Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Significant Viewpoints

• I was going to wait until we got through DRV and even maybe through an AfD before including criticism of the topics addressed in the film but they were included (in a not so encyclopedic way) by another author so I didn't feel right just removing them. I'm open to comments and edits. Pdelongchamp 04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article is in serious need of a criticism section TitaniumDreads (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Titanium, I would invite you to look through the current sources and pull some common criticisms from them and introduce them into article. Please see the discussion below on why it is important to use only references that specifically deal with the film. Pdelongchamp (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

moved from user talk page

Hey, regarding your edit about the incorrect premise and original research. I took that text from the controversy pages I listed. Why would it be ok to be included in that page, but not the zeitgeist article which reiterates the same points? or perhaps it shouldn't be included in either? I'm curious. Let me know, thanks. Pdelongchamp 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Did either the Komoszewski "Reinventing Jesus" reference and/or the Hermann, "Simulation finds 9/11 fireproofing key" state that "The views presented in 'Zeitgeist, the Movie' are in contrast to published reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology."? If not, then the inclusion of that material in the article is original research. It might be true, but you need a reliable source to link the movie to the the National Institute of Standards and Technology. On a different note, I think the present protection is from the prior protection of the article in July 2007. The article reads well and the last thing you want is for free editing of that article while the AfD is going on. If you can get a Keep consensus out of the AfD, that should leave the article on Wikipedia for at least three months. So far, the AfD is going well. You have a lot of experienced editors supporting keeping the article and I think everyone is impressed with your turnaround effort on the article. The close of the AfD will be on or after 16:13, 18 November 2007, so cross your fingers until then. -- Jreferee t/c 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see what you mean but I have a question. If someone notable were to argue that the earth was at the center of the universe, could we not include a statement that these views are in contrast with the views of the scientific community? Would we have to wait until someone specifically mentioned the notable person's name in regards to an explanation that the earth revolves around the sun etc? Don't we only need to provide a source if it's a statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged? I'm not sure anyone would ever challenge that the view that the 9/11 was a controlled demolition is in contrast with a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. If this film presents a significant viewpoint regarding the events of 9/11, isn't it important to include other significant viewpoints regarding the events of 9/11? As for the protection, I think you're right and even though I'm discussing this with you now I agree that waiting until the AfD closes before making too many changes is a good idea. Pdelongchamp 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• The answer is that we have to wait until so18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)meone specifically mentioned the notable person's name in regards to an explanation that the earth revolves around the sun. See WP:SYN. It's only important to include other significant viewpoints regarding the events of 9/11 in the Zeitgeist movie article if a reliable source thought it important to address the two together. If you include other significant viewpoints regarding the events of 9/11 in that article not based on what a reliable source says about the movie, then the article will not reflect the collective of the reliable source material available about the movie. Your NPOV WP:OR efforts in fact will make the article WP:POV. Once the AfD is over, my interest in the article will be over and the article probably will be unprotected. Likely, you'll be left to shepard the article against the socks editing it. I added your name to the top of the article talk page that may give you a leg up in discussions and in requests to admins regarding the article. -- Jreferee t/c 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks Jreferee, this was very helpful. Pdelongchamp 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• In my opinion that is why people are loosing faith in Wikipedia. Stating that 'one sourced published opinion directly after another is somehow original research' is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. I was looking for a nice condensed list of references relating to the subject so that I could determine the validity of this film. Instead I find nothing substantial. In fact all I am able to learn from this page is that Wikipedia is suffering from such bad administration that it is no longer able to provide any non pre-existing condensation of knowledge. I know there are reasons and this rant will probably be deleted because it is an opinion that dose not fit with Wikipedias twisted definition of "discussion". It dose not matter because at the and of the day people still search controversial subjects in Google with a "-Wikipedia" tacked on to the end. Wikipedias new catch phrase: "Why present conflicting opinions when both can be deleted... speedily and permanently" NoFaithInWikiAndUsingPublicWiFi 99.224.164.251 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

I removed the quote "In one of its few mainstream reviews the Irish Times called it 'unhinged' and accused it of offering nothing but 'surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates'." until we can include a proper review section. The overview mentions that it has received criticism which is sufficient. Perhaps once we pass DRV and after the festival showing we'll have more to work with. Pdelongchamp 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

