Talk:Zeitgeist (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Zeitgeist, the movie

There is a documentary entitled "Zeitgeist" that should be considered added to this page. --Trekerboy 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It went through AfD, failed, and is non-notable. There's no reason to. -WarthogDemon 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone saved the article and moved it to Wikia: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:Filmguide:Zeitgeist - Crockspot 19:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is AFD? Why the hell not? This needs to be on Wikipedia goddamnit! What kind of bullshit censor are people trying to pull, on Wikipedia no less! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bariswheel (talk • contribs).

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. -WarthogDemon 02:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe Taito's Zeitgeist game is notable enough to put on the page, but Zeitgeist The Movie failed AfD. Zeitgeist The Movie is clearly subject to a higher standard of scrutiny than most other things on Wikipedia, and it is difficult to imagine that it is unrelated to the controversial subject matter involved. --PigHunter 18:08 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a sufficient article. -WarthogDemon 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of discussion here will bring the movie back. If you care that much then go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and bring it up there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the Documentary line, I hadn't realized the article on the film had gone through AfD and failed. I'm surprised it did (a wholly different argument to be had), but since it did, a reference to it doesn't belong here. Sorry about my add. -- Jaberwockynmt 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason why I didn't leave any warning. Didn't want to come down hard on people. Anyways, happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the comment on the top of the page, so I added Zeitgeist The Movie. My changes were reverted in only a couple of minutes. Damnit, some articles are not 'fixed' for days, but this one seems to be carefully watched. This seems awfully like a cenorship to me. Does it mean that if an article fails AfD, there can be no mention of it whatsoever on Wikipedia? I'm frankly stunned. I considered Wikipedia a free medium but my perceptions are starting to change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.216.199.138 (talk) 06:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

~~If you looked carefully, you would've noticed the Hidden Message at the top of the page when you tried to edit it. And~~ there are cases of an article deleted for AfD becoming successfully resurrected and noteworthy, yes. But considering the near month long discussion of this article, I personally don't see that happening. : / Sorry. -WarthogDemon 06:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not on a disambiguation page, because disambiguation pages are essentially tools for navigating Wikipedia, and should direct people to pages where they can find information on the subject - either its own article, or an article which gives it a significant mention. They're not collections of stubs on things not notable enough for a proper article, collections of external links, and certainly not places to complain about controversial deletions (if you really must complain, see WP:DRV). However, notice that the movie does get a link on 9/11 conspiracy theories which I've never tried to remove, partly because it does at least have some relevance there, and partly because that article has long since passed the spam event horizon and the task of trying to sort out which links belong and which don't is too horrible to contemplate. Also note that if Wikipedia did censor internet 9/11 conspiracy films, this article would have been deleted too. It wasn't; it's a matter of notability, verifiability and reliable sources rather than content. Iain99 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this AfD? Why is a movie with the TITLE Zeitgeist and viewed online A LOT not RELEVANT? Which criteria are being used? Who controls this? Wikipedia must be WITHOUT censorship!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.222.67 (talk) 19:20, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Just because an amateur film (call it a documentary if you well; I don't see how it can be considered one) is viewed a lot, doesn't mean it's notable. -WarthogDemon 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to interwiki link to wikia? The Zeitgeist movie article is on Wikia at: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:Filmguide:Zeitgeist . I wouldn't be opposed to an interwiki link to it. Maybe that will solve this constant nagging issue. - Crockspot 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... a couple of issues with that. First of all, the Wikia article is little more than an extended summary of the film and in places a fairly blatent WP:COATRACK for the movie's conspiracy theories; there's little balance or criticism, so it's not a good place to send people looking for information on the movie.

As I alluded to above I don't particularly mind having links to the film on pages like 9/11 conspiracy theories (it probably does fail WP:EL, but so do most of the links on that page), but on a disambiguation page it's different. Anybody putting "Zeitgeist" into the search box looking for the movie presumably already knows that it exists and what it's called - so without a decent article (here or on another project) to send them to there's not a lot we can do to help them - a link to Zeitgeistmovie.com, or a prolonged puff piece for the movie, tells them nothing they don't already know, and so is little more than spam. I'd quite like to see a verifiable, balanced article on the movie, but as nobody prominent seems to have bothered critiquing it yet, that's not possible.

