Talk:Zeitgeist: Addendum

merge

Since the Articel "Zeitgeist Addendum" to which Venus Project was supposed to be merged with does not exist any more, it is natural that the latest is restored. Let's try to improve it. From the 15th of March 2009 Venus Project wil be discussed all over the world. Nobody has the right to just erase it. But you can allways contribute to it..

Just follow the redirect, use the talk page there, and see if those editors are keen to merge. But this article has been deleted via a deletion discussion, so it's not a candidate. - brenneman 10:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It sure can for a second time. After all any group or editors may make a mistake or arrive to a conclusion too fast or without full consent. Let's not rush this time. Both Venus Project and Zeitgeist Addendum are very much in global discussion and worthy of being in WP. Sometimes argumentation of Notability can become very dismissive and subjective. --Fbobolas (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, so the place to take this discussion is either deletion review if you think that it bears re-examination. Or, as I suggested above, use the talk page of Zeitgeist, the Movie. But given that in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Venus Project there was literally no support for this as a stand-alone article, and that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum resulted in delete, by simply re-creating the article you're ignoring two consensus gathering excercises. - brenneman 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus for deletion nor will there ever be. Merging the articles does not equate to deletion. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has began where you suggested. However I see as reasonable that a deleted article may be resubmitted if lots of people back it and has been reconstructed with new and better content. We live in a world where total knowledge doubles every two years. A decision on particular article deletion may be outdated quite fast. We'll try to go with the formal procedures, but let's not forget that those procedures, as well as you guys as admins, should serve the substance of our collective knowledge. --Fbobolas (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging 2 films is rather crazy?

I see a ... drum roll.... conspiracy! 84.104.135.141 (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article to which Zeitgeist: Addendum redirects discusses a different film. There should at least be a section devoted to the sequel's plot. Attys (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't Merge, Don't Delete

This film deserves its own page. Reasons:

-Started The Zeitgeist Movement, an organization international in scope with tens of thousands of members.

-The Zeitgeist Movement identifies more with Zeitgeist: Addendum than Zeitgeist: The Movie.

-It is "the activist arm" of The Venus Project, another organization with interesting ideas.

-It contains at least thought provoking ideas. The fact that the ideas are not orthodox just makes them more deserving of being covered in Wikipedia.

-Winning the Artivist Film Festival award is significant. Seems to qualify it as notable. And, this is a form of reference by a third party.

-Zeitgeist:Addendum is one of the most watched videos on Google Videos (note: Google has stopped allowing users to see the rankings of videos by watch count)

-"[Peter] Joseph was the subject of a New York Times article shortly after the 2009 Zeitgeist Day as well as numerous interviews by radio hosts and independent media journalists" - from the "Peter Joseph" Wikipedia page. Obviously, Peter Joseph was interview because of the movie he made, so this is more support for the notability of Zeitgeist: Addendum.

-On the topic of notability, there are a number of debunking articles on other sites, which is another form of third party reference.

-It deserves to be subjected to the same criteria for getting its own page as other movie sequels. How could one argue that Zeitgeist: Addendum does not deserve its own page but these movies do? All Dogs Go to Heaven 2, Aladdin 2 (Return of Jafar), Beethoven's 2nd, etc. etc.Dustin184 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for Addendum are the same for any sequel (indeed, any topic, anywhere, ever), which is notability. Has addendum itself (not its director, not the movement) received substantial coverage from multiple, reliable, independent sources? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This film is at least as notable as the other sequels I mentioned, so if they are notable enough to have their own page, this should as well. The fact that the movement it started is notable makes the film notable. Do you disagree with that? Also, as I stated before, the director is notable because this film that he made is notable. In the other points I posted above, I show that indeed, it has received substantial coverage from multiple, reliable, independent sources. Do you think it needs more to be notable?Dustin184 (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't shown any sources. A source is a published document, not an assertion or a hit count. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice and simple solution revise the applied definition of 'Notable' to respond to the evidence that something that is 'Notable' (common applied definition) is not 'Notable' (Wikipedia specified definition). It is clear to see here that this is a 'Notable' and clearly interesting and informative topic that needs to be covered, this is being ignored on the abritrary reference to the few sources - on it's specified criteria list - that can quote it, which itself disregards that the reliability, notability, and overall value of something is based on the product, and existing extrinsically of any opinion relating to it.89.240.117.140 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You can see on this page: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/?Itemid=51 that 413,000 people have signed up with the movement. That is notable.

