Jump to content

Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Rewrite section

If we were to rewrite this section TheMarker[12] characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by The Irish Times[15] (See above). TheMarker further wrote that Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film, and that an updated version of the film, released in 2010, dropped the claim on the unification of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. TheMarker additionally wrote that Joseph said that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect. In addition, TheMarker also quotes Joseph as saying: "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do."[12][23]

What would it look like? Say for instance if the contentious aspect of the Marker story of Joseph distancing himself and the Marker report of that were removed, meaning those lines of the Marker, making the claims and Joesph's counter claims were removed? I assume other aspects of the Marker reporting would still exist as they are? Right now it appears few have weighed in on the RFC issue, but the drift is for removing claims from Marker and Joseph on the issue. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the most relevant and important part is: TheMarker characterized Joseph's evidence as, for the most part, incomplete at best and speculative at worst. They called the film "an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis", and quoted Joseph as saying, "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a good compromise edit. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the Critical reaction section as it violates the neutrality of the article.

The size of this section violates the neutrality of the article. It needs to be substantially trimmed down. See WP:Weight for more info. TheMarker carries little weight as does Filipe Feio or Jane Chapman. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no basis for this, or for selectively removing negative material. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The section is in clear violation of WP:Weight which compromises the neutrality of the article. And don't make blanket reversions. The Globe and Mail carries more weight than The Irish Times. Filipe Feio shouldn't be in the section. The Marker carries little weight as does Jane Chapman. The material from Dr. Mark Foreman comes from a primary source which I have removed, etc. - Address each one of my edits separately and why you think it should be changed back to the original. Make your case for how the previous bloated section was more neutral than the current version. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have twice reverted your POV pushing...you do not have consensus for the massive removal of the material nor is it up to others to argue about each one of your edits.--MONGO 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with the changes made - the film has been widely criticized for inaccuracies, conspiracy theories and for having elements of propaganda. These aren't just mentioned in one or two reviews, but many of them and that weight needs to be accurately demonstrated in the article. Summarizing it better and noting that multiple sources hold similar views is something that may be beneficial.
I did not revert the section tag however. I think the overall length could be reduced somewhat, but in no way should be weight of the critical reaction be reduced. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You provide a textbook example of how to not get your way on an article....edit warring against three other editors, calling their edits vandalism, placing warning boilerplates on their usertalk and then demanded they explain their edits over yours. Good luck with that.--MONGO 19:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I called one editor's revert vandalism (which it was and it was yours) and placed one edit warring warning (on your talk page). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Not only was your warning preposterous since you're the one edit warring, but my edits were not vandalism by any definition.--MONGO 04:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in here. Neutrality is not "violated" by mere the size of a section. Neutrality is violated when material indicates an editor's POV, or conveys a POV or appearance of a POV in Wikipedia's voice. One could argue that all material must be summarized in proportion to its relevance, but that's more of a writing and composition issue than a neutrality one. One could argue that NPOV can be violated by putting too much detail of either positive or negative reaction to a film in an article, but that does not appear to me to be the case in this one. The section appears to summarize the different types of critical reaction to the film, which isn't just a matter of aesthetics, as the material in most film articles are, but of the validity of its factual and historical content, which is in keeping with other articles on films, particularly documentaries, that are socially, historically or politically controversial. See Bowling for Columbine and Sicko for examples of articles on films with sections on reception that are more extensive than typical films, and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as an example of an article whose content is mostly about the controversy over the film's content. See also Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy for an example of an entire article devoted to controversy over reactions to a film, and Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code for a similar article on a book. Nightscream (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, I assume you're not familiar with WP:Weight as the size of a section (in this case Critical reaction) is directed related to the overall neutrality of an article. From WP:Weight: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For those editors involved, please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality is not "violated" by the size of a section. Neutrality is violated when material indicates an editor's POV, or conveys a POV or appearance of a POV in Wikipedia's voice. Also it is not a good idea to bandy around the term vandal in regard to your fellow editors unless a clear case is at hand and that is not the case. I understand you are asking questions above but do not see how getting bogged down in your questions which seem rhetorical, will shed any light or make any difference argument wise. The film is well known in conspiracy circles. Maybe you can find counter weighted arguments that it is not a conspiracy movie. Care was given in the beginning section giving Zeitgeist Joseph person the opportunity to refute, so it is balanced. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. I'll post it again for you. From WP:Weight: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." -- Undue weight is a neutrality violation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Nightscream, I assume you're not familiar with WP:Weight as the size of a section..." I am indeed familiar with WP:WEIGHT, and I stand by my previous statement. The size of a section, in and of itself, is not a violation of NPOV. It can be if if material is given space that is disproportionate. That's what WP:WEIGHT says, and it's what I said above. If you want to argue that the material is disproportionate to extant critical reaction to the film, or that something about the material's presentation conveys a POV, then you should've made your case to that point. But you didn't. Instead you simply said, "the size of this section violates the neutrality of the article." Without any explanation of what "POV" is being conveyed, what the POV is, whose it is, etc. I'm am left to conclude that you have not met the burden of proving POV. I see no POV in that section, and its size is in keeping the Critical reaction sections in other articles on controversial documentaries. Nightscream (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Nightscream stated, "Without any explanation of what "POV" is being conveyed..." -- Were you really not aware that the section is predominantly negative??? Are you familiar with this article??? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And still no response for the reverts so I'll post it again. For those editors involved, please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If the section is predominantly negative, that may be because critical reaction to the film has been predominantly negative. The critical reception section in the Jack and Jill (film) article is predominantly negative. Is that in violation of NPOV, or just an accurate reflection of critical reaction to the film? And if this is not the case with Zeitgeist, if you feel that critical reaction to the film has been mixed or mixed-to-positive, then you can fix it by adding positive reviews from reliable sources. Nightscream (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems to sum things up...if there are positive reviews then they can be added.--MONGO 04:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Given how old the film is I assume all reviews for it have already been published, so it would take some investigative work. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions

I posted some questions previously regarding changes made to the Critical reaction section. I understand that the current consensus is to keep that section as it is, so I'm not editing the article, but the questions remain relevant and unanswered. They're open to all editors.