In the long run one of two things will happen - either the film will be forgotten by all but a handful of conspiracy theorists, and the issue will go away, or else the mainstream media will start to take note and there'll be enough sources to write a proper article - either way, I don't think the issue will be a constant one. Iain99 21:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for notice, you are miss using the word "conspiracy", even the official theory about 9/11 is a conspiracy theory (which really says alot of how biased the Wikipedia really is) --Ingeborgsjon 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say Zeitgeist the movie is not notable when the video has already had over 2,200,000 views on Google Video? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyeamo (talk • contribs)

See Iain99's comment right above yours. -WarthogDemon 05:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come Goatse is notable enough to be on Wiki? Please explain the difference between Goatse and Zeitgeist? And why are YOU (WarthogDemon) the one constantly getting rid of any Zeitgeist reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.210.55 (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You give me way too much credit. I'm not the only one doing this. And as to the Goatsee, I have no clue how you're comparing it with Zeitgeist . . . two completely different guidelines of notability there. At any rate read, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. -WarthogDemon 03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are linking to (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie) only shows that most of the people that wanted a Delete have very poor and unlogical arguments to back their view of opinion. The fact that you and many others doesn't react to that is very hard for me to understand. --Ingeborgsjon 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie "Zeitgeist" is quite disparaging of the Christian religion. As a result, a small but motivated group has ensured the deletion of the film from this page, despite the reversion of the page EVERY SINGLE DAY. Apparently, although generating almost unparalleled interest for a disambiguation page, the film is "non-notable." The film itself is terrible, and it's slander of Christians is about as legitimate and thoughtful as a blood libel accusation. So, the end result is a poor film, which is without a doubt very notable now, that is suppressed based on objections to it's content, under the guise of "Whine:NN." A real wakeup call for me about what Wikipedia strives to be. I found the film unwatchable, and mainly a rehashing of the worst and least plausible conspiracy theories, but it remains that the film is notable, and deserves a small page. Rather than draw attention toward or away from the film, all this little battle is doing is drawing attention to the bizarre practice of labeling an article "NN" out of personal bias, in order to censor a public forum. The people who engage in this sort of activity are damaging the credibility of this project. Once again, the film is hateful and pointless, but the motivations of those who are censoring it are just as tasteless. A better solution would be to simply watch the film, provide a short commentary which exposes it as a steaming pile, and link both your commentary and the film itself, in the short article. It is surprising that after the film has received such wide coverage on the web, there are those who demand a print article or mainstream news article, in order to justify inclusion in an open collaborative web project. It would be helpful if those who seek information about the film after reading about it online, could find it on Wikipedia and be directed towards an unbiased critique of the film. Again, the film is a waste of time, but it is notable. Confronting hatred, and misinformation, is the best tactic to defuse it. db 20:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add two links to online newspapers making mention of this film. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=309650 and http://www.moorparkacorn.com/news/2007/0810/On_The_Town/028.html . They both merely mention the film in passing, but I think it's important to note that this has appeared in non-blog media now. I really do not understand how considerate, thoughtful individuals can countenance this absurd melodramatic deletion. It is simply an underground film which has become successful in those terms. I am quite sure that when a more capable editor recalls the film in a few months or years, they will articulately prepare a simple article on it, and the film will be as iconic of this era's obsession with simplistic and hateful conspiracy theories as Loose Change. Hopefully at that time, they will include some mention of the ridiculous archived squabbling over whether a film which is obviously notable, is or isn't notable, because it happens to insult a large portion of the demographic responsible for the production and maintenance of this encyclopedia. - db 21:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article is needed about this documentary film because it is viral, it is controversial and it needs a very large Criticisms section. Millions of people are watching this documentary (almost 3m views adding Google Videos and YouTube videos) and there is not an article where to go find research or at least movie reviews that confirm or debunk its assertions. The notability issue I am just reading about here appears mute considering the viral spreading of this movie. The first thing many Internet savvy people do when learning about a controversial subject is to find on Wikipedia the criticisms to get a balanced understanding on it. I added the disambiguation link before realizing the page was blocked from editing. Please revive the discussion and consider reinstating the article. By the way, the title I used here (with a comma and caps) is the closest to the original (unknown) author according to his Google Video page. It seems to me that the individuals that are deleting the article are too lazy to do their own research to debunk the film's assertions while the movie will continue to go viral and there is no Wikipedia article giving some balance to it. g 09:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie and not because people were lazy or Christians. Again this is not the page to debate the inclusion of an article about the movie but Wikipedia:Deletion review is. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Drift

The "Drift" article mentions two films that are less notable than Zeitgeist The Movie. I would like the explanation why this is allowed in that article and not in this one, thank you. Kriplozoik 05:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "That exists so this should to!" is hardly a valid argument. Sorry. :/ -WarthogDemon 05:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, both of those are red links. To be fair, one of those red links was an expired prod so I removed that one. -WarthogDemon 05:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the VfD and consider it slanted from the beggining to the end.

So, if I make a red link of Zeitgeist The Movie with a external link to its main page (same fashion as the films are stated in the drift article), then either both Zeitgeist and drift film links should be removed, or none of them. That's how I get it. Kriplozoik 05:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? If you have and still disagree, then try WP:DRV if you desire, however I don't think you'll find much luck. You're free to try though. -WarthogDemon 05:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I've read it. It indeed WOULD HAVE applied to this case if Zeitgeist The Movie WAS really not notable. Without any doubt it belongs to Wikipedia. (In other words, I strongly disagree with this censorship but I must accept it.) Kriplozoik 06:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]