Talk:New World Order (film)

Recent Reversion

I reverted the edit which deleted the "See Also" section from the article. I am not aware of any valid basis for the assertion the following links were somehow "not appropriate."

Secret Societies Darkon (film)

The first link is to an article that deals with the oft-stated (within the film), underlying theme of the beliefs of the people who's activities are portrayed in the film. Its eminently relevant.

The second link is to an award-winning documentary film made by the same people who made this documentary film, and thus seems not inappropriate to link to under a "See Also" section. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not Secret Societies, it's the New World Order (conspiracy theory). And I don't see the relevance of Darkon, even if it's made by some (not all) of the same filmmakers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that the title of a film is not the only relevant consideration. By the logic you've cited here, it would be appropriate for the film "Star Wars" to appear in a "See Also" section under Astronomy.

Darkon was made by the same, principal group of people, and is quite thematically similar ie., the exploration of a seemingly eccentric, often-reviled, modern Western subculture. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's only about secret societies (note that a piped #see also is in violation of guidelines) to the extent that they relate to the NWO, and if Darkon is thematically similar, then one of the Wikipedia articles is fraudulent. I've never heard of LARPers being reviled. Still, I can understand the arguments for Darkon. I cannot understand the arguments for "Secret socities". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It just goes to show we don't all live in the same world. I've never heard of LARPers NOT being reviled! KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability needs to be established

Is this film notable? Perhaps... but at the moment this article does not properly establish its notability in accordance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The notability guidelines for films states ...

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
   • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
   • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
   • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
   • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

In other words... this article needs to establish that the film is notable. Please do so, or the article may end up being deleted. Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you expect the film to meet these Wikipedia notability guidelines when it was just released? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If the film wasn't able to garner any credible reviews before it was released, then perhaps it isn't notable. Wikipedia isn't the place to drum up interest, to advertise it and to expose it to a wider audience. Wikipedia is the place to report interest that has already arisen, to comment in a scholarly fashion about the audience that is already talking about it. Please see Wikipedia:Notability for more information. If you'd like, we could move the article to your userspace and you could continue to work on it while adding references attesting its notability, so that it isn't deleted. :) Banaticus (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. To describe it as "the place to report interest that has already arisen, to comment in a scholarly fashion about the audience that is already talking about it" equates it to the New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and every tabloid news show on television. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes... exactly... ie has the film has been commented upon by nationally known critics?... I do note that one independant source has now been added: An interview/review by "The Oxford Film Freek". This is a blog by a small town journalist (one who is not a nationally known film critic - see the blogs's about us page). It is not what what the notability guidelines have in mind. Still... it's a step in the right direction, I suppose. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion from the WP:FRINGE noticeboard... Perhaps this would be best handled by creating a bio article on the film makers, merge the info on the film into that article for the time being... Then, if the film itself gains notability in the future it can be split off again. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK... thanks to Kevin's recent edits, I think we can say that notability has now been established... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur: the reviews from Wired and Film Threat (and maybe IGN) do it for me. Thanks, Kevin. I've deleted the notability tag. I've also deleted the reference from World Net Daily about Bilderberg, since WND is generally not accepted as a reliable source, there are plenty of references at the Bilderberg Group article, and the source isn't really needed here (this article is about the film, not the underlying New World Order (conspiracy theory)). I would also be inclined to delete the review from Aint It Cool News since it appears to be just a random anonymous review--I might feel differenty if the review were from Harry Knowles himself, since he has a real following. If anyone sees this differently, of course, please advise.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

References