Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

[Discussion] Banners Removed

I would propose these banners be removed (someone said we have to discuss their removal before actually removing them). My reasoning:

The banner states ..."remove excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links". Analyzing the Activism section we can first see that there is absolutely no trivia. So that's clear. Praise is making positive statements about something. The only even slightly remote possibility of praise is in the "ZDay" subsection were the word "numerous" is used. This word could be removed to make it more-so neutral. Other than this, all good to go. No criticism in the Actism section, so that's got a green light too. And all that remains is ensuring no "collections of links". There is one(1) link presented. Certainly not enough to be called a collection. So, to summarize, seems the banners can be removed for the Activism section, if not the entire wikipage.--FusionHalo 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer Indicted

What was the name of the tax lawyer interviewed in Part 3? Apparently she got indicted for tax evasion/fraud recently (which either will confirm what the conspiracy theorists believe, or prove that what she said in the documentary was nonsense... you still have to pay your taxes).

you know she was indicted for tax evasion but don't know her name? XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo (talk • contribs) 06:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see why this article should be deleted... it's an "internet phenomenon" if nothing else. So we keep articles on useless crap like "All Your Base" but want to remove this? Strange. It must be a (drumroll) CONSPIRACY!!! Sorry, couldn't resist! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.143.152 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say because it's a silly fiction. Nothing in the film has been proven - not one bit. America is still Christ, and Jesus spoke English, which is good enough for Americans. Let the film stand - it shows true Americans the absurdity of those who argue against the truth of Christ. Mwahcysl (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Silly fictitious films shouldn't be listed in Wikipedia? Better get busy. Also, "Jesus spoke English"? Are you a troll?? Universe Man (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

She was NOT indicted as implied above, I am doing research to find any credible media to back my claim, please allow me 7-10 days to post my follow up including proof that she was not indicted on any such charges before you go and delete this post. The fact that she was not indicted on a tax charge does not confirm any conspiracy regarding taxes because there is no conspiracy regarding taxes, there is only a lack of education about the tax codes and tax laws. A conspiracy is a hidden agenda, the tax codes and tax laws are written clearly for everyone to read. tucsonzeitgeist (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

More on student newspapers

Considering this diff (there has been a bit of attempt from anons at repeatedly removing this paragraph]. I realize today that it's sourced not simply to a student newspaper (Gauntlet (newspaper)), but to an opinion piece in that newspaper. This publication's reliability aside, I'm not seeing the significance of this opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is a student newspaper a credible source ??? -User:Vessol —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Agreed. I'm going to be bold and remove it. 67.175.160.108 (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Analysis at conspiracyscience.com

On 5 September 2008 I added a link to a detailed critical analysis of Zeitgeist in the external link section, but my edit was reverted. Why was it reverted? I ask because the analysis is serious, and heavily sourced. In the external link section there's "A critical analysis and response to the movie from a Christian perspective" which hasn't been removed. Why is this exceptable, when an evidence-based analysis isn't? The link I added was http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/ (be sure to check out the actual analysis, not just the introduction. part 1, part 2, part 3, sources). --Ole Eivind (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ConspiracyScience is not allowed because it isn't anywhere near a reliable source, and it is essentially prohibited to use an external link to link to content that would be prohibited by the original research guideline. And that there may be an unacceptable link (I haven't decided on the "Always be ready" link) is no excuse to include more. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Ole Eivind (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable and credible

What is up with the repeated phrase "notable and credible" in the part II section? The way it reads a) is poor writing and sounds unprofessional because of the redundancy and b) seems to be placed there to bolster the minority views put forth by the documentary, i.e. to make these minority claims sound "notable and credible". Wikipedia has guidelines on notability, and we aren't citing a single source in that section. I say the section needs sourcing and re-writing for neutrality (and the phrase "notable and credible" could be removed without adversely effecting the quality of the article). -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Since that part of the film is a tour of sources, a list of sources for that part of the film would be longer than a transcript of the film. In other words, the movie is like a WinZIP file, and your own research decompresses that WinZIP file. A proper summary is a compression, but this movie is already an air-tight compression, resulting in a film that's difficult to summarize, difficult to explain, and nearly impossible to represent properly in any media format. You can't debate the movie with someone who hasn't seen the movie, whereas -- in my experience -- most of my debates about the movie are attempts to get people to watch the movie. The repeating of the phrase "notable and credible", as an amplifier before mentioning the various topics for which there are sources, is the English language's most succinct offering of a way to summarize the parts of the movie which are a tour of mainstream sources that are generally deemed "Notable and Credible" ... even though it looks clunky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.152.45 (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Louis McFadden

"The film gives a history of the Reserve, claiming it engineered the Great Depression to steal wealth from the American population and was responsible for the assassination of Louis McFadden, a congressman who attempted to impeach the Reserve. In fact McFadden was not assassinated although two attempts were made on his life."

Section 3, it was stated there were two assassination attempts on McFadden's life. The movie then states that his food was poisoned at a banquet. The movie does not say that he was assassinated as a result of that poisoning. This should be removed.Hollyninwood (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)hollyninwood

Wow, great reading comprehension. But if we were to understand things so literally... Look, the article on Louis McFadden says: "There were two attempts on McFadden's life, a failed shooting and an apparent poisoning that made him "violently ill" after attending a political banquet in Washington." So it's obvious he died of poisoning.--Quinceps (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Either way let's look at what's important about these facts. Weather or not the movie alluded to him being assassinated or not, the man that was trying to impeach the reserve had two assassination attempts! The fact that the attempts were made is what is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesemaj (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Forced by the Federal Reserve?

What does this quote mean?

According to the film, the U.S. was forced by the Federal Reserve Bank to become embroiled in these wars not to win but to sustain conflict, ...

Is there really a point in the movie where they say this exact thing? The part that seems weird to me is the word "forced."

Should we change the word "forced" to something like "coerced?"

World War I casualty figures?

The film states that 323,000 Americans were killed in World War I. This figure of 323,000 spectacularly misleading; they added the number of American wounded to the number of deaths. In fact, the United States suffered 117,465 deaths in World War I, according to Wikipedia's table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.208.82 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Book citations without page numbers?

On the wikipedia Zeitgeist page is stated that "...while other publications have criticized it for using unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and book citations without page numbers.[13][14]". However, complete list of citations including page numbers are presented here:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/transcript.htm

My question is, why hasn't the claim of "book citations without page numbers" been removed yet. --Riose (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added a note that citations are now WITH page numbers --Riose (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed and rejected a year ago: Talk:Zeitgeist,_the_Movie/Archive_1#Response_to_Criticism. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No original research, now i understand. --Riose (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a drastic revision

As it is, this article mostly reads like an ad for the movie and mostly contains information available at the movie's promotional site, including a rather badly written summary of the movie and some images that are almost irrelevant. Presumably someone looking this movie up in the Wikipedia would be more interested in understanding the phenomenon of its appeal, in learning something meaningful about its makers and their motivation and in finding links to credible sources discussing and/or criticizing it than in reading a summary of the contents of the movie's site.Sardath (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What about possible brainwashing techniques used in the films, see here

