Talk:Peter Joseph/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Concerted Attack

The article and talk page have been under an aggressive attack by meats and socks pro and con for a while [1] I assume most people know that here. Protecting things long term is good. Conspiracy related aspects are now being spilled over to the actual neutral editors here in regard to a sort of call to arms to members to come here and turn the article into their Faq's material type presentation while trying to expose neutral editors as part of the grand conspiracy. I guess its funny in some ways and illustrative of something but I won't get into 'what'. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note from uninvolved admin: if you ignore the obvious meatpuppets above (69.26.138.251, 2605:E000:23C3:E300:EC29:C793:2C5A:7F94, Pilagatto, Yv6eda, MrDasturd, Rodazol, Dustay14, Zaithe), most of whom have made exactly one edit to the encyclopedia, I see a clear consensus for a merge. P.S. I've removed the irritating <ref></ref> footnote, which merely pointed to a Wikipedia article. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

I'm going to abstain. However, I would say there is a majority for merge, but not a consensus @Marty2Hotty: was for keeping the article separate. It's probably best to tag both articles with the merge templates, and give people time to respond.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. Its interesting how anyone who supports an "Oppose" is a "meatpuppet" and anyone who wants to merge, which has zero reason or merit outside clear BIAS POV, is deemed a pro-zeitgeist "Meatpuppet".186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)— 186.64.176.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Maybe that's because you were obviously recruited by Zeitgeist members and don't actually know or care how this site works? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, so if I am not an advanced wikipedia editor I am therefor a "meatpuppet" and "recruited by Zeitgeist"? 186.64.176.133 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's because your only interest is in promoting Peter Joseph and Zeitgeist, and you've demonstrated little interest in the site's policies and guidelines beyond misrepresenting them however you can to those aims. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say merge already for the reasons given under that discussion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposed. Again, he is an activist, is on the Board of Project Peace on Earth, produces music videos, has been featured in documentaries such as "CrossRoads", has been on endless new stations as an activist speaking on cultural issues, spoken at occupy wall street, has major awards, and produced a video for one of the largest bands in history. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)— 186.64.176.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You've already stated your preference, stating it multiple times only makes you look like an incompetent sockpuppeteer. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As have you. Yet you make yourself look like a biased POV editor with an ax to grind 186.64.176.133 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Opposing a merge. WP:NPOV goes both ways. Just because there seems to be a "concerted attack" doesn't mean everything is justified. WP:Notability is clearly met. There are interviews (in many formats - including a full length documentary - and from a variety of sources). Additionally Joseph started a social movement and created a wide array of popular works - it's not just the "Zeitgeist" movie series so it's unjustified to merge it there. There's neither a consensus to merge nor are there any considerable reasons to do so. --Fixuture (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What is Peterson notable for outside of the Zeitgeist series and it's resulting movement? Nothing. Even the Black Sabbath video he did reused Zeitgeist footage, and he was only chosen for it because he was the guy who made Zeitgeist. The offsite calls for attacks are irrelevant in both directions. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And that is way enough. What you're doing here, probably unwittingly (WP:AGF), is moving the goalposts - Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. There is no need for, even though more exist, further points - a hugely popular documentary series and initiating a global movement is enough to meet the requirements. There are however wiki-articles on non-notable persons, I recommend you challenge those. --Fixuture (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really, I'm just pointing to the already existing goal posts of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG, which I haven't touched. Joseph himself needs notability outside of Zeitgeist, or else the material about him should be an "author/founder" section of the Zeitgeist article. The series and movement being notable makes Zeitgeist notable, but it does not make Joseph notable enough for his own article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

His notability rests in the Zeitgeist movies and the effect of having 'announced' his social movement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, his notability rests with his activism as a whole, which is why he has been brought on major TV networks and given lectures across the world for 6 years. It is very clear, after reading this page, that a very bias POV is occurring, trying to marginalize Mr. Joseph's global recognition and high level status as a media persona. This is tantamount to vandalism. I will also add that the Black Sabbath video makes him beyond notable and it means nothing that the content of the video had Zeitgeist footage. Zeitgeist related or not in content, it is a major video produced for a major band. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)— 186.64.176.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Read WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF, and present mainstream academic or journalistic sources that discuss his notability outside of Zeitgeist. As was already explained, the Black Sabbath video obviously falls under his Zeitgeist fame. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. You can say that about anything and it is a biased POV, pure and simple. Any chain of causality links to prior events. Black Sabbath is its own thing, along with about a dozen other notable achievements by Peter. Your claim is bogus and the fact you sit around trying to destroy Peter Joseph's page is amazing. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"You can say that about anything" -- No, I can't. George Lucas is famous for Star Wars, American Graffiti, Indiana Jones, and so on. He's famous for directing, producing, and writing lots of stuff, not just his pet project and his attempts to shove that pet project into a band's music video.