This article was moved to Zeitgeist, the Movie (using the "comma") since that is what the official site titles the movie.[1] There are about eleven other names used for this topic on Wikipedia - (see note) and I think we need to adher to what the official site calls the movie for consistency. -- Jreferee t/c 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I believe it essential to add a redirect to this page from "Zeitgeist the movie", which is what most people would type in the search box, only to then be faced with "page does not exist". Most people will quit at that point and fail to notice the search results further down the page (in smaller type). I am new here and don't know how to do the re-direct myself . Thanks BloomerBuzzer 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The redirects have all been salted, so only an admin can actually do that, although I highly doubt anyone would miss the search results. -- Someguy1221 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have unsalted all the related pages I could find and created some of the likely search terms as redirects. Prolog (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vexorg edits

Hi Vexorg, I'm glad there's more people willing to help with the article. We have to keep in mind though to stick with reliable sources that reference the film. We can't use the film's own sources. I think the article needs to be expanded and you can definitely help out by pulling content from the sources already linked in the article. These sources are reliable and are currently the only one's available. Thanks for your help. Pdelongchamp (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in writng the original Article, which was subesqunetly deleted. My current edits are reinstating the original article. Thse edits describe the film, it's screen play and what IT asserts. They don't have to be verifiable. Please stop reverting those edits. thanks Vexorg (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does; all content must be verifiable, especially when you're making synthetic claims about the positions that a film holds. Your revisions calls sections of the film "poignant" without a source, and blurs the line between explaining what the films says, and what you're saying about the film. Furthermore, this is an overly long plot summary of the film, and is inappropriate. This is an article about the film, not an article meant to explain the films message or what-have-you. --Haemo (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So how do you verify fictional content of films like Star Wars then? I haven't got a problem with removing POV descriptions like 'poignant' ( that's fair enough ) Your other reasons are simply subjective. I don't think the plot summary IS over-long. And an Article about the film inlcudes explaining the film's message. And slapping a 3RR on me isn't particurly mature considering that 3 reversions have been done by the contending side already. I am not making 'synthetic claims' about what the film is saying. I'm describing what the FILM is saying. I shall go through the original article and remove any POV errors before resubmitting the edits in a day or two Vexorg (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but please discuss them before you do. If you look at Star Wars you can see that the entire plot summary is less than one paragraph for the entire series. You have thousands of words more for just the first third of this film. --Haemo (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

But then Star Wars, being one of the most notable films ever, deserves more than a few paragraphs IMO. Maybe the editors of that article thought that it was unnecessary since they might have assumed the notability of Star Wars meant that everyone knew what it was about anyway. but obviously that's no reasons for it to be succinct. Anyway just because Stars Wars has a short summary it doesn't mean the summary for Zeitgeist should be short. I did take care with the original article to make good use of graphics, tables and images to give a comprehensive summary without making it tedious. Vexorg (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also just mention that the notice was a courtesy, since I was unsure if you were familiar with the rule. Please don't take it poorly, or anything. --Haemo (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Since making my edits, I've felt I have been jumped on by you guys, and my only intention is to create a good and comprhensive article about the film. Which was exactly my intent with the previous version. It doesn't help with the attitude of 'don't' this and 'don't' that of the comments immediately below. Like anyone is going to be spoken to like that :rolleyes: Vexorg (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. However, you can see that in general plot summaries are brief; this isn't unique to Star Wars. For instance, you can look at many other featured article quality films like Witchfinder General (film) or November (film). In fact, the guidelines for films state that "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot." The summary you've been adding is something like 1500-2000 words in length, and it places a heavy weight on the first third of the film. --Haemo (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I argue because the movie is so dense with material, some of which is highly controversial and easily refuted, that adequate space be give to show at least of few of these inaccuracies. (70.129.13.254 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