That's not a reliable source. Which is actually takes us to the real issue that prevents making an article about this movie: This movie has almost no reliable sources to discuss it. Indeed, it is only barely notable. It's not a flaw with the article, or even with the subject; it's just a state of being. Some articles will never make it to featured article status, or even good article status. Some are just destined to be a bare description of the topic with a smattering of whatever marginal media coverage they have received. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with Someguy1221. Anyway I have tried to make the criticism section an accurate and honest reflection of what every single of the very few references in credible media have to say about the movie. And I have tried to make the tone of the rest of the article more neutral. Personally I think the images are redundant and the summary too long, given that this is not a major movie, and many major movies have shorter entries in the Wikipedia. However I'd rather be conservative about changes, in order not to piss off the movie's admirers. I personally think this movie is not exactly noteworthy itself, but given that it has impressed some people, the Wikipedia cannot avoid having an entry, so I think I've gone a little way towards making this entry respectable.Sardath (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movement link

Apparently there is a dispute on whether a link to the zeitgeist movement should be included on this page. I submit to you that this link not only fails to be a "should be linked" under Wikipedia:External links, but is also a "link to be avoided." Links that should be included are official sites, and sites hosting copies of relevant, primary material. Also sites with material that can't be included because of levels of detail or copyright issues, such as credits, interviews, statistics, textbooks, etc. Reliable reviews are also welcome. But this site is none of those things. So basically, a bunch of people got excited about the movie, started a website about the movement they made up, and then they (or new people who actually visted their website) went and vandalized some buildings. That doesn't get them an article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zeitgeist Movement), and it shouldn't get them a spam link on this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding the link back since it's consistent with the rules. You do not need to be making any further edits regarding either of the documentaries, considering you clearly haven't watched either. If you had, you'd know the site was not only setup by Peter Joseph, the maker of the documentaries, but it was also mentioned in the last few minutes of Zeitgeist: Addendum. It's frivolous to make a claim that a website with over 200k registered users was made by 'a bunch of excited people'. I repeat, you do NOT need to be making edits to a Wikipedia page regarding a documentary you clearly haven't the slightest clue about. You are clearly biased, we can see it in every nuance of your character. Abuse of the rules isn't pleasing to those of us making honest edits and contributions here, either.--Brandon Klinedinst 04:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy1221 here about the material OF the zeitgeist movement site; however, www.thezeitgeistmovement.com IS actually mentioned in the movie (Zeitgeist: Addendum), and thus as it is a part of the film, the link is not totally irrelevant. Greco italiano (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the link to thezeitgeistmovement.com web site is the culmination of the film, or call to action presented at the end, and it was created by the producer of the movie. It contains detailed informational material related to the movie. Removing the link claiming that it is an unrelated private web site which solicits donations for the Venus Project was incorrect. The movie ends with the link to the web site displayed on screen (around 2:03), and an encouragement to visit the Venus Project, and all profits from the Zeitgeist: Addendum DVD sales were donated to the Venus Project. The is stated on the official movie web site as well as linked in the movie. If you have not watched the movie, don't delete things claiming that they are not related to it. Noelhunter (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User Skipsievert continually removes the link, claiming that it is spam. I have explained why the link is included. He needs to either justify why the link, which is included in the movie, and is the official web site, should be removed, or resign from editing this page. Noelhunter (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Added to section in dispute, which probably needs immediate removal from the article... which I did and was reverted, by single purpose editor above. Being single purpose is not a prerogative, but it is telling in some cases, where promotion is an issue.

Attention user Noelhunter... you are going against consensus by adding advertising material and a glorified blog which as other users have noted... is not appropriate.

I will assume good faith here and not say that the single purpose editor above is not promoting the movie... the website... and who knows what else. It is a spam link plain and simple, and if it is added here may be subject to eventual blacklisting on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a promotional blog for peoples pet projects. That section is wholly inappropriate on the article page. It is an advertisement. skip sievert (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not come here and claim you have majority consensus when its just you removing it.

Or can we do an official vote to see what the majority consensus factually is?--Brandon Klinedinst 05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Attention Skipsievert... you do not know what you are talking about. The link IS IN THE MOVIE. The page IS ABOUT THE MOVIE. It is NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT, but an explanation of the activism inspired by the movie. The person who claims that is a blog is incorrect. It is the web site shown at the end of the movie with a "Join Us" invocation, and my comments on it are unbiased, simply listing the address, summarizing the content, and mentioning that the site contains discussion and criticism. All you need do is look at the 2 hour and 3 minute point in the movie to verify that I am correct. If you are not willing to do that, you have no business editing this page. And do not claim that your edit was majority consensus when you did not bother to address my entry in the discussion regarding it before undoing it. Noelhunter (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note the information above by Someguy1221. - Apparently there is a dispute on whether a link to the zeitgeist movement should be included on this page. I submit to you that this link not only fails to be a "should be linked" under Wikipedia:External links, but is also a "link to be avoided." Links that should be included are official sites, and sites hosting copies of relevant, primary material. Also sites with material that can't be included because of levels of detail or copyright issues, such as credits, interviews, statistics, textbooks, etc. Reliable reviews are also welcome. But this site is none of those things. So basically, a bunch of people got excited about the movie, started a website about the movement they made up, and then they (or new people who actually visted their website) went and vandalized some buildings. That doesn't get them an article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zeitgeist Movement), and it shouldn't get them a spam link on this page. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The link to The Zeitgeist Movement is an "official site". It contains primary material such as reference guides produced by the movies' creator. It is included IN THE MOVIE, and linked from the movie download site. It was not started by "a bunch of people," but by one pesron, the creator of the movie. I demand that the person claiming that it was cite his source, and that he explain how he can dispute its inclusion a 2:03 in the movie, and on the official download site for the movie: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ Noelhunter (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That being the case... then just giving the link to the official site, and leaveing it at that in the article makes sense... otherwise you are promoting a blog/forum on Wikipedia... not a good idea, because it does not fit the criteria for what it is being used for. Turning the article into a fan site... is apparently the issue here, and promoting a social movement. Since you appear to be a single purpose editor... this line of doing things is stretching credibility. That section needs to go. skip sievert (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There you go with your ridiculous claims again. Obvious bias with harmful intent to further his own agenda.

Skipsievert: When someone makes a movie that ends with a statement "Join Us," and an exhortation to go to a web site, and then the producer starts an activist movement with events scheduled globally, it's appropriate to mention that it an article about the movie. If you were writing about a Michael Moore movie, would you insist on leaving out any reference to his activist efforts? You do not seen to understand that it is the second movie which is promoting the movement. It is IN THE MOVIE, and this article is about the movie. On another topic, it's ironic that I went to some effort to find a credible media source critical of the movie (a radio show broadcast on the canadian broadcast system), you undid it, and then claimed that I was a single purpose editor linking a blog-- when the person linked called the movie a "tin foil hat zone." It doesn't work for me for you to UNDO my links to criticism, and they claim that I am biased. You need to familiarize yourself with the movie, and take a look at the content i linked under criticism, before you edit it. You are doing everyone a disservice with your cursory conclusions. Noelhunter (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