1) Why was the material from Dr. Mark Foreman, which comes from a primary source, put back in place? 2) Why is the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? 3) Why was the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response removed at the beginning of the section? 4) Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you ask this two sections up?--MONGO 18:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I started the section, "I posted some questions previously". --- Did you come across an answer for the Filipe Feio question? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure...so you think if you asked the same question twice that you'll get a different or even any answer on the second go. How's this....the Feio ref can go...the rest look fine. Have you found any references that are more favorable for the article or is that too much work?--MONGO 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
So your answers for questions 2 & 3 are, they "look fine". Explain to me how that's an adequate answer to detailed questions, I don't understand your train of thought. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No offense here S.D.S. but if you continue to ask the same question which seems rhetorical or without significance then probably you will be ignored, no matter how many emphasis points you put on it. If you can find interesting positive citable reference then by all means add them or post them here on the talk page for discussion to add. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If no response can be provided, the changes implied by Somedifferentstuff should be made. -Dustin184 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Acharya source called into question

The source for the statement "Acharya also acted as consultant for Part I of the movie." has been called into question by Arthur Rubin. The source is <http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/376-zeitgeist-sourcebook-part-1-the-greatest-story-ever-told.html>

I think this source is reliable and should be kept because:

  • 1. The website is clearly from Acharya.
  • 2. In the source it states "This collaborative effort between Peter Joseph and D.M. Murdock/Acharya S ...", showing that indeed she acted as a consultant.
  • 3. WP:Verifiability states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..."

—Dustin184 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

... provided that they are not unduly self-serving. I don't see how her claim (yes, I said "claim") that she was a consultant for the movie would not be self-serving, even if posted on the movie's web site. You remove my clause "she said that ...", which would be an appropriate statement as to what was sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be disagreement over the meaning of the phrase "unduly self-serving". To help clarify your interpretation of the phrase, could you provide an example (hypothetical is fine) of something in a self published source that is not unduly self serving.—Dustin184 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If I said I was a technical consultant on a TV show (when, in fact, the "science consultant" called me, once, and asked me a question), would it be usable? It would be true, and entirely misleading.
Examples of usable statements (from other Wikipedia articles).
(name) is a professor at (university).
(name) is a preeminent professor at (university).
(name) has been consulted in regard (film). (marginal; not necessarily verifiable, but not very interesting.)
(name) is a consultant on (film). (implies a financial relationship, and is quite notable.)
In this case, both sources were written by Acharya (according to the reference), and posted on the film's web site, but we don't know whether they were authorized, or her own imagination. Do you know anyone writing about a project they were involved in who would not exaggerate? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, to clarify, both sources were not written by Acharya. Please read them first. The second source was written by the film's creator, Peter Joseph.
Let me see if I understand your argument. You agree that this source shows that, to some degree at least, she was in fact a consultant for the movie, but that to call her "a consultant" might be exaggerating her contribution since based on this source alone we cannot reliably determine how much she was in fact consulted. Is that what you mean?
If so, that's fair. We should keep this source though since it is from Acharya herself and shows from her perspective that she at least intended to act as a consultant, and that she did contribute something. We can combine this with the other source given for the statement in the Article, the Companion Source Guide, which is written by Peter Joseph and contains a "thank you" to Acharya for acting as a source, to safely say that Acharya did make a significant contribution and can be given the title "consultant" in the Article. So, the original statement in the Article should be left as is, without qualifying her statement with a "she said". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustin184 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Look, the whole movie is about conspiracy theories. Is it really inappropriate to question whether a PDF file on a random-looking website which claims to be written by someone involved in the film really is? That being said, I don't think Peter Joseph's statement can be used to support that Acharya was a consultant on the film; but, perhaps, something could be said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand your argument. You are saying that a document written by Peter Joseph, the creator of the film, in which he personally thanks Archaya for acting as a consultant is not sufficient evidence that she was a consultant for the film? -Dustin184 (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
What evidence would you consider sufficient? -Dustin184 (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Source for Acharya's reponse to Callahan critque called into question

The source for the statement in the article , "Acharya also responded to Forbes's statements, insisting that the primary sources used in her research support the ideas in her writings." has been called into question by Arthur Rubin. The source is <http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html>.

The source should be considered reliable and kept because:

  • 1. It is clearly a response to Forbes's statements.
  • 2. It is clearly by Archaya.
  • 3. WP:Verifiability states that, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..."

—Dustin184 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Its not remotely a reliable source. It is a self published blog of some kind. It is not a news or information story or a reported story. Just a person claiming one thing or another. Even the title is pretentious and without merit. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This one is closer to meeting WP:SELFPUB, but I don't think it's there. I'm not sure that http://truthbeknown.com even meets our standards for courtesy copies, though. How do we know that it's Acharya posting the entry? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This source does not look reliable to me. It appears to be a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Please provide reasoning and evidence for your claim that the source is unacceptable. These are reasons it could be unacceptable, according to WP:Verifiability
  • the material is unduly self-serving or an exceptional claim;
  • it involves claims about third parties;
  • it involves claims about events not directly related to the source;
  • is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

That it is a blog does not make it unacceptable. It is reasonable to assume that content posted on Acharya's website attributed to Acharya is in fact written by Acharya. -Dustin184 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessarily Ancharya's blog; it's a post claiming to be by Ancharya. We had this discussion in regard Satanic ritual abuse; there are sources which post "documents", when, in reality, they made them up. Unless this is verifiably Ancharya's blog or website, we don't know that it contains her words. If it were her blog, it might not be unduly self-serving, but it (the entries) do make claims about third parties. I would accept them as supporting the, well, claim, that she said she responded to Foster's and Forbes' statements, but I'm not sure @Capitalismojo: agrees. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of the blog or the post? Currently there is more evidence that it is her site, such as:
  • Her name and picture are on the site
  • It is a large site and so to create all of that content for the purpose of including a few malicious forgeries would be more trouble than it is worth
  • All of the content is in line with other works by Acharya

-Dustin184 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If Acharya has had that role then she may have been interviewed in some source, even her local newspaper would be better. Instead of using her self published information some other actual reporting source could be found. It appears that most of her writing is self published. She has her own publishing company. Not saying that is good or bad but has she been written about seriously in relation to the movie? Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You are repeating a point that has already been addressed (the use of self published sources). If you have additional evidence or reasoning, please present it. Otherwise, let us close this discussion.
Also, please see WP:Disruptive Editing, especially:
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
  • Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified [citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
  • Does not engage in consensus building:
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
-Dustin184 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Movie in Black Sabbath Video. Huge Press.