This is precisely the sort of situation that the original research policy was created for. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The original article was deleted because it couldn't be sourced adequately. Recreating the original article is not an appropriate goal. Writing an article from the independent and reliable sources is what should be done. Don't attempt to recreate the original article and don't use it as a working draft to start from; it isn't a viable article, as has been demonstrated by the AFD and multiple DRVs. If you think reliable sources have been missed and need to be discussed, bring up the sources. Don't even look at the original article other than to check for sources that were in it. GRBerry 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the original article was deleted because of lack of notability about the film. There was little wrong with the original article, and with a little tweaking it was and is perfectly viable. The article is now included in Wikipedia becuase the film has , at last gained notoriety. The rest of your post is full of, ahem, orders that have no basis or taste. Vexorg (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Vexorg, please assume good faith here. I was the one that worked to reinstate the topic and I too disagree with you. We have to read through the sources and include verifiable content from there. If any contributions you're making to the article are not present in reliable sources that discuss the film, they do not belong in the article. That's Wikipedia policy. Please read through WP:PSTS for more information. Pdelongchamp (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. Other than the patronising tone of one editor I have no reason to assume you, nor Haemo are lacking any good faith. I can understand that creating an article and have someone else come in and make such a huge edit can be a little uncomfortable. it's been done to me as well in the past, so I undetstand that emotional side of it. We're all human after all. Be horrible if Wiki' weas created by bots! . So look ... are you saying that the content of a summary of a film can only be included in a Wiki' article if that part of the film has been discussed by a 'reliable' 3rd party source?? if you are then IMO that's stretching the bounds of Wiki' guidelines beyond common sense. After all the film it's self has notoriety. it's a tangible thing, and it's content is verifyable by sheer default of existing in the film. Vexorg (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• You're talking about referencing a primary source. (WP:PSTS) This should be avoided as much as possible though it is allowed. The current overview of the film is adequate. People can watch the film anytime, they're visiting this article for more than just a description of the film. Pdelongchamp (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just focus on the guidelines. Sourcing guidelines state that primary sources, i.e. the film, are okay for referencing content which a non-specialist could reasonably determine from watching the film. For instance, we don't need an article saying "the film discusses government involvement in 9/11", since anyone watching the film could determine that. However, our guidelines indicate that we should shoot for a plot summary around 400-700 words; we're just about in that range right now, so I think it's acceptable. There's some wiggle room for fleshing out some aspects, but given the overall length of the article I think the current length is good. --Haemo (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, thanks for clarifying that. Pdelongchamp (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that. Guidelines. They're not regulations. Surely it's better to put forward an argument based upon the particular article and your own view? Haemo says "For instance, we don't need an article saying "the film discusses government involvement in 9/11", since anyone watching the film could determine that." - Well based upon that you could have an article that says "Film X was made in 19xx, for more info go and watch it!"

Come one guys lets be Bold here. There's no reason why this article can't have a comphrensive content summary. And there's absolutely NO REASON why a longer and comprehensive summary will lower the quality if the article. WIki' isn't printed on paper. We're not saving trees here.

OK, I've looked at WP:PSTS - Primary Source - describing the plot of the film passes this policy no problem. ----> "To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source. " AND Verifiablity - "This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia" is also passed. The summary of the plot of the film is not an assertion, theorie, opinion or argument.

So there's no reason why the plot of the film cannot be included in the article. So no , let's not just focus on the guidelines. They are ONLY guidelines. We have a difference of opinion on how long the plot summary should be. I think the plot summary, with some improvements, I edited in earlier was good. Vexorg (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see your point but considering everyone else believes the current summary is satisfactory, and considering the guidelines does as well, the current summary should be a good compromise. When people go to the article for Celine Dion's latest album, they don't go to hear the album or read the lyrics, they go to read about it's real world context and analysis. Same with this article. You may think a longer summary would improve the article but everyone else, including Wikipedia's guidelines, (decided upon by readers and editors of wikipedia) believes the article would be of lower quality. Perhaps we should just work to improve the more valuable parts of the article instead of concentrating on primary source content which adds little encyclopedic value. Pdelongchamp (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• I would also just note that the "guidelines are just guidelines" argument is very weak. Wikipedia's core policy is consensus, and "guidelines" are the methods of writing an article which have a broad consensus. Every article is expected to adhere to them, unless there is a compelling reason why it shouldn't — in this they are not like regulations, but they're not the kind of "suggestions" you make it out to be. Wikipedia guidelines suggest that plot summaries should be between 400-700 words — this is a position which has broad support across the encyclopedia, and I tend to agree with it here. Simply saying "it's a guideline I don't agree with, so let's ignore it" is not very helpful because it flies in the face of consensus and advocates ignoring what are the strongest editorial controls Wikipedia has. To put it another way, guidelines are not regulations because Wikipedia is not run on a judicial basis — instead, its run on a consensual basis, and guidelines are the stronges form of control this basis provides. --Haemo (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally.