similarly, when I linked an article in the Arizona Republican as a reference for the statement that the movie was being shown independently, you deleted is as another promotion. Every link to a media source used as a reference is not a promotion. You either need to pick-- no references, or references that mention the movie. You can't really mention a movie being shown without it looking like a promotion, but you can't describe the activist nature of the movie's producer without citing independent showings and events. Please, if you feel that the content is too promotional, edit it, but don't simply remove references and criticicms assuming that they are promotions without reviewing them and stating WHY. Your intuition that it is a promotion alone is NOT JUSTIFICATION for undoing references. If you are going to make others cite things for editing additions, you need to cite for editing deletions. Noelhunter (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To some bad faith accusations above, it's not obvious that the zeitgeist movement website was created by Joseph, but I'm not going to challenge that. As for watching the documentaries, I reserve the right to forget a thing or two. As to the issue at hand, Skipsivert is correct, and this material does not belong here. This article is about Zeitgeist, the Movie. It's notability does not render everything Pete has done afterwards encyclopedic content. The material on the Zeitgeist movement has historically been kept from Wikipedia because it is utterly non-notable, and not because it belongs better on this page. So I repeat, the fact that a handful of reliable sources gave little reviews of the original film does not turn this article into a soapbox for Peter Joseph and his Zeitgeist movement. In contradiction to what some people would like to believe, this is not a bias against the movement, or an attempt to suppress unorthodox opinions. This is merely part of a broader effort to limit Wikipedia to content that is verifiable by reliable sources. The Zeitgeist movement is not. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay you make a good point; kind of. If what you say is true, then why are you forcing policies on this wikipage that you aren't applying to all other wikipages as well? First, you insist "The Venus Project", "Zeitgeist: The Movie", and "Zeitgeist: Addendum" all be merged in to one place; whilst Superman has five(5) different wikipages. If Addendum is not granted its own page, as well as The Venus Project (which is a legally tax-exempt project btw, can't fathom how on Earth you rationalize it not having a wikipage), then logically the Superman movies - along with all other sequel movie wikipages - should be merged in to one. You can not apply this to some pages and not others. That is a clear bias that you can't hide. Don't get me wrong maybe you honestly think/know that Addendum, Zeitgeist: The Movie, and The Venus Project should all be in one page. BUT if this is the case you must apply it elsewhere in the site.

You then proceed by claiming contributors here are "advertising" their movement. If this is true, and thus the page should be altered/deleted, yet again we must apply this to all other wikipages regarding social movements. Including, not limited to, the African-American Civil Rights movement. Why should they be allowed to "advertise" their movement, whilst you plague here and limit others freedom of speech based on your own biased views?

It's actually incredibly simple. Every individual superman movie is individually notable, and so is the African-American Civil rights movement. Every individual superman movie, as well as the civil rights movement (even many mini-movements and incidents within that larger movement) have received coverage from multiple reliable sources. Thus, the situation of those two topics is incomparable to what we have here: A single movie that has received coverage from reliable sources, and a slew of related topics that have received none. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Those films and the movemnt took place decades ago. This documentary was recently released. Addendum is less than a year old! They can't be expected to have the same coverage in so little a span of time. Considering the time they've been out, they're fairly "notable". 70,000 Facebook users for the Documentaries. Nearly 37,000 5-star ratings on Google Video. Google hits for "Zeitgeist" = +12,700,000. Google searches for "thezeitgeistmovement.com" for the past 30 days ~ 6 000/day (from google trends). I guess that's about all I've got... but yeah.--FusionHalo 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, no one's even asking for "the same coverage." We're asking for any coverage, and even that doesn't exist. So tens of thousands of random people say they liked it, and 6000 people google the movement every day. But if you read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, you'll see that Wikipedia is not supposed to be the first source for anything to get noticed. Those people who are googling the movement will find the website just fine. But as long as there are no sources on it, there is actually nothing for us to say here - there's nothing that can be verified, so anything at all is just spam. (Also, guessing what will receive recognition is specifically disallowed.) Someguy1221 (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FusionHalo, it's been explained to you that there is no good reason for the activism section to appear except that you like the numbers on google, which are themselves meaningless. If you don't like how this turned out, please consider dispute resolution, and don't accuse other editors of vandalism for disagreeing with you. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FusionHalo, this is friendly warning. Do not accuse other editors of vandalism on Wikipedia when other editors are merely following guidelines. This is your edit summary of your last edit... FusionHalo (Talk | contribs) (23,740 bytes) (Undid revision 272968629 by Skipsievert (talk)---Undoing Vandalism by Skipsievert)... end quote FusionHalo. This kind of accusation is considered a blockable offense. Please read this carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL - skip sievert (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert, repeatedly removing something which is in dispute, when several people disagree with you, and no consensus has been reached, IS vandalism, whether you like it or not. If people in this discussion can call my posts "pet projects," spam, and advertisements, and delete them, and then be proven wrong, and then delete them again, he can certainly call your deletes vandalism-- it's no more of an offense than your original accusations. FusionHalo, I say file a dispute. These edits are biased. The content being removed is clearly relevant to the movie. Because it is a social activism site, they are biased against it. Feeling that the site or the activists might benefit from the link is not relevant. First they claim it is someone else's web site, then when people prove it is in the movie and was created by the director, they say it's not relevant, doesn't have sources. The source on it is the movie, which is the subject of the article. It is just as relevant to the subject of the movie as anything else in the article, and it is critical to understanding the movie to understand that a major intent of the movie is to promote activism. Even if you believe that the web site does not deserve its own wikipedia article, in order to say that it should not be part of this article, you need to show that it is not relevant in the movie. The intent here seems to be to oppose the link to the web site using as many criteria as possible, which is shown by the fact that as each argument it proven wrong, they come up with another argument, and remove it again. I will again restate my point-- you either need to demonstrate an understanding of this subject, and the link's relevance to the subject of the article, or resign from editing this page. Arbitrarily applying as many criteria as possible to remove content, while ignoring the relevance of the content to the article, is not acceptable editing. Noelhunter (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong—this is an edit dispute, not vandalism. See Wikipedia:VAND#What is not vandalism. Cool Hand Luke 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether you interpret his behavior as "blanking" or not. Repeatedly deleting the same content, citing different reasons, could be interpreted that way. The edit comment "Removed inappropriate spamming of article by fan site proponents.... refer to talk... per 'Some Guy')" after the discussion on this page is inaccurate as best, especially considering the fan site comment was conceded as false. Deleting content with a comment that consensus has determined is inaccurate qualifies as blanking, which is vandalism in my book, but I agree that the term is subject to interpretation.Noelhunter (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in your book is not vandalism. These are content disputes, and content disputes should never be gamed and called vandalism. There is no consensus. It should be debated without citing spurious policy. Cool Hand Luke 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I filed an RFC Noelhunter (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You can be blocked for the type of accusations you are making, and edit warring. Assuming good faith on Wikipedia is a basic aspect of editing. I removed, in a consensus, with other established editors material that was felt to violate guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL skip sievert (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

so can you, considering that you deleted the link and claimed that I was posting spam with no evidence whatsoever. You were the first to assume bad faith. I took your suggestion and filed an RFC. I suggest that you quit arbitrarily removing the content without addressing whether or not the content is relevant to this article, and implying consensus when it has clearly not been reached. I did not revert your edit the last time you removed it, or the fansite additions, so the claim that I am edit warring is inaccurate/uncivil. How is it warring when I revert deletions, but not when you make them? I felt that the fansite notice was OK, and I edited the content to better explain the relevance to the article in an effort to reach a compromise, but you just deleted it all again. I was following the guidelines by trying to improve it towards a consensus. Others were simply repeatedly deleting it, despite the objections of multiple editors, and with comments which were repeatedly inaccurate. Regardless, I will wait for people to comment on the RFC. I feel that people who look at it as a movie page, will consider its relevance to the article, and make a reasonable compromise. I hope that you will agree.Noelhunter (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Normally people are not blocked for incorrectly calling something vandalism. Nor are users normally blocked for incorrectly saying that someone else can be blocked. People are blocked for edit warring though. Please stay focused on the content and not each other. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. My mistake. The focus should always be on content... not editors. skip sievert (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WINAF

But as Nietzsche once said, the most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with fault arguments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.175.10 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Venus Project