I'm surprised the incorporation of Zeitgeist: The Movie into the new Black Sabbath video has not been mentioned... maybe a "Pop Culture" Section?

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/black-sabbath-taps-controversial-filmmaker-peter-joseph-for-god-is-dead-video

JamesB17 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Good find. There may be things in that source that would be appropriate for this Article. -Dustin184 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I have added a simple section, common to other wiki articles of this nature, regarding pop culture influence. JamesB17 (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of veiled anti-semitism?

Okay. So let me see if I understand this. A woman, with a clear bias and hatred of the film, states that it is "anti-semitic"... And you guys make a whole sub section out of it? To post that blog style opinion here is deplorable. How can that be justified as neutral? While it is clear the criticisms sections is about as extreme as can be, with this page run by the worst editors on wikipedia, going so far to call the film racist in the context of extreme fringe reporting is absurd. JamesB17 (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What source are you talking about? What has been written in the Article and attributed to that source? What action are you suggesting? What evidence do you have that she has a conflict of interest, and is thus not a reliable source?-Dustin184 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Michelle Goldberg's article, which is sourced on this page like it is only thing ever written about Zeitgeist: The Movie. The severity of her accusation of antisemitism poses bias which is unparalleled by other critics. The notion of "conflict of interest:" is not equal to business context... this pertains to a reporter with a vendetta, working to slander. Antisemitism is a very extreme and "fish out of water" conclusion. It would be equally as relevant of the quality of her reporting if she said " Zeitgeist was about Aliens" when only her lone interpretation arrives at that conclusion. Hence, to actually make a section out of that is simply irresponsible as it is so fringe. I thought wikipedia wasn't an opinion blog and the quality of the notions should be equally as viable as the quality of the sources? Her source as an interpreter of the film is "Questionable" at best. JamesB17 (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that her statements come off as little more than opinion as she offers nothing to support her claims. In favor of rewrite or removal. -Dustin184 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg?

Why is Michelle Goldberg given such clout here? Is she an authority on Zeitgeist? She says that it has to do with the "La Rouche" movement" - so therefore it should be posted here?! JamesB17 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

She has apparent conflict of interest, since she wrote a book that is pro-christianity and the movie has a section presenting evidence attempting to disprove Christian stories.
She could be an expert on the subject, making her statements worth of inclusion, however, her statements sound more like opinion and she offers no reasoning or evidence for her claims. Thus, her claims don't add much to the article.
I agree they should be reduced or removed. -Dustin184 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful. She is a well known journalist, notable Michelle Goldberg and the source is reliable. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. The source is RS. The journalist is notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Official Zeitgeist Source Guide

Give the 200+ page published Source Guide which, according to Joseph, sources "every line" of the film, should this text be given a more prominent position given the large negative slant otherwise noted in this article? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB17 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest and why? -Dustin184 (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest this Text be noted in the vast criticism section to show that the author has responded to such allegations of content quality. Or perhaps at the very top, given, for some reason, there is a criticism in the actual Opening statement ( which I don't get either). Why are we pointing out such an issue in the opening statement which should be objective? JamesB17 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
In favor. Adding a section about the text somewhere, possibly in the "Critical Reaction" section would help move the Article towards a NPOV, and gives valuable information to the reader that would better equip them to make their own judgments about the validity of the content in the Movie.
As an aside, I find it easier to keep discussions on topic if each talk session is only about one issue. It may be helpful to create separate talk sections for the other issues you bring up. -Dustin184 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Proceed with caution you two while editing the article as you might now be viewed as tandem editors. JamesB17 is on vacation currently from the article for making too many reverts but this is just a reminder that the article is contentious and for those of you involved in the actual movement extreme caution must be observed for neutral presentation. Probably your cause is actually served better that way also because accurate information generally elicits more interest. The Companion piece is not the movie and may or may not be notable but putting a self published thing like that on, unless it is cited by journalists or used in some article etc. probably is a non starter. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The companion guide should definitely be noted in the article. It's directly relevant to the movie and the fact that it's a primary source is not an issue as long as attribution is clear. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It is just more bulk material from sources too close to the subject that make the article bloated with self sourced stuff. If it is important then look some place where it is reported on or discussed seriously in some academic way or news worthy way. It may be too promotional in nature and it looks like a movie advert. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know why the links I contributed to section 'See Also' were removed twice for being allegedly "unhelpul"

Anyone who have seen the three documentaries (the two I cited plus Zeitgeist), cannot help to realise their common background: They denounce a Conspiracy led by international bankers in order to enslave the people all, in which the management of money: its creation by Central Banks in particular plays a central role. The Second Zeitgeist Movie practically retells the plot of "The Capitalism Conspiracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engranaje (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you have strong opinions about the movie and the links. If you can find some citation that ties all of those together maybe you can use it to make a point. As it is though it is just an opinion which you hold. People could endlessly put their un-cited opinions on the article so extraneous links like you posted that do not tie in really have to be avoided. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I will try to prove my point by citing the current articles on English wikipedia, which I didn't write, in case anyone has't seen all three films [bold emphasis mine]:

1) The capitalist conspiracy

2) Money as Debt

3) Zeitgeist

As can be seen, these similarities I found are well beyond my own opinions.