Finally this topic is available, i cannot BELIEVE it was locked out before anyone really had a chance to view the movie, and then released finally once the pressure mounted on the few individuals that voted to seal it's fate as either accepted or rejected. About damn time, if you dont mind me saying so. 161.216.124.2 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pressure? There was no "pressure" — all credit goes to Pdelongchamp who actually wrote a good article that met notability guidelines. Once it was demonstrated, the community accepted it. --Haemo (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to second this. I worked to get a new version of the article reviewed and relisted. The previous versions didn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia. No conspiracy or pressure here, Wikipedia follows policy and it's processes are completely transparent. I too would have voted to delete the previous versions of the article. Pdelongchamp (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There was political bias from some people though. I was there to witness that. Anyway the original articles were deleted because at the time there was no source of notability for the film. As tiem has gone on sources of notability have finally arrived and so the article cn nwo be inlcuded. To say the original articels didn't deserve to be in wikipedia is a far too strong. But, yes, they needed to be improved. Vexorg (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, there's always bias on any topic. However, it usually gets washed out in notability discussions since they have to be tightly focused. Pdelongchamp's re-write demonstrated notability for the subject; it was less that it "became" notable in the meantime, but that he did the hard work of tracking down the sources to make it appropriate for the encyclopedia. --Haemo (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not making light of Pdelongchamp tracking down the sources to make it reliable. I am grateful for that as it has allowed the article to be 'allowed'. But many people ( including myself ) also spent a lot of time trying to track down sources months ago for the original article. Months ago there weren't any notable sources, and that's why the articel was deleted. It wasn't for want of trying. Vexorg (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pdelongchamp, thanks, and Vexorg, congratulations that the article has risen from the ashes! I (xiutwel) have not compared the two versions of the article yet. However, my inclination would be, that an in-depth plot analysis would be better suited on wikia then on wikipedia. (The deleted article is there already.) We could link to that from here. I feel (at this moment!) that a plot of 600-700 words would suffice for wikipedia. Anything longer would likely turn into a discussion of validity of the film's claims; we would need proper sources to be able to do that while maintaining consensus; but opponents of the film are wisely silent about it.
• On the deletion, there were in my opinion 3 reasons for deletion:
  1. The film would not be notable. ("Non-notable cruft".)
  2. The notability, if existent, was not obvious from the article.
  3. The article's quality was too low.
• I would like to express my concern, that though arguments 2 and 3 may be held by wikipedians in good faith, anyone endorsing number 1 was in my opinion most likely acting out of personal political bias: Destroying (hiding) information on wikipedia in order to fulfil personal needs. I would like to call on our community to be aware against this mechanism, since knowledge can set us free, and lack of it will keep us in our little eggshells.
• Vexorg, do you feel in harmony with other editors, or ... what should still be discussed?
• — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot length

• I revise my opinion: The current plot length in the article is around 300 words in total. Since the film has 3 seperate parts, in this case I would not be surprised if we end up with a plot description of 3x400 words, i.e. 1200 words in total. I feel the current plot is very brief, and more info can be provided, using the primary source. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The article uses about 375 words to describe the movie. If you'd like to increase it to about 600 I don't think anyone would be opposed to it. Pdelongchamp (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but 3*400 is not appropriate. Guidelines say between 400-700 words for the entire film, not per section of the film. I've watched this film; it's not so complicated that it requires 1200 words to explain the plot. --Haemo (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You could be right, let's see what happens. I think quality is more important then length. Just describing the plot in detail is not wikipedia's job. But, if editors are able to provide additional information to the plot (such as: notable criticism received) which is not available in the film, it would be excellent to include it. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on a number of GA-quality, with an eye to FA-quality, film articles and the best way to organize material like that is to put them in a "Reception" section, which discuss the film's critical acclaim, as well as significant public events related to the reception — i.e. special showings, awards, recognition, etc. --Haemo (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This not an ordinary film; it contains a fair bit of densely-documented information and, therefore, I see little problem with each of the three sections being expanded far beyond the guideline (which is after all, only a guide). So, expand away. El_C 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Plot summaries add little encyclopedic value. Lengthening the summary would lower the quality of the article. I see no reason to expand the summary. Currently, the reader already gets an idea of what the film discusses. If they want more, they'll watch the film. People do not read encyclopedia articles on films for the plot summaries. Pdelongchamp (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement

A 9/11 Truth Movement template was added to the article. Considering that the film is not a self proclaimed member of this movement and that no reliable sources have attributed it to this movement, I have removed it for the time being. Pdelongchamp (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How about [2]? --Stephen 03:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, only one reference and it specifically calls it an external reference. Close but I would still resist labeling the film part of the 9/11 truth movement.Pdelongchamp (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would not say the film is part of the 9/11 truth movement; it is related though. It is more like both the film and the 9/11 truth movement are subsections of the general truth movement. I doubt we have a label of that movement yet? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I say just let the film stand for itself. There's already "See also" links to related topics, and categories. --Haemo (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Pdelongchamp here. I was a bit surprised to see a 911 truth movement template here. however I did agree with Xiutwel that a 'General Truth Movement' would be more appropriate, and hosudl be created if there is isn't. There certainly is a notable General Movement for Truth out there. Vexorg (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This movie has nothing to do with the 9/11 Truth Movement. If anything, it makes the movement look bad with its anecdotal evidence, offensive voice-clips from George Carlin, lack of quality sources, and hateful anti-Christian rhetoric. --RucasHost (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Relation to symbolic circles of stars