Why exactly does "The Venus Project" redirect here? The term is not found once in this article. 83.191.180.226 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The link at the top goes to the search page for "Venus Project." It needs to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco#The_Venus_Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.215 (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

International acclaim

I've got people on my facebook friend list from all around the world who LOVE Zeitgeist, in particular the part about Religion. That's my favorite part; I smiled all throughout that part. But my point is: I can personally verify that people from all around the world LOVE the movie; therefore I know that "international acclaim" would not be a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.152.45 (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And I was angry throughout that part because I saw how many blatant lies and untruths it includes. But seeing as I have yet to find a reliable source which backs up my knowledge, I can't include it. The same would apply for you - unless you can get your own experience published in a reliable source ;-) NZUlysses (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So people from all over the world LOVE Zeitgeist? Good for you, kiddo. But that doesn't mean anything. (1tephania (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Of course the film is only believed by people on the web. In more scholarly circles, the film is considered quite a joke. No legitimate historian, even atheists, believe Jesus was not an actual person of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.184.141 (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, because if they don't, you don't consider them "legitimate." 128.210.12.38 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have proof that Jesus existed that would stand up in a court of law? Cyslmwah (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

NZUlysses you claim that throughout the religion section (part 1) there are blatant lies and untruths, then you go on to say that you cannot find a reliable source which backs up your knowledge. Have you ever heard of the Bible? Is your Bible not considered a reliable source? Hmm... tucsonzeitgeist (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Unnamed scholarly circles would be original research, a film doesn't have to be the truth to be popular. The big bang theory is also popular just like the hypothesis life started out on planet earth, very interesting stuff but it doesn't make it right. Wikipedia is not about truth. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable

The fact that millions of people have watched the movie makes it notable. I live in Saskatoon, which is the biggest city in Saskatchewan. There are a lot of people in this city, and the city takes up many miles of land. But there aren't even a million people in this city, yet it's bigger than the capital city of the Province. There aren't a million people in a city that's bigger than the capital, YET a movie that has had MILLIONS of viewers isn't deemed notable!? That's outrageous and insulting! A landmark in a city is considered "notable", but people are arguing the notability of a movie that got viewed by more people than entire cities? Of course it's notable!70.64.152.45 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Alan

I agree, this article is definitely notable, especially compared to some other articles. Conspiracy theories play an important role in history, as a reflection of the times. This is the sort of thing sociologists will be researching when looking back on these times. Pr0carbine (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A poor man can put pen to paper and write a conspiracy theory. A rich man can put pen to paper and write the exact same passage, but it's a plan. 70.64.152.45 (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Alan Holman

Both can present conclusions based on bad research too-or just lie. 16 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.224.84 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias towards Content?

Is it just me, or does the article have a bias when talking about its content? Specifically the 9/11 attacks section. Flelm (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, while the opening sentence of Part II properly frames this as a claim, select sentences sound like they've actually proved themselves right. Anyone object to watering it down a teeny bit? Someguy1221 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

remember. This article is about the movie, not about the themes that happen to surface in it. There are other articles about the themes. Some are linked, some are not.--Yamavu (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

compare to the articles on similar films such as Michael Moore's Roger and Me. Content included in the synopsis and similar sections is not intended to be factual, it is simply a summarization of the content of the movie. Watering down the claims does not make sense, they should just be edited so that they represent what is claimed in the movie. Adding text to remind viewers, such as "the narrator states..." would be more accurate than changing the content of the claims. If the narrator of a movie appears biased, then the synopsis of what the narrator says should represent that, with appropriate reminders that it is the narrator speaking, not the writer of the wikipedia article. Noelhunter (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative

Why isn't this a reliable source? I have a lot of respect for the editor (someguy) who reverted my changes, but the magazine is published and sold as per any other magazine - so I can't see how it is any different than, say, TIME magazine (it is less successful, and probably less respected, my point is that both are not regulated by any authority). Also I think it is ironic because by using Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" it is clear that Zeitgeist fails in this category (self published and has no experts) so can just draw a line through this wikipedia page and say "Sorry, Zeitgeist is not reliable". Anyway I am aware that my latter point is nonsense, I just thought it was funny, but I would like it explained to me as to why SA fails? Disco (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - the fact that socialist alternative is not reputable should be enough. --The.Filsouf (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Going back over wikipedia's guidelines I missed that magazines need to be printed by 'publishing houses'. I agree that SA cannot count. I am happy to forget about the paragraph that I added. However there is an important point here I would like the watchdogs of this article to consider. Zeitgeist by Wikipedia's standards) is not reliable. It was not financed by any respected producers. It was not made by experts in the field. The point is that this movie is rarely going to attract mainstream attention because of its nature. Editors of magazines aren't going to give this film space. To summarise: reliable sources are not going to debate such an unreliable source. This gives Zeitgeist somewhat of a free pass on wikipedia. Remember that the #1 guideline of wikipedia is that if any of other guidelines interfere with making a quality article they should be ignored. I hope that you consider this as the article evolves. Disco (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are enough crap criticisms of it there already. One of them is calling it "internet shit", surely that's enough. I think as with any conspiracy theories it does not need to rely on reliable source, but it is granted a page here because it has been reviewed by third party sources. There is no need to have 2 pages of criticisms though. I hope you agree. --The.Filsouf (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that any reliable review of this needs to be included (and if that review is full of criticisms it should be included). Also note that this page is not for "conspiracy theories" but rather "a movie which happens to be about conspiracy theories" - there is a subtle but important difference. At the moment there are two small paragraphs of criticism's, not nearly enough, but I agree that if this page was to grow to 2 pages that would be far too much Disco (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is your personal view that two paragraphs of criticism is not enough. I think we should stick to being neutral, and represent it fairly. Check WP:NPOV --The.Filsouf (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

True, what I meant to say was that the amount of reliable sources that have reviewed Zeitgeist is not enough. I think more should be added, as whether they criticise or not is irrelevant, as long as they are reliable. Disco (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet I trust you with adding reliable sources..so I will leave you to find them if you wish. I shall unwatch this as I don't have time for it --The.Filsouf (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: Addendum article deleted, merging here

Content of the just-deleted article on the sequel, Zeitgeist: Addendum, is available here: User:Equazcion/Zeitgeist: Addendum. I've already merged most of the intro to the Sequel section of this article. Everyone is encouraged to continue merging any other content they feel is relevant. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:16, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

why was the addendum page deleted? (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

You can see the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (2nd nomination). Equazcion •✗/C • 23:01, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

