph

Room for Improvement

As per WP:BLP, this page is in poor form as a bio for a famous person. Work should be made to improve it to better represent Wikipedia standards, along with being something people would gain important biographical data. There is a wealth of data on Joseph online. I also propose a section on his lectures as well, which are many and notable. JWilson0923 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, someone keeps putting a link to Jacque Fresco in the intro summary. This is not needed for an intro as it isn't relevant to Joseph personal work as a whole.JWilson0923 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - "Relevant" is "not relevant" to a discussion about content. It comes down to WP:WEIGHT. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming Joseph is famous does not give a good argument one way or another. His lectures are mostly self published. He is eternally associated with J. Fresco because the two bonded at one time and Joseph made his later movies wound around ideas from Fresco and acknowledged that at the time. So historically they are forever linked in a notable way. He has to be mentioned therefore as integral to Joseph's thinking because of being his mentor. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you have returned the edit again. The Who Is Peter Joseph link to a sort of biography is not a reliable source. It is possibly also not real having been done by Peter Joseph himself and perhaps passed off as a real bio on the internet. It is unknown about that for sure but speculation is pretty rampant that Peter Joseph himself may have made the bio and placed it online [1]. We just plain do not know and erring on the side of caution is best. We do know that the person doing the interview 'Charles Robinson' does not seem to exist outside of the 'interview'. Please do not re-add until this is cleared up. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in but EARL, your points are speculative and hence irrelevant to the policy of Wikipedia. And Fresco and PJ are no longer in association and, according the Zeitgeist Film Series Wikipedia, the zeitgeist movement is "based on Peter's films" not the venus project. PJ has also sourced numerous people, many more than Fresco in his work/activism and many would argue his work today is more in line with technocracy or Buckminster Fuller than venus project. To say Fresco is also "mentor" is total speculation/opinion. He put him in a film and promoted his work for a while. That's it. Fresco is irrelevant to PJ's personal bio. Likewise, if you do not have real evidence, linked to a notable online source like a news report, that peter "made his own interview".....or whatever... you have nothing but speculation, opinion and POV once again. No credibility to anything you are saying here. 12.130.117.66 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As said the link that was returned is not a good source and there is speculation that Peter Joseph himself made the interview and posted it on the internet. Unless it can be established who the person is that made the interview and its source it is not a reliable source. It is not from a news group. It is not from a pulished source that is known. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Was almost scared to come here for fear of being labeled, but this seems like an easy problem to fix. First, there is no reason to have the link to his bio as support for content. This is a self-published source. I see no reason to have it, especially since there are dozens of other sources supporting the same sentence. Which brings me to my next point.........there is no need to have a dozen sources for one sentence. Putting more sources at the end of a sentence does not make the statement stronger. Not sure why there is so much debate over this guy or his movies but making something neutral shouldn't be as difficult as it seems from the threads on this talk page. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you think this is not so good check out the Zeitgeist film series. The threads on the talk page are about impossible at least for me to figure out. People doggedly involved and I do think its a result of the Facebook call to edit. Your point about multiple over sourcing is taken. It made the sentence look odd with that many citations. I do not think we know who made the interview you removed but it does not appear to be a good reference citation I agree. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That one looks like a mess that will take a while to figure out.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Earl. So, I did my due diligence to review your edit history and I have to say you are quite an avid editor of all things "peter joseph" and "zeitgeist". In fact, you seem to be an almost "one topic" wikipedia editor... which makes your activity rather suspect, wouldn't you say? Do you have some personal vendetta against peter and zeitgeist? Your recorded archive of comments and edits give you away as far as POV and your clear interest in being as negative and marginalizing as possible. It is truly sad that Wikipedia gets turned into a playground for people who simply dislike a person or group. This isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.JWilson0923 (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at edit history has nothing to do with the discussion here. If you have an issue with an editor, there are places to air your grievances. Making accusations against editors is not going to help your argument here. In fact, it will likely hurt it as personal attacks are not very welcome on Wikipedia. Please stick to the point if you want to discuss an issue on the talk page. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone's time - that is, those wanting to improve the article.--TTTommy111 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk about content and not other editors or it can be construed as a personal attack. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been working through edits in my sandbox and posted a rewrite of the article. I was on the fence with the documentary (Who is Peter Joseph?) due to the claims of it being made by Mr. Joseph himself. However, there is really no need as the information can be sourced from other references so I think we just don't include it to be on the safe side with this being a BLP. I added back the Huff Post article as a reference as although it is a blog, this should not discredit the source. The writer has a history of articles on the site and the Huffington Post is not citizen journalism. They have a process they use to allow people to post. And, if it is like any other contributor platform, editors from the Huffington Post review the content and determine what goes live and what doesn't. Either way, I believe the content is neutral and includes information that everyone has been debating about. I am still not sure why there is a huge fuss about the contents of the article. Most of this debate is something for off-Wikipedia. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are not forbidden in Wikipedia articles; on the contrary, they may be quite helpful when referring to facts about themselves. Please see WP:Reliable sources. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor grammar edit