Is there any problem in mention the relation to symbolic circles of stars, which the Zodiac is (Star signs) in this article. Related articles are Circle of stars and Crown of Immortality. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, if you can find a reference that links these to the film, otherwise it is original research. --Stephen 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Zodiac is a symbolic circle of 12 stars. Check the description of Flag of Europe - even if that circle has no religious relation - it's clearly a circle related to the Zodiac. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But you have no reference, and so it is original research. Do you understand this policy? --Stephen 07:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that I, as the OR writer, should be the first that describe the Zodiac as a circle of stars if NO source reference is invoked. I thought it was obvious that the Zodiac has been a circle of stars since it was first created. I will add the reference asap. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't realize, we need a source that links Zeitgeist, the Movie and circle of stars, not the Zodiac and circle of stars. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying: The movie does not have Zodiac as a main part? Have you seen the movie? The Zodiac is a circle of stars! And as I added it into "Se also", not in the main article. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Zodiac is a circle of constellations. I haven't argued anything about the Zodiac itself before. But since the zodiac is not necessarily a circle of stars, and the movie doesn't mention the circle of stars concept, you'll need a source that actually links the movie to the circle of stars concept. Making the leap from Zeitgeist-Zodiac to Zeitgeist-Circle of Stars is the original research here. I really don't know how this could be any clearer. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But please. Search internet for Zodiac circle of stars and youl find many who refer the Zodiac as a circle of stars. And as the Zodiac is a main topic in the Movie - I think the "Se also" entry is correct. I get your point although that the Crown of Immortality is even more related and motivated into the "Se also". --Roberth Edberg (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

By chance, have you ever ready WP:SYN? "John says A, Bob says A implies B; therefore, John says B" is the stereotypical original synthesis. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

At last some good job

It was deleted some time ago, even though many said "keep". Now it's back in a compact version, but it does the job, it informs what the movie is about, the same thing the previous version did.

Great article. It simply describes the movie, just like any other wikipedia entry on a movie. The arguments over the movie's credibility are more appropriate in a discussion forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.230.145 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I say the article is well written, and that any future deletions will be a sign of incompetence. If you want just add or modify as little as possible. Iulian28ti (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the cabal of Pdelongchamp who deserves virtually all of the credit for putting together an acceptable article on the subject. --Haemo (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Error

Although i said to modify as little as possible, i just found an error.

Zeitgeist, the Movie is a 2007 non-profit web film produced by Peter Joseph that characterizes American culture in light of myth of god, country, and prosperity.

Actually it presents the Jesus Myth, not the God Myth. They are two different things.

If no one finds some contradictory evidence on my opinion, i will modify that. Thank you. Iulian28ti (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

imdb

for a long time it's not been on imdb but a similarly titled movie American Zeitgeist has been capturing all the ratings intended for this movie. it's a mess.--Sonjaaa (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

America: Freedom to Fascism

I made the following addition to the introduction paragraph:

Parts of the film are footage from another Internet documentary, America: Freedom to Fascism, which was released in 2006.<ref>{{google video|-1656880303867390173|America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version}}</ref>

I personally think it's a little silly to delete this on the grounds of original research, which two editors have done. As I stated in my edit summary: "please this film tops the most viewed list at Google Video. Anyone can see it, we don't have to go completely Philistine here, do we?" And I stand by that. __meco (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't explain how this doesn't qualify as original research. It's obviously original research. Pdelongchamp (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors, respectfully to all, I would like to make the following observation: We have a "no OR" policy in order to help guarantee the quality of wikipedia. Allowing OR, wikipedia could become an unmanagable peace of unverifiable claims. But, if you find an independent RS making a claim, could not the finding of such a source be acclaimed to be OR, ad absurdum? In this case, the claim made is not likely to be contested, and if so, the matter can be easily solved by going to the primary source, which is allowed in this case.