When is the so-called merging taking place? I would request I be allowed to remake the addendum page. I'll re-do it, adding in sources, citations, etc. Thanks, fusionhalo —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo (talk • contribs) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge is taking place right now. Feel free to migrate content over here from User:Equazcion/Zeitgeist: Addendum. I'm not sure what the policy is on recreating deleted articles. You should ask the closing admin at User talk:Aaron Brenneman. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:21, 9 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Impressive! Been away for short time and, Addendum is gone!? Merge!? Well, it seems as obvious as merging all Superman movies into one article or, why not wonder how many offspin articles Matrix series has created. But, no the Zeitgeist Movies really is something special and thereby only ONE article is allowed. Sound like somting for media to be interested in, if the movies themselves are so hard to grasp. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Yeah, well there were legitimate concerns raised in the deletion discussion, but it does now trouble me just how many people were unaware that this was happening. It seems a notice on this talk page might have been in order. Seems kind of obvious that people participating here would have an interest in that. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:50, 10 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I just had an discussion with Aaron Brenneman who suggested that we try to dicuss and build up a join or majority decision to bring back Zeitgeist Addendum (and to me, the Venus Project as well). It is absolutely absurd to erase the article on Zeitgeist Addendum which is phenomenal discussion generator everywhere in the World. Deleting it was just crazy and it must be restored, or better yet reconstructed with new and fresh info. The forthcoming Z-Day will provide much new and worthy info. --Fbobolas (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess this way Wikipedia definitely joins the list of media companies that keep ignoring works such as Zeitgeist. You say you are merging articles but what you really do is deleting most of the information. So why deleting articles that are rich in information? Are you running short of bytes? Bored? Paid? At this rate, a new era in the young history of Wikipedia is about to begin that will see the birth of paid wikipedians or "wiki-jackals". A silent process that may well exist already. Even the "assume well faith rule" is a cheap way to avoid complaints.--Quinceps (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please, read WP:NOTE and specifically WP:MOVIE. Also, this isn't the place to discuss Wikipedia policies. --Sloane (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Quinceps and here you got a Notable source, which talks more about the second film and the fact that the media ignore both of them. AND I still wonder why somebody hasn't begun to merge all Matrix articles into one article or all Superman articles into one article. As it seems to be so low amount of mental(disk)space here to store articles on ;) --Roberth Edberg (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Someguy1221, "remove several false and one unecessary reference" -- false / unnecessary? Why would one remove all three literally existing sources for the information presented in the film? The "Web of Debt" reference cites the information about the "Modern Money Mechanics" document; it also discusses the figures concerning national debt and money supply explain the mathematical limits that the monetary system cannot handle; that could not possibly make it unnecessary; that is what is quoted and paraphrased. The John Perkins book is a New York Times #1 best-seller, the interview is based literally upon what he said in that book, including corporatocracy (The New York Times, John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and corporatocracy all have their own Wikipedia articles) -- how is that not suitable as a reference, especially for a documentary-style interview in which the narrator paraphrases what he wrote? The question of its truth does not verify its reliability, it is its notability that verifies its reliability; he said what he said, and that cannot be contested. All that is stated in Parts III and IV literally comes from what is written by Jacque Fresco in the "The Best That Money Can't Buy" reference; once again in a documentary-style interview, the narrator is talking about what Jacque Fresco wrote, and that comes directly from the book. Just because it is his idea for the future does not mean it is not a source. These books are source material for what is said in the films -- that is what they are a source of, not necessarily aiming to be source of fact -- the films suggest, and the article uses this vocabulary throughout; the books are literally the source of words the film uses to make its suggestions. It is not a matter of proving whether or not they were reliable sources at that point; the content used in the films literally came from those books.Psychspy (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's really a technical matter, and it's not an issue of reliability. This article is about the documentaries, and not the subjects within the documentary (that would be a coatrack). When you cite that a documentary said something about someone else, you can only cite a source mentioning the documentary, and not a source that discusses a subject of the documentary. This is what makes those refernces "false." As per Wikipedia:No original research, a "citation" should only be used to explicitly back the cited statement, which false references do not do. Now like I said, this is a purely techincal matter. Topics discussed in the documentary may still be appropriately linked by inline or see-also wikilinks, or in the external links section if no article exists on it. It just shouldn't be included in a citation. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• The mesh of these articles is in fact very confusing, because the criticism section doesn't say anything at all about 'Zeitgeist: Addendum'. Sufficent change must be made or else this section would have to be deemed inaccurate at best! -Brian 83.109.82.96 (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because it seems no one of note has bothered to comment on it. It's been hard enough finding serious scholars who'll take the time to say anything about the main movie. As such, I think it may be more appropriate to cut back on the details in the addendum summary, according to WP:UNDUE, especially if the main movie (which is the only thing that makes Addendum worth even having its own section) has been labeled by just about all reliable sources as factually dubious and/or fringey.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream references

Since this article seems to document almost every mainstream reference to this work, here are a couple of recent mentions: an article about Natacha Atlas (big fan, apparently) An eastern premise, NZ Herald, and a review from Cineaste (magazine) Secularism strikes back: new documentaries on religion and faith, "Zeitgeist suffers as art as it succeeds as propaganda, however skillful its execution." Also critiques the analogy of "son" "sun."

For your consideration. Cool Hand Luke 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Does not this quote: "Zeitgeist suffers as art as it succeeds as propaganda, however skillful its execution" exemplify the relevance of the inclusion of a section about activism in the article? Noelhunter (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. This is about other sources for the article in a different section. Did I not make that clear? Cool Hand Luke 20:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You did not make it clear, but it points out the confusion which has resulted from merging multiple pages into this one. I incorrectly assumed by the date that it was posted in response to the discussion on activism. Thanks for clarifying. I read the article and understand that it refers to the original movie. However, this page is about both the original movie and the addendum, so I feel that the question is still relevant. A mention of activism directly relates to criticism of the movie as propaganda, does it not? Noelhunter (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. It's a review of the movie. It says nothing about the movement. Cool Hand Luke 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My quesion was not about "the movement" or the link to the web site for it, specifically. I asked if it exemplified the relevance of the inclusion of a section about activism.Noelhunter (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is Link to TheZeitgeistMovement.com web site relevant

Was the deleted link to TheZeitgeistMovement.com web site (see history) relevant to the article

The discussion that lead to this is a few threads above. Now, I am inclined to agree with the linking of the Zeitgeist movement in the section on the sequel, solely in the context that it was mentioned in the sequel. But the additon being proposed is completely beyond what should appear on this page. This article is about Zeitgeist: The Movie. It is not about Zeitgeist: Addendum, the Zeitgeist movement, or Peter Joseph's activism. The fact that a few reliable sources reviewed the original movie doesn't make everything related to it appropriate for this page. In short, this article is not for soapboxing, coatracking or spamming. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong... but this wikipage IS about Zeitgeist: Addendum? That was determined in the merge discussion that took place. If its not about Zeitgeist: Addendum, then Zeitgeist: Addendum still needs its own wikipage! =o--FusionHalo 21:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The link is NOT about the Movement, its a source for the statment from the Director. The Forum is related to the Official Movie site and it's the Admin of the Forum that did the Post! That's a clear connection to the Director as clear as if it would have been written on the frontpage of the Official page! --Roberth Edberg (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Really kind of a pointless distinction. Fact is... the link to the movement... thing.. is listed on the official site... so it is excess linking and marginal spamming perhaps, to list a blog/forum... and make a special distinction about it. The 'official site' has the link... that is enough... maybe refer people to the official site then, in the context of the idea, and let it go at that. Is it relevant..?. to focus on a non notable blog/forum..?. no. skip sievert (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the actual revelance of the link per se, and considering your prior comment, why do you feel that it is justified to remove the entire section on activism? Although I do not agree with removing the link, I have to ask why do you not simply remove the link while leaving the section intact (replacing with something like "a web site" or as you suggest, a reference to the official site). You have provided no adequate justification for removing the entire text concerning the activist content which is present in the movie. And everyone please, stop modifying the section of the page while it is up for RFC. There is no rush on Wikipedia to resolve editing conflicts (certainly not within less that 24 hours of the posting of the RFC), and multiple people changing a section of a page up for comments, when consensus has not been reached, is confusing to those commenting, and disrespectful towards the process. Noelhunter (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the link. I would just put it in external links as a semi-official affiliate of the filmmakers, or in relation to Addendum. The proposed "activism" section seemed to have no non-trivial independent sources though. That section shouldn't be part of the article. Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that the activism section is not appropriate. Also to avoid the fan site aspect of promotion... the movement link is not really appropriate anywhere in the article including external links. Why? If people are actually interested in this subject they will go to the official site... which has the link in contention right there. Another thing to consider about this link... not being appropriate:

The Venus Project, led by Jacque Fresco, has provided the tools and framework to make a new, humane society possible. He is not a leader. He is simply a thinker with a true humane intent. We at thezeitgeistmovement.com operate this site with personal funds and do not ask for donations. However, if you care about the concepts presented here, please help The Venus Project stay alive by making a small donation. They are a registered Non-Profit Organization dedicated to improving humanity and civilization. Your Donation is Tax deductible. Donate to The Venus Project end quote... http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/ ... there may be an economic incentive for the link to be on Wikipedia. Hence again... fansite... advertising... possible spam. skip sievert (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're playing a game of semantics now. If you want to apply something to this wikipage, you have to apply it to all wikipages. So the links on Disney pages linking back to disney.com need to be removed also, because the sites they link to are advertising and request money in the form of park tickets, investors, etc. AKA business. The Venus Project is a non-profit organization, judging by your quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, you're right. It is a fan site. Maybe if there was some coverage linking it to the movies. I haven't seen much about Addendum at all though, and I have looked. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• • It in no way meets the wikipedia definition of fansite, which includes: "is a website created and maintained by a fan(s) or devotee(s) interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon." zeitgeistmovie.com clearly states ownership of the site, saying: "Zeitgeistmovie.com and its developing activist site: TheZeitgeistMovement.com are the only web entities we have produced." Noelhunter (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• An article has now appeared in the New York Times: [1] which says:

Two hours into Z-Day, the educational forum associated with the online movie “Zeitgeist,” Peter Joseph, the film’s director and the evening’s M.C., stepped out from behind his lectern and walked forward earnestly on the stage.'

and

Though they were never actually shown — as most in attendance had seen them several times — Mr. Joseph’s two films, “Zeitgeist, the Movie” (released in 2007) and “Zeitgeist: Addendum” (released last fall), were the subtext of the evening: online documentaries that have been watched, he says, by 50 million people around the world.

Can we all agree now that an acceptable source relates the movement, and Z-Day, to the films? Noelhunter (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It is a fan site promo-blog forum which is soliciting funds for Venus Project. It seems like an overt forum/blog that is totally not notable. skip sievert (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No. First of all, this website is only indirectly related to this article and, as such, it fails point #13 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. That the film's makers are connected to the movement still does not remove the degree of separation between the film and the movement. If the movement became notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, the website link would then belong there but not here. Also, as per many, many expert analyses this film is loaded with factual inaccuracies and unverified original research. If this website contains the same type of information found in the film, it easily fails point #2 of the above WP:EL section. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I give up trying to convince you. It's in the freakin New York Times, mentions both movies, mentions ZDay, the Venus Project, the movement, and directly quotes Peter Joseph as saying that the movement has 250,000 members. I do not see how any reasonable person who read the article could deny the validity of the reference, the links to the movement, or the notability. Noelhunter (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Throwing my $.02 in. If a movie has a political movement associated with it that has received mainstream coverage that's a very notable fact. Few movies are part of a political movement. Some level of quick discussion and links is appropriate. However if the section starts to expand it should become its own article with just a paragraph / main link. jbolden1517^Talk 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sequel II: 'Zeitgeist: Tabula Rasa'

Explain what why this section is NOT accepted. Both the announcement of sequel and it's working name are sourced. WP:PRIMARY: This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Find a better source, anonymous forum posting are terrible as source. See WP:V: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.--Sloane (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• ANONYMOUS!? It's a post by the Administrator of the forum, which IS related to the official page of the Film. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm NOT a professional wikipedian, but reading the different WP:'s tells me I'm right. So let's give other wikipedian's some time to comment, before you - delete it again Sloane. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a self-published source. See WP:SPS. It's not a BLP issue, so I don't have strong feelings about it either way, but I doubt we need this section. Cool Hand Luke 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS Allows the entry if he is the expert on the subjekt. So wouldn't the director concidered to be an expert in this case? --Roberth Edberg (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a post by the director. It's a post by an anonymous admin. I think Sloan is right on this score. Maybe there will be a better source later. Cool Hand Luke 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is just ridiculous. It's not the director himself!! Merely one of his henchmen! - Should we also omit press releases about celebrities, as it was a "mere publicist" who delivered the message? Can we not talk about Tom Cruise's next film, unless we can find a video clip of him mentioning it? Should we maybe run some voice analysis to ensure it hasn't been tampered with? A statement from an administrator on the official website, is such an obvious primary source in this matter, that your argument comes across as a desperate attempt to justify omission. In the very unlikely event of such an announcement being made as an attempt at "vandalism", the absence of a speedy removal is more than good enough indication of it's source. (Weyoun1 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Future films are covered under WP:NFF which requires verification through reliable sources that film has begun its principal photography in order to make it notable enough for inclusion. Once we have reliable sources (not self published blogs) confirming that principal photography has begun, it can be included but not before then. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is a reliable source about themselves. If a produces says he is working on something then that is automatically a reliable source that he is working on something. jbolden1517^Talk 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Article

It is clear to me now that there are multiple problems with this page.

1. It is confusing to have one page for three movies. Arguments for and against various content often address only one section. I believe that each of the currently released movies deserves its own page, but the Addendum page was deleted. In respect of that decision, we need to justify the inclusion of Addendum here, if it is not self-evident from the title "addendum." If that is accepted, the sections need to be duplicated, with criticism and etc for each part, rather than one general section. Since the third movie does not exist except in press releases, it does not make sense to include it here until it has been released, or references exists outside of the press release.
2. It is clear that some editors are biased towards promoting awareness of the activist agenda of Peter Joseph (perhaps myself included), while others are biased against any reference to it. Bias on the part of editors is only a problem when that bias in included in the article. We need a compromise that allows the article to address the issues of activism in the context of the movies, without appearing to promote it. Neutrality does not preclude any mention of content that may be beneficial to activists, just as it does not preclude criticism that may be harmful to their interests. Persons researching the movies deserve to have an accurate summary here, and it is not possible to present the movies objectively without addressing the activist nature of their production. Most importantly, editors need to agree that this content is relevant, and if they do, when problems occur, they need to make the minimum necessary edits to correct the problems, rather than deleting the section entirely.
3. I believe that someone who is familiar with both movies should attempt to reorganize the page with these points in mind. My opinion on the reorganization is that because the Addendum page was deleted, discussion of it here should focus on its significance as "part four" of the original movie, and that activism should be presented only in relation to its presence in the movies, the creation of the movies, and the criticism of the movies. If and when references become available for Addendum and Tabula Rasa, and the Zeitgeist Movement as a separate notable entity, then pages will be created for them, independent of the movie page.Noelhunter (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Why is criticism of both parts of the movie mixed together and intertwined? Is it to suggest that people who don't think 9/11 was an inside job also don't think Jesus was a myth? Talk about compartmentalizing. Wikipedia you've done it again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.44.66 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

External Links

All of the external links refer to the movie itself. I can think of many others which could be helpfully included. Please post here to explain any edits to this section. Unjustified edits will be reverted, especially removal of content. Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_Links#What_should_be_linked, other relevant information can be considered if it contains "information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." NZUlysses (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored one link which fulfills the above criterion which has been removed. "Zeitgeist: Analysis and Response" from AlwaysBeReady.com, a Christian apologetics site. NZUlysses (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Article in need of major work.