The sentence "The movement proposes an alternative economic model call a Natural Law Resource-Based Economy" should have the word "call" changed to "called". Awethentic (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I've amended it to read "described as..." since that reads better - they are proposing an economic system, rather than a name for it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Peter joseph (B. Feb. 4th 1979, Winston-Salem, NC, USA) http://peterjoseph.info/biography/

200.71.251.111 (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 05:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Politics, Occupy etc

Please use credible secondary sources according to wikipedia policy for claims of political activism. Huffington post article is ok for mentioning he supports occupy but it is not what the subject is primarily notable for, so it should go later in the body and not in the lead paragraph as it is not WP:DUE. --Slicape (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Claims of political activism are not given in the edit just that he supports, works for and is a speaker at those occupy events. It probably is a major portion of who this person is if he does this and it is cited information. It should be in the lead if he lectures, speaks at these events as well as the body. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Because some one supports an occupy event does not change his profession to a political activist like you inferred. That is great exaggeration. Same for lecturing. If a film maker lectures or a gets a board memebership of a project does not change a person's primary reason of fame, popularity or notability. Almost all flim makers are lecturers or have other side activities but that does not change their profession and should not change anything in their intro. Mentioning in article later on is Ok. Your edit is at best WP:SYNTH. Please discuss before further changes. --Slicape (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Obviously Occupy is political and he is involved in trying to change the political system. Its not cool to accuse editors of edit warring on content disputes so please cease and desist. The information is cited and no one mentioned political activist after the first edit so your appraisal is not accurate. Earl King Jr.

The reference does not mention he is a political activist. Inferring from a reference that he is a political activist because the reference mentions he lectured at a political movement is WP:SYNTH and a form of WP:OR. Doing that will be breaking wikipedia rules. So you are wrong. Edit war only happens onnnn content disputes and it is not cool to edit war which you did by reverting 4 times. My message on your talkpage was not harassment. I only warned you not to break wikipedia rules as you had made 3 reverts and asked you to discuss on talkpage. Your 4th edit is also changing text in the article [2] but I am being cool as you did not revert me in that edit. Calling a normal warning harassment is actually a violation of rules as well. Please keep the discussion civil and away from accusations.

I know you did not add "political activist" after first edit but the other edit is not neutral as well. Please follow WP:NPOV in your other claims as well. I did not remove your whole edit. So you should be willing to discuss as well. Please give your argument against WP:DUE. Otherwise I think your edit is present later in the body and we should move on. --Slicape (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Earl King you should decide changes on article with consensus. Why are you doing everything alone again and again? You failed consensus in one change and you are changing different text to add your other opinion. --Slicape (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Very thin Profile here

I recently learned that Mr. Joseph directed a music video based on his film series by legendary band Black Sabbath (which the band won a Grammy.) The song is called "God Is Dead?" Source:https://blabbermouth.net/news/black-sabbath-taps-controversial-filmmaker-peter-joseph-for-god-is-dead-video

Seems like a notable point to list on Wikipedia profile. 2603:6081:8500:CB77:DCB9:260B:BD04:BED2 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, a basic filmography would be helpful. Considering he has just finished his fifth feature film (along with two books and his television series)

Films: Zeitgeist The Movie (2007) (Netflix & Gravitas Ventures) Zeitgeist Addendum (2009)(Netflix & Gravitas Ventures) Zeitgeist Moving Forward (2011) (Netflix & Gravitas Ventures) Zeitgeist Requiem (2024) (Unknown) InterReflections I (2020) (Gravitas Ventures) Culture in Decline (2013) (Passion River Films)

"God is Dead?" Black Sabbath Official Music Video (2013)

The Zeitgeist Movement Defined (2014)

The New Human Rights Movement (2016) by Ben Bella Books Publishing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:8500:CB77:DCB9:260B:BD04:BED2 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)