I hope we can all agree, and I've re-inserted the claim made by others. In harmony, &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The only primary source that should ever be referenced on this page is Zeitgeist, the Movie, as it is the only noteworthy primary source on this page. So unless either Zeitgeist itself claims to reproduce this material, or a reliable source says so, it's unverifiable. And no, your argument makes no sense at all; citing a reliable source is not original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The present nit-picking–activity going on here was definitely not what the original research provisions were instituted for. __meco (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Criticism

I have reverted this recent edit as original research. While there is indeed meticulous sourcing on that page, challenging criticisms from reliable sources should only be done by citing other reliable sources. If the creators themselves have made a response to the criticism, that can be noted in a careful neutral tone, but there is no evidence in the reference given that this sourcing was performed in response to any criticism. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another user has recently reinstated a form of this. The problem is that Zeitgeist's website does not claim this was in response to the critisism (and we have no reliable source to say that either). I have nothing against having in the list of external links a direct link to Zeitgeist's sources, but by merely mentioning it alongside the critisism, one is inserting one's personal opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When you word it like that, it does make sense - however, we should mention somewhere that there is this list of sources, or else it makes the article look very bias against the film - showing claims that information is unsourced, despite there being a source. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested placing a direct link in the ELs. We could also break precedent and put the link right in the infobox, if no one objects. An additional problem I should point out is that Zeitgeist's website doesn't provide any details on when or how their sources page was updated. As such, we can't actually prove (without some original research) that the sources provided on the website aren't the sources being criticized. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it mentions somewhere the lack of exact page numbers and such in the criticisms, which would make sense, as the source page on the Zeitgeist website lacks exact page numbers and the like, so you could be right there. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it out of the criticism section, into the lead as a simple referenced fact about the film. --Stephen 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this edit, I didn't check this section before making it. Though there is a question I want to ask: how can we solve the issue of the sources? The articles by Mark Frauenfelder Mark Ivor and Tossell were written before the sources were updated on the zeitgeist website, making them outdated. How can we fix that section? 4v4l0n42 (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's really not much we can do. If the Zeitgeist publishers never issue a response to this criticism, and no reliable sources analyze the criticism with respect to the new sources, then there is simply nothing else to say on it that could actually be cited to anything. Thus, it would inherently violate original research, verifiability, and probably also neutral point of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But isn't it misleading for someone who reads in this article "it has been criticized [...] for using [...] book citations without page numbers." and then by visiting the official website finds all the references, books and page numbers? I understand the wikipedia policy of not relying on original research, which I strongly agree, but we are presenting an information which is factually untrue, untrue from a neutral point of view. This goes regardless of the content of the quotations, which is disputable and this not the place to dispute, the fact that these references exist or not is either true or untrue, verifiable and not subject of original research. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The detailed footnotes only cover part of the movie, and even if they covered the whole thing, neither do we know they would satiate the concerns of the movie's critics nor is it our job to determine that for ourselves. Our only job is to present all significant claims and let readers decide for themselves. And if Zeitgeist won't respond to this one, then there's nothing to present alongside the criticism. And this is why I recommended adding an external link somewhere (but not in the criticism) directly to Zeitgeist's footnotes or sources page, so that interested readers would hop on over there and could then decide for themselves. But that seemed to be more opposed in the end than supported. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Z-Day?

Isn't Z-Day worth mentioning? Cephei (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC) — Cephei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is it? Is there any coverage of this promotional event in reliable sources that make it worthy of note? --Haemo (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE applies to article subjects, but no the content of the articles. The movie Zeitgeist itself must be notable, but the content of the article does not have to be. Z-day would not be notable enough to have it's own article, but it is applicable (relevant) to this article, so I think it is worth including.

See WP:NOTE#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content

VegKilla (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotal Evidence?