I'm not sure how this perspective will gel with the wikipedians contributing to this article, but I feel the overall structure and coverage of this article is detrimental to it's aim to serve as an objective analysis of the films contents and merits.

Now, before you get all defensive and brand me a fanatic conspiracy nut, let me just emphasize that I have no real problems with the bulk of the articles contents. The summary of the movies claims are for the most part accurate, without any blatant bias.

What mostly concerns me is what the article doesn't cover, the focus of the content, and the presentation choices that have been made.

First off, what's with the merge-fest?

Zeitgeist 1 and 2 are two different movies. While the topics are very similar, the fact that these TWO movies have been watched by millions of people should in itself cut through all concerns regarding it's merits for separate articles on wikipedia. Does "Home Alone 2" not warrant it's own entry?

The Venus Project has been merged to Jacque Fresco. This should primarily serve as a personal biography page. Jacque Fresco is the head of a social movement, and has been granted enough credit to speak at Universities, and been featured in both film and TV. - Notable. The Venus Project is an organization promoting major social changes, whose message has reached millions of people. While the activity level is surely questionable, there are thousands of articles about all manners of minority beliefs, organizations, cults and movements that get their own articles. - Notable.

Zeitgeist, and Zeitgeist Addendum are heavily discussed internet phenomenons, with loyal supporters and avid critics. I can hardly comprehend how a majority opinion actually voted to merge this.

These merges come off as petty attempts at undermining the exposure of the respective topics, rather than based on any objective assessment. I would suggest all information on the two remaining pages (Jacque Fresco and Zeitgeist the movie), being split to these four articles. If the majority desire is to expose these opinions as cheap propaganda, then sweeping it under the rug is not the way to go. Serious analysis and reasoned arguments prevail.

While I understand that a movie such as this, utilizing cheap psychological tricks, manipulating facts and information, blatant misquotes and lies, will infuriate serious academics, it is important consider one's "plan of attack". There is no question that these movies have struck a chord with a large amount of people. The wisest way to try to convert people back to reason, is to acknowledge this fact, and discuss why.

Right now the article reads as a far too detailed summary of claims made in the film, almost completely devoid of analysis. Then followed by a long parade of random bashing from commentators. Most of these are newspaper columnists, radio hosts and movie critics, whose objectiveness and qualifications are dubious at best. - If no scientist analysis are available, it's our job as wikipedians to investigate claims and fight back armed with proper sources and a level head.

Readers coming here to "make up their minds", will find the absence of such data only to lend credence to the belief that the subject matter has not been treated fairly.

Boiled down to the basics, many of the topics covered are not that far removed from common minority opinions.

Religion is a control tool, religious text are unreliable and inaccurate, symbolism plays a significant part of religious doctrine. All these claims are valid opinions, and could be argued by any academic. Granted, the 9/11 stuff is a bit more out there, but much of the stuff about fractional reserve banking, corruption, and the power of big business should be discussed in length, and refuted where possible.

By refusing to take these issues seriously, you are only adding fuel to the fire.

I would welcome any and all response on this. :)

Weyoun1 (Weyoun1 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

The reason why Home Alone 2 has it's own article is because it meets the notability criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (films). A film deserves its own Wikipedia article only when it meets one of the five general principles set out in the above notability guideline. Zeigeist Addendum does not meet any of the criteria. Zeitgeist, the Movie does not either, its article was only created because it met the general notability criteria. As it stands, these two topics are proven notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia but they're not proven notable as films and, therefore, do not deserve separate articles. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked for sources on this article. There's almost nothing in reliable sources about Zeitgeist 2 or Zeigeist Addendum apart from mentioning their bare existence. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Some articles will simply never be much more than a bare description of the subject, and this is one of those articles. There's simply nothing verifiable about the films except that they exist and that some journalists didn't like it. Anyone looking for a more in depth analysis will have to look elsewhere, because it can't be posted here. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Unduely large criticism section No mention of the zeitgeist movement or link to its site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.55.113 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a failure of NPOV to restrict an article to what has been mentioned in reliable sources. In fact, that's what the neutral point of view is. Trying to balance "bad" information with "good" information is actually very much non-neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia so I'd like some further explanation. I am not disputing that the majority of "reliable sources" have negatively commented on the movie (I don't know either way), I am questioning whether its neutral to put so many critical comments on the page when they do not provide any meaningful information to the reader. To me, the critisism section conveyed the notion that this movie is badly regarded by the wider community; which I have discovered to be misleading.

I would also like to know why there is no mention of the zeitgeist movement or a link to the official site. Perhaps I am missing some intricate wikipedia rule but this seems to go against the layout of pages for other movies, video games, novels, etc.

115.130.23.192 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It disturbs me that this article, other than comments from critics, does not address the disputed veracity of this movie. Aoibheannniamh (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Numerous edits removing criticisms, attributions, and links have been removed without documentation, and editors have on occasion assumed that others were editing with biased intent. The resulting article is heavy on criticism, and does not address significant aspects of the movies, such as their activist nature, because editors have agressively worked to keep out these links. Removal of things such as the mention of the movement website, which is conspicuous in the movie, and which is cited in the New York Times article listed by me on this page, because editors disagree with the content of the web site, is not neutral. Similarly, because some editors disagree with the content of the movies, some have insisted that the content stay out of the article. Things that are in the movie do not have to be true to be included in this article, they are relevant because they are in the movie. Until the movies, and all of the significant content in them can be discussed here, the article will not be neutral in my opinion. Those who disagree with things such as the link to the movement web site would serve wikipedia better by adding criticism and analysis, rather than insisting that these significant portions of the movies be left out. Noelhunter (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just watched this film and it does not state anything about combining currencies, one world government, RFID chips, or any mention of those "excuses for entering into war". There are no references for the Part III section listed. I don't know anything about editing a wiki page, so maybe someone that does could watch the film and help. It is incorrect in many areas, at least in the Part III section.

The Zeitgeist Movement is not a "fan site"

The social movement that has been created by Peter Joseph and The Venus Project is not a fan site, so PLEASE stop removing the item from the page. I will only ad it again, again,again. This movement is huge with reviews by the New York times. The Movement is the reason Zeitgeist was made, so leave its content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny1123 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the thread above Jonny. ^ RfC: Is Link to TheZeitgeistMovement.com web site relevant

It is a fan site/donation site and it has been decided by multiple consensus of editors that it is not appropriate to link to it. It is a forum/blog apparently the main purpose being to solicit funds for Venus project. Also that could be construed as disruptive editing if you were to follow through with the above statement. You may want to study a little the guidelines and suggestions for Wikipedia aspects of editing and determining consensus issues. skip sievert (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because a site takes donations, doesn't mean that is the only point. That is FAR from the main point. The site has activism, 12,000 active members; 250,000 reserve memebers and tons of material, including an 83 page guide discussing the movement for free.