The fact that you're wasting your time being a shill for Joseph is disappointing. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Now I am a "shill" for seeking neutrality? Peter Joseph is beyond famous for things outside Zeitgeist. Sorry to disappoint you and thank you for being highly insulting.186.64.176.133 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your "neutrality" is nothing but WP:ADVOCACY for Joseph and TZM, censorship of anything displeasing to either, and no interest in site policies beyond WP:WIKILAWYERING name-dropping -- ergo "shill," if not "tendentious shill." Your only actions. That you have no prior interest in the site (unless you're just another sock of one of the many blocked editors), have no interest outside of this topic, and only care about making TZM look more presentable makes you look like yet another TZM zealot. Notice that I've not addressed User:Fixuture in this way, just you. The best thing you could do for both the site and TZM is back off. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As much as it serves your personal interest to declare such things, here is the reality: I don't care about "TZM". I am here because this page is viable and meets all wikipedia requirements.It has been up for 6 years and has only been validated over time by increased media attention and secondary sourcing. From the fame of film trilogy, to the Black Sabbath music video, to his many lectures across the world, to his dozens of high profile interviews in TV networks, Joseph is beyond notable and only people who should "backoff" are people like yourself who clearly wish to vandalize this page by a forced merger to further marginalize his work.186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally Joseph started a social movement and created a wide array of popular works I suggest the I.P. in the above tone down and would agree with Ian Thomson that with the deluge of Zeitgeist people here it gets annoying to say the least. Joseph has limited notability. He created some movies and released one on Google Movies and then it went to Youtube. He announced a movement. Are social movements announced really? He profits from sales of his information. Basic information of any recent activity of Joseph is lacking as in notable press. Zeitgeist the movie gave him some notability but it was also ripped apart and dismissed as much as it was given any meaningful press so we have to present that aspect also which is sourced. We can not let the Zeitgeist people themselves write articles that are paraphrased FAQ's for their own group. Merge. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Joseph is distributed by many companies, including Sideways film, Gravitas Ventures and Passion River. His work is not just on "youtube" or "google" it is actually on Netflix and many other major modern media outlets. His profit sales are obvious as he runs a business for his film work. His notability is quite large and wide and, in fact, what "makes him" notable is not material in term of wikipedia policy. If he is notable - he is notable. You should opt for deletion not merger if there was any question. There is also no single credit in the many news accounts that makes him notable by secondary sourcing. Furthermore, he didn't "announce" the movement, he started one, the likes of which have been documented by the New York Times, Huffington Post and a dozen other agencies. Even neg news sources like The Marker or Tablet, with Micheal Goldberg, as much as she dislikes it, admits it is a global body of people working towards a common end. There are a dozen active websites and so forth. There are many international articles. It is pure biased POV to state he "announced" it and nothing more. There have been many event days and much press. Peter's apparent recent activity being "lacking" or not has no basis in Wikipedia as it isn't based on time. If that were the case, dead people would have their Wikipedia pages removed. As far as "letting Zeitgeist people..." No, people here are trying to improve this article are actual normal people with a neutral bias. Your work to merge is clearly a form of vandalism. The Merge is baseless. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The only way it could be more obvious that you're a TZMer would be if your username was "TZM fan." Why does Zeitgeist have to be so dishonest in their advocacy? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but wrong again. I actually respect wikipedia and its purpose to provide neutral information to the public. This is a matter of principle. But thanks for the insults and confirmation of your ongoing vandalism. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You had better change your style because that style does not jive with editing Wikipedia. You don't call other editors vandals [2] for making edits for no reason as you are doing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Surname

Whether his surname is publicly known or not known, or any facts or speculation regarding such, should not be stated per WP:BLP. Unless it's a verifiable fact, it need not be stated that his "surname is not publicly known." It's irrelevant unless we can verify that. Laval (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Full name

Reference could be used to cite Peter Joseph's full name 'Peter Joseph Merola'? ref

Probably not needed. It does not matter really. He goes by his 'stage' name if you want to call it that. Its like calling Sting by his real name... not needed, plus originally he used the fake name to protect his family according to statements he made so no reason not to use his art name instead of his real moniker. You forgot to sign your post above. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean, "not needed"? Would you argue it is "not needed" to note Joseph Conrad's name was Korzeniowski, or that Marilyn Monroe was called Mortenson? Providing this type of detail is exactly what an encyclopedia is for. Either he is notable (passes WP:BIO) and in that case, not only is name but his biography is implied to be of public interest. Or alternatively, he does not in fact pass WP:BIO, in which this case this page can redirect to the "Zeitgeist" topic, and his name or biography would not be of encyclopedic interest.--dab (𒁳) 09:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The full name isn't need in the page name (which is usually title after their 'popular' name). However, I would support the inclusion of the full name in the body of the text, if the article is kept.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• That is a strong source to indicate his actual last name. But I do understand him wanting to protect his last name from the public. Marty2Hotty (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Snorregrimstad (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mercola has now been removed from above ref, archive here Jonpatterns (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)