Regarding the use of the term "anecdotal evidence" to criticize the information in the documentary, it should be noted that the Bible is also a prime example of anecdotal evidence. It seems a bit slanted and in violation of wiki standards to make a criticism as such with such blatant disregard for equal truth. Can this be resolved? Aceholiday (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If the bible were anecdotal evidence, how would it make the statement any less true? It seems to me like it would make it more true. And keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth. A reliable sources criticizes the film for relying on "anecdotal evidence," so unless you intend to show the source is using the term in a different context, or the source is unreliable, there is no reason to remove it. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; I'm not going to argue the point, but it really doesn't matter if the Bible is anecdotal evidence, or not. The truth, or fallacy, of that assertion has no impact on whether or not the statement is true. --Haemo (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Aceholiday has been arguing with me about this on my talk page and threatening to "nominate my account for deletion". What I told him is that the Bible using is anecdotal evidence is not NPOV, is OR unless you can get a source, and most importantly is completely irrelevant to this article. --RucasHost (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is one of the references for the argument. Nobody's arguing that someone, somewhere, is saying this. However, if the statement is contradictory, begs the question, or is otherwise misconstruing information to make a point it should be noted as such. The Bible is a work based heavily on anecdotal evidence. This is neither good or bad. Who cares what it's based on. That's not the point. It's blatant misuse of facts to say that the movie, which has caused much controversy about its criticizing the Bible, is based on anecdotal evidence when the WHOLE basis of Christianity also relies heavily on the same thing. I really didn't want to start any religion war, just reduce an obvious slanting of wording. Many other articles notate when a whole criticism begs the question or asserts some other blatant logical fallacy. Aceholiday (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask have any of you watched the film? I only came to read the Wiki on it after watching it, so that's probably why I see an issue with it. The whole section discussing Christianity frequently takes issue with passages in the Bible. Perhaps this clears something up? Aceholiday (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the movie, personally, I didn't think it was very good. The sourcing and arguments were extremely poor, the stuff about Horus has been refuted many times, the clips from George Carlin seemed very crude and offensive (and not funny in the least), and overall the movie is neither convincing nor entertaining. If you're looking for a good conspiracy movie I would recommend either Loose Change or Alex Jones' Dark Secrets: Inside the Bohemian Grove. --RucasHost (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There was clear, explicit sourcing on the web page. It would be unfair to label your dislike of the movie based on religious reasons, as the same could be implied from my impression of the film. I sincerely had no intentions of starting a war with the edit and I feel that my understanding from having watched it hastened my view that the criticism was from a dominantly religious base ignoring that blatant fallacy of the criticism. Correct or not, my initial intention was merely to promote neutrality. Aceholiday (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement "the film uses anecdotal evidence" is backed up by a source. I don’t see the problem. Wikipedia can certainly relate the POV of reliable sources while remaining neutral. The Bible has nothing to do with it.--Phirazo 17:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point?

VegKilla said :(I don't remember that part. Movie said Religion was created to be a calendar, and that it has allowed people to gain power over others. If I'm wrong say so on the talk page.)

After an edit I made, so here goes :). (this is all IMO so please correct rather then delete)

I think the article is entirely missing to point of the movie and instead focuses on details. When I read this article I thought the author "can not see the forest for the trees"

• (religion was made for good but was used for bad as well)
  • The movie clearly states that many religions were made to help the people remember the activities of the sun; helping people and their crops survive.
  • The movie clearly states that many religious wars ravished the earth; Dark ages, holy grail, witch hunt, pardoners, and that bag of joy
    • Note: they neglected to mention the moral teachings included in the bible like "do to others as you would do onto yourself" unfortunately.
• (9/11 was used to remove citizens rights and part them from their money)
  • That's not even much of a paraphrase
• (The people behind the central banks are controlling your economy and by proxy you)
  • The movie clearly states that 'the bankers' caused the grate depression the wars and bad infrastructure to take your money.

publicWiFi 07:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is not seeing the forest for the trees. I have only seen the movie once, so I do not remember all of it. It may be a good idea to put back your text that I removed, but maybe try something like this: Here is what I gathered that the movie was saying about religion (Christianity):

Religion and myths in general can be used to motivate people to be good, but ultimately if the majority of people believe in something that is not true, then they are in danger of being controlled (or oppressed).

A big point of the movie was that the abuse of religion by the power hungry was inevitable.

So of course what you said is not untrue, but I would recommend considering including some mention that it is almost inevitable for religion to be abused by the power hungry because when people accept things without ample evidence, they leave themselves vulnerable to manipulation. By leaving this out it almost sounded like you were saying that the movie claimed that power hungry people abusing religion could have been avoided.

Also, saying "the movie claims" (using the word claim) has a hint of skepticism in it. May I suggest saying "According the the movie," instead of "the movie claims" ?

Feel free to put back your text however you see fit. I've seen this film, but I'm no expert.

VegKilla (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes VegKilla very nicely put, if I may use your words. publicWiFi 08:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Second point was not removed, Third was already there, so I put the first back.

publicWiFi 07:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

VegKilla is reopening the discussion:

Good job with the changes. They worked out well. I tried to add a quote from the movie, which is basically the thesis for part I, but it's been removed, put back, and removed again already, so I decided to reinstate this conversation on the talk page because I think the quote helps the article. The quote is read by the narrator at 35 minutes into the movie (less than two minutes before the end of part 1). The quote fits into the article very well, and I think I might propose that we end the "Part II" and "Part III" section of the summary with quotes as well.

What I was trying to do with the quote, is to have the quote repeat what the last sentence of the "Part I" section says. We have a summary of part I, and then right afterward a quote from the movie that repeats what we summed up. I think it reads very well that way. Please tell me what you think!