Does Greenpeace have a wikipedia?- Yes. Do they solicit funds?-yes. The Zeitgeist Movement is a social organization recognized by the New York Times and it is the entire point of the Zeitgeist Films and therefore it inclusion is fully justified.--Jonny1123 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The purpose and design of the greenpeace site is very similar to The Zeitgeist. I see many sites that should not be linked by the above guidelines all over wikipedia articles. I find it discomforting that certain users go out of their way to enforce this on some articles and not others. If one is linked and one is not, I think we have an inconsistency. All pedantic arguments aside, I think its important that readers are aware the scale of the activism that exists and know where to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.55.113 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Greenpeace is an official site. This link goes to a supposedly independent site for a fan "movement" that has not received coverage from reliable sources. Greenpeace, in contrast, has its own article and has tons of coverage. Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong- The Zeitgeist Movement Site is run by Peter Joseph. It is not a fan site- it is an activist site and is the Official Site of The Movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny1123 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The site itself says otherwise; the site clearly presents itself as something different from the film. "The Zeitgeist Movement is the activist arm of The Venus Project , which constitutes the life long work of industrial designer and social engineer, Jacque Fresco."[2] This document also says that followers should "Post thevenusproject.com and thezeitgeistmovement.com online wherever you can." Do that somewhere else, please. On Wikipedia it violates WP:SPAM. Cool Hand Luke 19:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to question the logical reasoning behind whether or not a relevant external link should be posted... By trying to tie people who argue against you to the movement? You are intentionally misinterpreting pretty clear evidence and now using completely irrelevant material to defend your view. Sorry, but I won't have that.

220.253.55.113 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You clearly don't have any point User:Cool Hand Luke. Please stop misrepresenting the Zeitgeist movement as-if it is the Zeitgeist fansite. It does harm to Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261

The Zeitgeist Movement: Orientation Presentation by Peter Joseph, 2009 This the Activist Orientation Presentation for The Zeitgeist Movement. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring out of hand

Although several blocks have been issued, an SPA IP continues to edit war here. For a variety of reasons, I think that we can infer a coordinated off-site effort to control this article. See this thread.

I think we should think about asking for long-term semi-protection. Cool Hand Luke 04:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree... and that is a good piece of detective work. Obviously the page is being bombarded as in attacked at the direction of the forum or blog in question being spammed. Long term protection sooner rather than later. Also probably a good idea to long term semi protect The Venus Project page which apparently is undergoing the same aspects. skip sievert (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke: You have failed to bring any meaningful answers when each topic on this talk page got to the point where you were shown to have compromised objectivity. I have no ties to any activist activity and no agenda with them or otherwise, and yet here I am having to defend my questions not on any logical basis, but because you claim that all such questions and activity are tied to an activist group.

If you would be so kind, please convince me that YOU are not tied to some activism in disagreement with the movement. A quick look over your activity shows me that you are opinionated and your activity leans to promote your opinions in articles such as this one. You are hardly a neutral party in this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.32.241 (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'm a law student, definitely not associated with the Federal Reserve, the Catholic Church, or anyone else that would really care about this documentary. I've been editing on this site for five years.

I did not and do not claim that all editing on this pages is coordinated, but it seems clear that some people did coordinate editing off-site, and they even discus and ridicule comments posted on this very talk page. Smoking gun evidence, really. Given the endless SPAs and IP addresses editing disruptively here, semi-protection seems like a good idea. Cool Hand Luke 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Have Positive Critique

The only critique conveyed in the article is negative and debasing. We should get some respectable, positive quotes alongside these currently represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overmorrow (talk • contribs) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That only works if there are such things. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Orangemike. Also this article has partly been so problematic because of the concerted efforts of the 'believers' in the Fresco, Zeitgeist related information, from their 'social movement' forum/blog. skip sievert (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing positive written in credible media. The current list of quotes is pretty much exhaustive.Sardath (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that a single purpose user formerly blocked for disruptive editing has returned doing pretty much the same thing as before. Jonny1123. They removed some neutral aspects of the article and more recent attempts to balance out the information. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I reverted his deletions.Sardath (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On Apr. 26 Johnny1123 deleted the quote from The Globe and Mail claiming "false source." I do not see what is false about the source.Sardath (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, well if I produce positive critique from reliable or credible sources will this DICTATORSHIP allow it to be posted to the main page??tucsonzeitgeist (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion. If you would like to contribute positively to Wikipedia it is best to read some of the guidelines for participation. Making general Wikipedia:No personal attacks is not a good way to start out. Also single purpose editors may be viewed a little more critically in general also. You may want to roam around a little and get used to how editors contribute here in general. skip sievert (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: Addendum

Why there is no article fot Zeitgeist: Addendum? the link leads only to the section, not to a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy The Wise (talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it was agreed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (2nd nomination) to delete that article. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement (again)

It looks like this article was recreated again three weeks ago. See discussion on their forum about how to raise traffic to the article.[3] It's pretty clear that this article is intended for promotion, see WP:PROMO. I think it should be re-deleted under G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zeitgeist Movement), but I wanted to see if there are other thoughts about it. I think it escaped noticed because it has not been linked from here. It has more sources than when last deleted because of some coverage after March 15. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Re-delete. For sure. Speedy delete would be in order for that recreation? It is a Forum/blog donation site and non notable. skip sievert (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The new article is very much unlike the original (different content, different claims to notability), so I don't think G4 applies. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so... but given their organized attempt of foisting the article on the public from their site, which is a blog/forum donation WP:PROMO, it seems like gaming the system. On Wikipedia it violates WP:SPAM. skip sievert (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Critical reviews" section needs major rework

Hi all. I have been reverted twice by Sardath while attempting to shorten the Globe and Mail's quote. My intent was to remove useless sentences that was more a rant about conspiracy theorists in general than a critic about the movie. In my opinion, the part I left unchanged tells enough on author's opinion. However, despite my pointing to WP guidelines concerning quotes, I have been reverted a second time.

You should read and re-read these guidelines in order to fully grasp the WP way of writing an article. The whole section is far from reaching any WP quality standards and I'm really surprised that good faith editors fail to realize it. Here are the guidelines that are infringed in the "Critical Review" section:

• When not to use quotations: Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. — Alas, the whole section is a bunch of redundant citations introduced by disproportionately small sentences
• When not to use quotations: On lengthy articles, editors should strive to keep long quotations to a minimum, opting to paraphrase and work smaller portions of quotes into articles.
• How to use quotations: editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section.
• How to use quotations: quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it — This is exactly what I tried to avoid. Author's opinion is even less about the movie than about the conspiracy theorists who made it
• How to use quotations: while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short.
• Quoting copyrighted text: Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.
• Quotations and fair use: The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information. — Since it is a pay-per-view article, I can't measure the ratio of quoted text (can you?), but I would not be surprised if it reached 15-20% of the whole article, and this would be far too much.
• Quotations and fair use: Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations, rather than grouping all the quotations together, or constructing articles out of quotations with little original prose.

These guidelines are clear: write articles on you own and illustrate them with preferably inner quotations which you must strive to keep as small as possible. If the slightest change towards this aim is reverted as it was the case a couple of hours ago, then this article will remain of poor quality and will be the place of never-ending battles. Editors, if you truly want to write an encyclopedia, please consider rewriting the whole section. — Xavier, 13:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice editing of the rules. Only that there is also a rule saying that quotations SHOULD be used when "dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors." This is exactly the case here.Sardath (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, despite my long explanation, I didn't make myself clear enough. I don't ask that those quotes disappear, I request that the section be rewritten to match the WP guidelines I pointed above. This means that those quotes have to be shortened and intermixed with original prose.

To keep this section as is, you are invoking exhaustiveness but nowhere in WP guidelines and policy will you find anything about exhaustively citing mainstream media about the subject of an article. In fact, the guidelines I refer to say exactly the opposite.

But now that you have resorted to personal attack about my 3 year old signature, I have realized that this discussion will lead us nowhere and I took the liberty to request the opinion of neutral users. — Xavier, 23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)