May I add another quote, this time from Wikipedia Manual of Style [Bold emphasis mine]


Engranaje (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the links could be worked into the article as article links if they are relevant, but I doubt it they are. There is no corollary to them in the film. It is just more fringe conspiracy theory opinionated backing up the conspiracy aspect of the movie. The implication is that something dark and sinister is happening. It might be noxious also to imply a racial religious group is behind the "system" Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should probably link to criticism of the Federal Reserve, not to either of the other <redacted> movies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. That makes sense. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The two links in question (The Capitalist Conspiracy, Money as debt) should be included in the "See Also" section. Engranaje has shown that the three articles are related. Also, as Engranaje pointed out, it is a matter of judgement and common sense whether or not link should be in the "See Also" section; Earl King Jr. is incorrect in saying that some citation is needed for their inclusion. Also, it makes sense to also include a link to criticism of the Federal Reserve.—Dustin184 (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

«Maybe the links could be worked into the article as article links if they are relevant, but I doubt it they are» If you doubt it, you should watch the films. The similarities among them are even stronger than what can be read from the wikipedia articles. The truth is, Zeitgeist didn't say anything new on this matter.

«There is no corollary to them in the film. It is just more fringe conspiracy theory opinionated backing up the conspiracy aspect of the movie.» There's no conspiracy "aspect" of the movie. The whole movie revolves around conspiracies. May I cite Wikipedia again:


«The implication is that something dark and sinister is happening.» That's what the three movies (Zeitgeist, Money as debt, the capitalist conspiracy) are all about.

«It might be noxious also to imply a racial religious group is behind the "system"» Again, if you had seen the films, you would have found no antisemitism claims at all. And if there were, what's the big deal? Each article shouldn't reflect our own opinions, but mainly that of the movies/film/books/people they are based upon. Would you delete the entry The Protocols of the Elders of Zion because the book's noxious?

I think a link to criticism of the Federal Reserve is also a good idea, why not include the movies too? if you don't believe they are similar, just watch them. The analogies are very hard to ignore. And finally may I point out that I am not giving any opinion wheter the conspiracies denounced are true or not. That's not the issue here.

Engranaje (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have recieved no further replies. Should I assume it's OK to put the links back and they won't be removed? Engranaje (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Don't put them back in. Someone could just as well add a link to the Wizard of Oz claiming that it is analogous to Zeitgeist because of the Fed being symbolically at issue. (The Capitalist Conspiracy, Money as debt) should not be included. They are of different political orientation to the films, not mentioned in the films. The Federal Reserve link idea was a good idea though. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, whatever floats your boat. Seemengly I was unable to convince you. Though you keep on coming up with weak and flamboyant arguments, and, on top of that, you fail to address mine (Haven't you read the See Also citation?), your tone has convinced me that, no matter what I say, you'll just get away with it. Engranaje (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Federal Reserve System and international bankers

"This section also claims the Federal Reserve System is in fact controlled by a small cabal of international bankers ('the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed') who then stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves."

Excuse me, Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.136.218 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question or idea to articulate? Nightscream (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
With regards to all the reverting going over this material, I would note that the material being repeatedly restored includes some very close paraphrasing of the source so it should not be restored for that reason alone. The previous version was also written poorly, essentially repeating the same point several times. At the same time, repeatedly restoring the information simply to plop in a suggestive quote implying the film is anti-semitic is inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Doubtful that the reverts are justified getting rid of the information of 'unnamed ethnic group' in a citation and more recently the addition of anti-Semitic trope by another journalist from this citation [1] is not such a good idea. The implication by many journalists and others is that Zeitgeist uses techniques of agitprop to stir the waters. Where is some kind of source for the information given in the sections? Is it according to Zeitgeist information from their website or where? There has to be some perspective also and removing the two citations takes that away. These areas should not just be ideological formats for Zeitgeist groups. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
What you did was add a vague comment from a source and then add a quote about someone's allegations to infer what the vague comment was insinuating. That is original research. The allegations of antisemitism involve a few partisans insisting that the mention of "international bankers" in the film is a nod to Jews, despite having no actual evidence to substantiate the allegation. Most sources do not make this allegation so it should not be mentioned or alluded to in the synopsis.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
If you are a Zeitgeist supporter and do not like it that a balance is attempted because that takes away from credibility that probably makes sense. No perspective was used when the sections were written, they are not sourced, so written by Zeitgeist supporters mostly. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
My problem is that you and a few others are repeatedly pushing this "antisemitism" schtick on the article, even though the vast majority of reliable sources do not so much as hint at the notion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Have to assume you are kidding or not getting the point. [2] Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any reliable sources there Earl, just slander without solid evidence, jealous, disgruntled "socialists" without the skill and charisma so they throw out (and repeat over and over again) the anti-Semite card and expect everyone to believe it. The movie is anti-Christianity. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, there is one reliable source in those search results, but it is the same one that has been brought up over and over.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomates & IMDb Ratings

How are these not reliable sources? They are commonly cited on other films' Wikipedia pages, and other sites and media commonly reference them. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=591478444 startswithj (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are more or less blogs created by users where viewers probably can rate things a multiple times. Its not like an official exit poll by say Newsweek or USA today. It anecdotal. As stats in general with little to no meaning its clutter [3]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of cited review

For over a year or more, our article here has referenced the following review: http://www.themarker.com/markerweek/1.1620957

Previously it was summarized from a negative viewpoint, which I found odd considering its title. Of course translated sources are allowed, so I ran it through three translators:

I then removed direct quotations and adjusted our summary to a more neutral tone that would be more reflective of the source's general stance (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&oldid=591987918#Conspiracy_theory_and_propaganda).