VegKilla (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed quote to be added to the "Part I" section (see this version for the entire article):

---

---

Horus left and Jesus right

Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told

Part I evaluates Christian beliefs established in the Bible and critiques the historicity of the Bible. In furtherance of the Jesus myth hypothesis, this part argues that the historical Jesus is a literary and astrological hybrid, and that the Bible is based on astrological principles documented by many ancient civilizations, especially pertaining to movement of the sun through the sky and stars. The movie specifically mentions the story links between Jesus Christ and the Egyptian Sun God Horus. According to the movie, Religion and myths in general can be used to motivate people to be good or remember important astrological occurrences, but ultimately if the majority of people believe in something that is not true, then they are in danger of being controlled (or oppressed).

“ Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems [...] empowers those who know the truth, but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish. ”

---

---

I really like this quote. If this seems too repetitive, maybe we should take a little bit out of the last sentence of the summary and leave it for the quote, but personally I think it is fine for us to repeat ourselves in this way.VegKilla (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Real critique?

can we start looking for a critique here by listing who might have done such a thing? It could be used to help people find a published critique and sources. Make it a critique of the main points because we can all agree the details are gray. publicWiFi 08:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Part 1

• I think the details are not 100% but the overall claim is correct. I suspect the proof can be found in any good/university/government historical library.

Part 2

• this seems to be one of those unverifiable claims because the only proof is the lack of proof. most of the support seems ridiculous, yet undeniably strange/scary. this is the part (removing civil rights) that bothers me the most actually. Just looking at the new bills will give you a reference showing that they took advantage of the situation if not actually executing it themselves (assuming the new bills remove all your rights if you are a terrorist and if you are or are not granted reasonable doubt).
• 9/11_conspiracy_theories is the place for this talk.

Part 3

• Rich people taking advantage of the pour is expected but there is power in numbers so I would suspect that part 3 is only half the story.

overall the claim seems to be part of the truth but by no means the whole truth.

• New_World_Order_(conspiracy)

talk

We can't be making our own critique as that would constitute original research if that's what you're suggesting. But if you find any new criticisms in reliable sources, feel free to suggest it here, or just be bold and see what happens to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think trying to "help people find a published critique and sources?" is a great idea, and a very appropriate task for Wikipedia. I don't see how that is original research. VegKilla (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing "can we start a critique here" said to me he might be suggesting we come up with our own stuff and "publish it" ourselves. I also thought my comment spoke for itself, but I've modified it a bit with small and strikeout text. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reworded it slightly for you:) (we are looking for OR not doing it) publicWiFi 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with a "real critique" is that Wikipedia:No original research does not allow a new synthesis of published material. In other words, you can not take a claim from the movie, then disprove it with a source, since that is advancing the position that the movie makes false claims. If a reliable source comes to the conclusion that the movie makes false claims, that is fine, and can be added to the article with proper attribution, but we as editors can not come to that conclusion on our own. --Phirazo 18:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think if you read the proposition you will find your comment amiss (we are looking for a source, but we need to know where to look, thus the discussion is about where to find a critique not how to make one) 67.70.28.43 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• BTY as far as I can find new synthesis is fine leading synthesis is not. (Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.28.43 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

POV check

I don't see any POV problems with the article. The comment with the tag placement is that the article "implies distaste for the subject". How? --Haemo (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I read the article again. What I meant by "implies distaste" was the recurring usage of the word asserts and the word claims. I'm going to change things like "Part 3 asserts" to "According to Part 3" since that is more neutral language, but still clearly states that these are the claims of the movie, and not known facts.

I am pretty sure that this is a small enough edit to make without waiting for a discussion about it, but if I'm pushing it please let me know on my talk page.

Thank-you,

VegKilla (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of "claims" and other weasel words, while normally discouraged, is used in this case as the movie is a primary source for its own claims. As in, since we have no secondary reliable sources to state that the movie is correct, we cannot give the impression that the movie is correct. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed some of the instances of the phrase "the movie claims" and replaced them with "According to the movie." Where the word "claims" or "argues" seemed appropriate I left it.

Saying "according to the movie" is hardly stating that the movie is correct. I am not trying to give the impression that the movie is correct, but rather I am trying to have a neutral tone. Pointing out that there are no sources to back up some of the things the movie claims is a much stronger argument against the movie than simply saying "the movie claims" 10 times in the same article.

The article still says "the movie claims" at least 4 times, but at least now it is not so repetitive.

VegKilla (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the proposed wording change implied anything, if that's the impression I gave. Certainly, avoiding phrase repetition is a good thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Variety of sentence structure is definitely a positive change. The repeated use of a particular phrase can imply sarcasm or derision, in certain situations, so it's good to mix them up. --Haemo (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)