Google trends shows a spike and continued interest in Jacque Fresco since late 2008, which was when the movie was released. See here: http://www.google.com/trends?q=Jacque+Fresco&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

A similar spike and continued interest can be seen for "The Zeitgeist Movement" here: http://www.google.com/trends?q=The+Zeitgeist+Movement&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Again, the same can be seen for "The Venus Project" here: http://www.google.com/trends?q=The+Venus+Project&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

If Jacque Fresco, The Zeitgeist Movement, and The Venus Project are each important enough to get their own wikipedia articles, not to mention Peter Joseph, who made the movie, then the movie that got people interested in them of course deserves to have its own page. -Dustin184 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The notability of this will not be reflected in third party sources like it would be for other mainstream things because most of the media will not report on topics that challenge the establishment. Dustin184 (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, then how do you explain the preponderance of sources for the first film? Simple. It's become popular, so naturally people are talking about, and this includes the media. The media will report on anything that they think people want to see, as long as they think it will garner ratings. But whatever the reason for lack of sources, paranoid rants do not change the fact that a subject needs to appear in reliable, third party sources in order to be notable.

What happened to the older discussions and page histories?

The older versions of the main page only go back to December 2010, but this page has existed for at least 2 years. What happened to them? Dustin184 (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I've placed a notability tag on this article because it is currently lacking reliable, third party sources that establish its notability. When I came across this article, there were only three sources in it. One was an imdb page, which is not permitted under WP:SELFPUB. Another is a page at the Zeitgeist Movement website, and wasn't even a viable page, since clicking on it led to a 403 Error page. The last one, which is the only one that I kept, is the Sarasota – Manatee Hebraic Roots Forum, which is not reliable, in itself, from the looks of it, merely hosts the film, and is used to support the assertion that the film is divided into four parts (which itself, probably doesn't require a source anyway). If anyone can find reliable, third party sources that have covered this film, as with the first film, please add them to the article. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This film and its predecessor and sequels has received a huge amount of attention as well as notoriety on the Internet. A lot of it consists of video reviews, ripostes, blog reviews, etc., which while they do not amount to published print sources, are so many in number that I think the notability of both this film and of the three other feature-length and double feature-length films associated with it is now firmly established. It would be easy to flood this article with independent references to the film. A google search for +"zeitgeist addendum" +"peter joseph" throws up nearly 1.5 million hits. I am therefore removing the notability tag. GKantaris (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reception section

The NY Times article that is referenced isn't a critical review of the film. As such, I'm not sure it's reasonable to use it as part of "Critical Reception". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.197.115 (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Addendum is not a sequel

As the director has stated previously (citation pending), Zeitgeist:Addendum, while using the popularity of the live performance video Zeitgeist to promote it's message, does not follow in the same vein or reinforce arguments of the first film. Zeitgeist was a personal expression art piece that became popular by happy accident, not intention. Zeitgeist:Addendum was trading on the popularity of the first piece, as it presented the new idea of "The Zeitgeist Movement" along with solutions to many of the problems pointed out by the "Zeitgeist" performance. Zeitgeist:Addendum should be looked at as the first film of the series, not the second.

96.254.108.23 (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)PCMcGee

Should we redirect this page to The Zeitgeist Movement?

Earl King Jr. proposes to turn this page into a redirect (ie, replacing the entire page contents with #REDIRECT [[The Zeitgeist Movement]]). There is an ongoing discussion here, which I encourage others to join. nagualdesign 19:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to personalize this by emphasizing what editor did what. Lets just stick with neutral editing and discussion. Mostly the conversation about this is on the The Zeitgeist Movement page.

Redirection is a terrible idea. ZAddendum is a movie. A movie on Netflix and other outlets giving it total independence from TZM or anything else. JamesB17 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I to believe redirection to be a terrible idea, if only to maintain a standard of consistency in how one treats works of creativity form their creators. As I explored the Wikipedia's film directors page and browsed and randomly clicked on various directors links to ascertain the general consistent approach, with regards to filmography, nearly every content released has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlordmagic (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)