It appears now that because the summary is not as (incorrectly) negatively critical as before, it's being repeatedly deleted. This is a reputable source, a professional writer, and a highly relevant and interesting review in its connection to Judaism and the Occupy Movement. Not to include it in our article would reveal a bias against the subject. startswithj (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've edited again now to communicate better the spirit and intention of the "99%" source article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&oldid=591989853#Critical_response). Also for context if desired, here's how I found the review summary last week (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&oldid=590606078#Critical_reaction). Cheers, startswithj (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
That is your original research Startwith. You are doing the translating and you are not a reliable source. I think we could stick with English sources as that is the focus of this en.Wikipedia, unless the actual author has translated a version into English or you find a qualified translator has made a copy of this somewhere and published it. I looked at one of the translations, the Google one. It is mush. Most of it does not make sense, you could make it mean anything almost, example What distinguishes the zeitgeist movement, according to Joseph, is that it aims not only to change the economic system, but to make the whole design of the company. Zeitgeist is an extreme sound, both its ideological background and its requirements for the future So the translations are not useable. What good is it if its not interpretable about what its actually trying to say? Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Machine translations are allowable (though directly quoting them is not recommended); they are not original research. Comparing three separate translations confirms that the reviewer is congratulatory and is noting the movie's connection to the 99% movement. The summary of the review that I found here last week (linked above) appears to have been cherry-picked for negative criticism.
Quoting an extreme example of translation-confusion is cherry-picking as well. Human translations will also have a few garblings. That's the reason for comparing multiple translations. While the Google translator proffered "Zeitgeist is an extreme sound," the Microsoft translator gave "Zeitgeist is a radical voice." If you've learned a second language, you can see the greater picture, without focusing on one or two out-of-place words. startswithj (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
After reading the Google translation, my conclusion is that the Marker article is far too complex and wide-reaching to summarize in the Wikipedia article about the 2007 movie. In my view, it shouldn't have been included (negatively) before, and it shouldn't be included (positively) now. It should be left out of the article. I also find the edit warring in the last few days to be disruptive. I'm going to remove the material, and the two of you, and hopefully other editors, can spend some time reaching a consensus about including or not including the material and, if including, how it would be worded. If you can't reach a consensus, then use dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Bbb23. Thank you for joining the talk. Could I ask what you mean by "too complex and wide-reaching," please? The article opens with an intro to Joseph followed by a description of his first film and its reception (this is the article’s first and largest section). The article's subsequent, smaller sections mainly discuss the Zeitgeist Movement and Joseph's work after the first film (which would not be our concern much for our page about the film). After reading the translations, is there really any question that while the author notes the film may have evidencing flaws, he overall commends its online popularity and timing to '99%' activism? Where do the translations not say that? startswithj (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't really want to get any further into the content dispute. I only got involved because the article has such a checkered and controversial history. As I stated above, use dispute resolution to resolve the problem if you can't come to an agreement with Earl.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"talk2action.org" as a source

I've removed the claim sourced to talk2action.org on the basis of WP:V. Per their [FAQ], the website's material is user-generated without editorial oversight, and the website itself is hardly notable or professional. Other content of equal or greater footing has been deleted from this article, so in the interest of WP:NPOV, I'm unsure why would we would hold onto this small bit. The claim was re-added with little reason given—thus my invitation to talk here, Thank you. startswithj (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you have just continued the previous edit war with another point. Right now it was clear you are against any small consensus but continue reverting. Since the page is controversial engaging in edit wars is bad business. It has been stated before your revert that it appeared a legit citation. Nevertheless you continued. I really think you deserve a topic ban for incessant reverts and tendentious behavior. Whether you are an enthusiast for Zeitgeist or appear to be one, that sort of thing has proven to be common on related articles to this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Earl, I seek NPOV and professionalism in articles, and I assume you have similar goals. WP:BURDEN ("burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material") informed my deletion. I do not wish to edit-war, and I accept consensus once it is known. As I've asked before, please do not ad hominem. Best, startswithj (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Chip Berlet is a noteworthy commentator on political issues so I think his perspective is worthy of mentioning in the appropriate context.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for talking. Here's the exact text raising my eye from WP:V: "Questionable sources are those that…lack meaningful editorial oversight. … self-published media, such as…open wikis…group blogs…are largely not acceptable as sources. … Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable…[but]…Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." startswithj (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You did a false edit summary for your post above reaching out to Earl. Again you use baiting tactics like As I've asked before, please do not ad hominem. Thats B.S. and if you believe all the stuff you are saying then bring it somewhere else like a board. Otherwise it is just more tendentious annoying baiting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Berlet's opinion warrants a mention, though I did think Joseph's statements warranted a mention as well and thus added them to the section.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"talk2action.org" as a source

I've removed the claim sourced to talk2action.org on the basis of WP:V. Per their [FAQ], the website's material is user-generated without editorial oversight, and the website itself is hardly notable or professional. Other content of equal or greater footing has been deleted from this article, so in the interest of WP:NPOV, I'm unsure why would we would hold onto this small bit. The claim was re-added with little reason given—thus my invitation to talk here, Thank you. startswithj (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you have just continued the previous edit war with another point. Right now it was clear you are against any small consensus but continue reverting. Since the page is controversial engaging in edit wars is bad business. It has been stated before your revert that it appeared a legit citation. Nevertheless you continued. I really think you deserve a topic ban for incessant reverts and tendentious behavior. Whether you are an enthusiast for Zeitgeist or appear to be one, that sort of thing has proven to be common on related articles to this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Earl, I seek NPOV and professionalism in articles, and I assume you have similar goals. WP:BURDEN ("burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material") informed my deletion. I do not wish to edit-war, and I accept consensus once it is known. As I've asked before, please do not ad hominem. Best, startswithj (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Chip Berlet is a noteworthy commentator on political issues so I think his perspective is worthy of mentioning in the appropriate context.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for talking. Here's the exact text raising my eye from WP:V: "Questionable sources are those that…lack meaningful editorial oversight. … self-published media, such as…open wikis…group blogs…are largely not acceptable as sources. … Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable…[but]…Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." startswithj (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You did a false edit summary for your post above reaching out to Earl. Again you use baiting tactics like As I've asked before, please do not ad hominem. Thats B.S. and if you believe all the stuff you are saying then bring it somewhere else like a board. Otherwise it is just more tendentious annoying baiting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Berlet's opinion warrants a mention, though I did think Joseph's statements warranted a mention as well and thus added them to the section.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist & Venus Project split

In 2013 September, the claim that Zeitgeist and Venus Project split was tagged for citation needed. This week, I added cites from each party. These cites were removed, and now the claim has been removed. My reading of WP:SELFSOURCE would indicate these self-published sources are acceptable given that both sides say the same thing, the claim is not self-promotional, and the claim isn't contentious. So why the deletions? Thanks, startswithj (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this issue. The dual sources are adequate to state that Zeitgeist and the Venus Project say that they have split, which is probably notable enough to be of interest, although others would have to comment on the importance of the claims or of the split. In regard WP:SELFSOURCE, as both groups relate to conspiracies, there is "reasonable doubt" that they aren't both involved in a conspiracy to mislead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
OOPS. The Venus Project does not appear to be conspiracy-based. However, we should have a third-party source to avoid problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Normally, if two groups both say that they have split, we should be able to say that. However, I'm not sure Zeitgeist is really a reliable source for their own actions, considering the conspiracies involved. A third-party source would be nice.
In summary: I'm not sure any of this is of sufficient importance for the article, but the sources presented seem adequate for the statement that both organizations say they have separated, but it seems a bit weak for the statement that they have separated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I found one radio interview that seems legit where at least one of the parties, the more non conspiracy one explains in his own words why the groups split up [4] I framed it and put it in another article on Venus Project. Maybe it might work for this article also as an explanatory thing. Apparently no big news companies reported on this split so sourcing is not easy. I think this source is o.k. [5] Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Why would the split matter when we are talking about Zeitgeist: The Movie, which has nothing to do with the Venus Project? Flowersforparis (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've Seen Films

I removed this because there doesn't seem to be any particular notability to the "special acknowledgement" - when the filmfest ran out of actual awards, they gave "special acknowledgements" to six other movies. Strangely, they then singled out Peter Joseph for a slightly strangely-worded variation where the "special acknowledgment" is given to him, not to Zeitgeist. Between that and the obscurity, I think it's better to leave out the "award". It's a little sad that of all our articles on movies, obscure activist movies tend to devote more of their column-inches to listing awards. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree the award is not notable. I also removed that information previously. I would like to encourage a recent editor here Startswith to stop acting so determinedly outside of the little consensus there is and start making proposals on the talk page instead of the recent unilateral editing actions they are doing. It ends up being a time waster especially because that person is making scores of tiny edits also. Suggestion, use the preview button and do more at one time. Just a suggestion and I mean it in a good spirit on both of those things. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Assuming good faith would not include "you" statements, insults, accusations, or threats on article-talk pages and user-talk pages. Bold editing is encouraged here, and small-step editing is an industry standard among programmers. Let's please focus on our quality of content. Thank you. startswithj (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not following you Startwith. What does this mean, ? Assuming good faith would not include "you" statements, insults, accusations, or threats on article-talk pages and user-talk pages. I hope you are not suggesting that someone has threatened someone. If you perceive some problem like that its best to make it clear and bring it before some dispute resolution. This situation needs defusing if you believe you are being persecuted somehow. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Earl, your first talk to me began with the word "warning" in bold print on my user page—and your contribs to others' user pages could be seen as questionable too. Even the text right above could be read as condemnatory: “so determinedly outside…consensus,” “unilateral editing,” and “time waster.” Again, let's each of us please remember to focus on the quality and neutrality of our articles' content. Best, startswithj (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

O.k. I am tired of that kind of B.S. now. Either bring that to some board for a dispute or stop. You have proven a tendentious edit warring personage and perhaps if you do not stop that approach could be topic banned from related things in the future. Accusations of threats are not looked at kindly here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source: http://www.icfilms.org/icfilms/eng/2008_winners.php Flowersforparis (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed this because there doesn't seem to be any particular notability to the "special acknowledgement" - when the filmfest ran out of actual awards, they gave "special acknowledgements" to six other movies, they then singled out Peter Joseph for a slightly strangely-worded variation where the "special acknowledgment" is given to him, not to Zeitgeist. Between that and the obscurity, I think it's better to leave out the "award". Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That is an odd interpretation. First of all, no one "ran out of awards" Where did you get that? Second, the film festival is a SHORT film festival and hence Zeitgeist was a feature and perhaps doesn't qualify for the traditional category. The site states "A Special Acknowledgement was offered to Peter Joseph for his internet sensation documentary ‘Zeitgeist’ (USA). Peter Joseph also held an extremely interesting and provocative Q&A session with the audience after the ‘Zeitgeist’ screening." This statement could be interpreted as more important than the others as it is poses an exception. It is an award? Yes. It has also been on this page for about 5 years. I suggest it remains. Flowersforparis (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I suggest it goes, since it's obviously stretching weak sources in a desperate search to find something - anything - that makes Zeitgeist look positive. bobrayner (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"...and argues that bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system" SOURCE?

"...and argues that bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system."

is no where to be found in either source provided.

(a) What is the page number that states this specifically in the Official Companion Guide?

(b) As far as the "Stranger" article which appear to be nothing more than a blog, I see nothing about bankers here as well.

If a legitimate source cannot be found in the film - why is this line there? Zeitgeist: The Movie, based on its release narration, saying nothing so specific. It speaks broadly about influence. It never says "bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system" Flowersforparis (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct. nothing in the noted refs cite any such statement. What a weird thing to have on this page. False data. 12.130.117.33 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Source citations

An editor has removed some sourced material from the article by a noted journalist Chip_Berlet It may have been tagged previously by Zeitgeist supporters because they do not care for the content as it is critical of the movement. The same editor generally edits with Zeitgeist supporters and recently advertised this movie for sale on another article talk page (The Zeitgeist Movement) by listing an Amazon sales site and over linking Zeitgeist sites that offer the material for sale. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions of other contributors have precisely nothing to do with determinations as to what is or isn't valid content for this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Yours either. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

He may be a noted journalist but the source it appears in is not, nor is it reliable. Either find it in a reliable source or leave it alone. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, if attributed; we're not saying it in wikipedia's voice and it seems exceedingly unlikely that the source is putting words in Berlet's mouth. bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That being said, the information being written is by a noted journalist, something hard to come by in Zeitgeist circles. Its probably o.k. to take the 'tag' off now. It is difficult to find much written information on the group outside of its own writings. There is a reliable source notice board though if someone wants to pose the question about this there. Not sure how definitive their views are or if they carry weight about including things or not. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirect?

Should there be a redirect to the Zeitgeist movement? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The question is really whether sources discussing the movie do so in relation to TZM, and indicate that they consider them inherently connected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The answer to that is yes. Those sources are in the Movement article. there are no shortage of sources that connect the two or the other movies as well. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Redirection is a terrible idea. Peter Joseph made this film years before TZM and TZM does not promote the ideas in Zeitgeist The Movie in any of its work, which is ubiquitous online in lectures and their book. JamesB17 (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Advocating a pov

The DevilsAdvocate an apparent conspiracy buff is at it again trying to manipulate the article to 'sound' better by denying material that does not sound good like the edit about the Arizona shooter, his edit summary Revision as of 02:27, 17 August 2014 (edit) The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 621528200 by MONGO (talk) definitely suggestive, section title and phrasing implies a connection between the movie and the shooting) end quote. Suggestive? Its a news story about the Arizona shooter and his influence from the Zeitgeist movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The first reference is missing, and the second is about Occupy Tucson; the reference to Loughner is incidental, and states that Loughner says he was inspired by Zeitgeist, without really implying truth. I'll spend a little time trying to attach the first reference, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A previous reference says " A friend of Jared Lee Loughner says that the alleged shooter in the Tucson terror attack was impressed by 'Zeitgeist - The Movie'", which does not really support the statement, and it appears not to be BLP-reliable. And The Devil's Advocate never struck me as a "conspiracy buff". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As phrased, the material can be taken as implying a connection between the movie and the shooting. Saying x person was obsessed with y and then when on to commit crime z, insinuates a link between x and z. This is further emphasized by putting the statement under a section titled "influence" as it suggests the movie influenced Loughner to commit said crime.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
While your argument and the one put up by Arthur Rubin have validity to them, I would prefer we reword the matter rather than eliminate it. Loughner was, according to reliable reports, obsessed with the film. If we can find more reputable persons that are also obsessed with the film than by all means add them if it matters.--MONGO 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded and added references to the section. It could possiblly be better worded, but if anything, my additions now make the movie more notable, though some fans may not like that the notability is along a negative vein....but thats the way it goes.--MONGO 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin there are two editors with a lot of hangers on that constantly try to water down this article and [6] the DevilsAdvocate is one, the other is SomeDifferentStuff. One look at their block records confirm the conspiracy buff thing which is not a pejorative just a record of them being blocked multiple times on conspiracy articles and this is a conspiracy movie so they are probably repeating that behavior here again. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I was fine accepting the original changes MONGO made, but after Earl added a lengthy quote from Joseph that did not accurately represent the core of his objection, the section seemed unduly long. My effort to trim it did not leave out any important details as it merely summarized what the sources were saying and provided a better description of Joseph's response. Despite this, MONGO accused me of "suppressing evidence" so I invite him to explain the basis for this accusation of bad faith.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hugs and kisses.--MONGO 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Why leave out the actual quote which is the meat of the issue and then you say My effort to trim it did not leave out any important details as it merely summarized what the sources were saying and provided a better description of Joseph's response., and then accuse another editor of bad faith? My estimation is that you and the other pro Zeitgeist editor mentioned, will do just about anything to project warm and fuzzy feelings and veer sharply from the direction of neutral presentation on these related conspiracy articles. Probably a topic ban is in order for you again on conspiracy articles. Edit warring on conspiracy things again. Maybe Mongo can find the person that blocked you previously and tip them off. It sure gets old on these articles with people hovering over them that are pro pov Zeitgeist. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Most details I removed were extraneous. Including the details of the shooting here is unnecessary as if someone does not know about the shooting then the wikilinks are provided. There is also no point in including the friend's name or stating who interviewed him as the quotes are what matter. Another problem is the "quote" from Osler, which is actually a quote from Goldberg's article with the friend's quotes thrown into the mix. One of the statements he made was easily summarized and the framing by Goldberg was redundant and extraneous.
My only substantive change was with regards to Joseph's statement. You took probably the weakest part of his statement, where he just railed against the media for making the association. I summarized the meat of his retort, which was that the association was, according to their own reporting, based on someone who had not talked to Loughner for two years and that the media were just looking for a scapegoat rather than addressing the deeper societal issues. Tell me where you think I "suppressed evidence" as MONGO asserted? Rather, all I really did was summarize the media allegations and provide a better summation of Joseph's response.
On a final note, I accused no one of bad faith. Rather, MONGO blatantly accused me of bad faith by claiming in his edit summary that I was "suppressing evidence" and I pointed him to the fifth item on the list for signs of tendentious editing, where such statements are treated as tell-tale signs. Now, are we going to have an actual discussion of the material in question, or are you and MONGO just going to taunt and threaten me some more?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not agree with your edit but the offer of hugs and kisses stands nevertheless. It's possible, though unlikely, that I might be mistaken...I'll reexamine the alleged offense and get back to you in a fortnight.--MONGO 03:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You are aware that a fortnight is two weeks, right? Should I take that as an announcement of your intention to stonewall the discussion? That would be #11 just so you know.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No doubt you are compiling links to try and bring charges the devils advocate but really with your extreme history on this article of being a pro Zeitgeist person I doubt if you are going to be taken seriously. You seem willing to dredge up any old nonsense of the wiki lawyer playbook and any rhetorical polemic to make points. Its apparent you are harassing Mongo. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Simple question: are you or MONGO going to actually respond to my concerns about the current material?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I said I didn't agree with it.--MONGO 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Come now, MONGO, you know better than to use that line. Give a substantive objection, please.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Gee looks like you can not get ammo for your next pointless Ani TheDevilsAdvocate. With your background on this and other articles and your relentless harassing of others you disagree with its not a wonder that some do not wish to engage you [7] and answer your questions Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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. Peter Joseph made this film years before TZM and TZM does not promote the ideas in Zeitgeist The Movie in any of its work, which is ubiquitous online in lectures and their book. JamesB17 (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Why anyone would even suggestion that is odd. No redirect. The whole Zeitgeist film set appears to have nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement beyond inspiration. TZM be based on The Venus Project's work clearly.SweetGirlLove (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

POV in opening summary

Having watch this film on Netflix and researching it, the opening section has a very wrong statement.

It states:

"...and argues that bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system."

It sources an article that doesn't actually make this claim directly at all. Even if it did or was implied, the truth is that the film doesn't say this when the script is read. Part 3 describes how bankers and businesses make money from war and prefer war to peace in many ways. 

It never says or implies "bankers manipulate the media".

Is it wikipedia policy to defined the purpose of a subject simply because some random person who it "notable" reinvents it, even if it is incompetent? I would hope more integrity would exist in this place. Can we update this problem? SweetGirlLove (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The movie definitely talks about bankers controlling the international monetary system and it is stated that the same people control the media. When reliable secondary sources all recognize that as being the movie's meaning then we note as much. Just because it does not say it in so many words does not mean we should act like this is not strongly implied and act like this is not recognized as being the case by numerous reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks you for your input. However, while it is clear that Zeitgeist states the point about monetary policy, I see no corroboration on the film inclusion that "bankers control the media" either by discussions here or, more importantly, in the media. Even the current source never actually says it. Would you mind providing more than one source on this dubious claim? The film certainly doesn't say this and having only the one media source, which is weak, certainly doesn't warrant it making it into this article in such a declaratory manner, does it?. Until consensus is met, the "citation needed should remain as I see nothing here on the talk page about it. thanks SweetGirlLove (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think the movie does strongly suggest this, but it does seem The Globe and Mail is the only one that gets so specific. More accurately one would say the allegation is that the international bankers control world events through their domination of the international monetary system and multiple reliable sources mention that as prominent element of the story. Do you consider that sort of adjustment acceptable?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
No, and its changing the article into something it isn't to suggest that the movie does not endorse the idea of international bankers controlling the world. So, have to assume talk you are one of the many banned/blocked pov editors for Zeitgeist or part of the others that wind up here trying to modify the article in a pov. Reading the citation, Zeitgeist, is based on their fact of international bankers controlling things. Excerpt, one of many from the link To what end? Warming to its topic, the film shimmers into its third act. It seems that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. money-printing organ, is in fact the implement of a small cabal of International Bankers (the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed) who stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves. end quote from citation Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems SGL's objection is specifically to the "controlling the media" part not being represented in reliable sources and in this case that does seem to be an apt point. Would you be fine with adjusting it as I suggested above?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Read the citation. It seems likely that SGL is another sock of one of the blocked, from the article editors, returning. Its also seems that The Devils Advocate attempts to slant the article in favor of pro Zeitgeist editors that land here and want to water down the info. Quote from the citation is super clear.

To what end? Warming to its topic, the film shimmers into its third act. It seems that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. money-printing organ, is in fact the implement of a small cabal of International Bankers (the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed) who stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves. They arranged for the Lusitania to be torpedoed, dragging the U.S. into the First World War. They manipulated FDR into essentially staging Pearl Harbour, starting the Second World War. (That was the start of the Second World War, right?) Ditto Vietnam, ditto 9/11. Their ultimate goal? A one-world government whose citizens all carry implanted microchip IDs. And all the while, the hidden powers are using the consolidated mass media, the church, and the educational establishment to create a complacent zeitgeist - a spirit of the times - that leaves us dumb as sheep.

End of quote.

That leave zero doubt about bankers manipulating the media according to the source citation that says the movie expounds that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it is in the film and in The Globe and Mail article, but SGL does have a good point about the claim of bankers controlling the media not really being mentioned in other reliable sources. As the lede is a summary it should focus on what are the most prominent details of the subject. We can probably say something like the movie claims international bankers control the world instead as that is mentioned in numerous as a major detail of the film.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
No. If they control the world that means they control the media. Its not a point worth making and Peter Joseph says that the media is controlled by the same dark forces that he believes all the other things are controlled by. Why give any credence to the latest i.p. that formed an account to screw with the article as a single purpose? No reason. Its just the same people trying to make the article sound like the Zeitgeist FAQ's material. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Earl, this isn't about whether it is a fact or not. I am only saying that it seems reliable sources do not generally treat alleged banker control of the media as a prominent detail of the film, while control of the world is treated as such. What is the big deal with replacing "media" with "world" exactly?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
No comment on this again. As in the article I think there is no debate on the link and the source or what it says. As said why are you debating endlessly a point from a i.p. meat puppet sock? Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The stuff about the media might be warranted when based off a single source if the material were in the article body, but the lede should be a summary of the subject based off the most common details raised in reliable sources. I do not know who SGL is, but I do know that SGL's point was a legitimate one. Note that I was initially skeptical of the objection, but I checked it out looking at other sources in the article and found the objection to be a valid one.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quote sure why I am being insulted here since I am simply pointing out a perceived flaw. Despite your comments, the source indicated says nothing about "bankers controlling the media of the world". I appreciate your POVs and can understand how your persional views may come to the conclusions you have. However, there is nothing in that linked source that says what you are stating as fact in the opening. I suggest removing "world events and" and making the sentence "...and argues that bankers manipulate the international monetary system." That is actually both in the film and in the source. SweetGirlLove (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
They talk about bankers orchestrating international conflicts and wanting global government. Just because they did not use the word "world events" does not mean this is not what they were saying. Many reliable sources do say this is what they are saying and it is evident from the film that they are correct in that interpretation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You are way off. I returned the last neutral edit that is sourced to this. You removed that source also previously [8] So, not sure why you are removing cited information but please stop. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeitgeist:_The_Movie/Archive_6&oldid=1151018577"