Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Combining the Peter Joseph article into the film series article

No consensus to split the current article out into separate articles according to the new RFC. The old consensus of the old RFC can be followed then which said merge the 'movement' article with the film series. The current RFC, To merge = 7 To split = 9 The film grew out of the Venus Movement. The Movement grew out of the Venus Movement and the Zeitgeist film -- two parents, according to the sources we have. Characterization of the Movement as a fan club is incorrect. according to Grammer an editor here. But, there is no Venus movement. Is it a fan club and what is wrong with a 'fan club'? There are lots of fans of the movie that bind together in Facebook. I find it hard to believe that Facebook is a reliable source as Andy suggested, I assume he was joking. Andy is listed on Facebook as a gatekeeper in their call to edit Wikipedia articles [1] would that according to Andy be a source? Again, assume he is joking. So for now its keep the current article here what it is besides making it better.

The last RFC, in the talk comments suggested consensus for merging the Peter Joseph article into the Film series article as the film series is what Joesph is known for.

• Merge No reason not to consolidate and put the information in one article. Joseph is not notable beyond the film series. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is still open - and until it is closed by a neutral party, assertions as to what the consensus is seem premature.

As for Facebook (what has that got to do with merging anything?), you are of course completely misrepresenting what I wrote - as everyone can plainly see. You suggested that Facebook wasn't notable, and I stated that it was (with users running into the hundreds of millions, it would seem truly bizarre to suggest otherwise). If you don't understand the difference between notability and reliability by now, I suggest you read up on policy before you make more of a fool of yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What possible good can come from you making personal attacks on the talk page Andy? I suggest you read up on policy before you make more of a fool of yourself. end quote. I suggest you stop before you are blocked again. Lets stick to content and not attacking your fellow editors. The RFC is still open and yes I hope more people respond to it instead of the same people over and over repeating the same things. The point is too get perspective with uninvolved editors, not the same people rehashing the same stuff. Andy you did not comment on the subject of the thread.Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Earl, you clearly and unequivocally misrepresented what I said - I responded. Which I am fully entitled to do. If you don't like being told to stop making a fool of yourself, I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself, and actually read what people say before adding yet another of your rambling posts. And yes, I responded to what you said, by pointing out that the existing RfC hadn't finished, making any suggestion of further merges premature. Maybe if you followed your own advice, and didn't bring up Facebook for no reason when proposing the merge, this would have been clearer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool it both of you! EKJ, I too could not understand what you were saying about Facebook, it seems you probably meant Fb is not a r.source, rather than that Fb is not notable. Merging Peter J is a completely different discussion which no one has even raised yet, as far as I know. In the present Rfc, I see no one expressing an opinion about merging PJ and Zfs, nor were editors even asked to give such an opinion.Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC typically run for thirty day. Maybe it would be good to wait until the previous two/three RfCs are closed before starting another, possibly overlapping, one. If you think articles should be merged one option is to use the merge tags, Template:merge to and Template:merge from.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy you can not control yourself with personal attacks? I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself, and actually read what people say before adding yet another of your rambling posts. end quote Andy. Any arguments you may have are canceled by your fragrant breach of policy of personal attacks.

Its not an RFC to talk about combining the Joseph article with this article, it is a talk page discussion. After the initial RFC from the old Zeitgeist movement article page, it was consensus that one article is all that is needed on this subject of movement, movies and Joseph. If curious newer editors go back and read the area around that RFC. I think what happened was that no one got around to doing it. A simple redirect of the Joseph article into this one seems appropriate. This thread has nothing to do with the current Request for comment Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Earl, if you make demonstrably false assertions about what I have written, I will respond. If you don't like it, don't accuse me of making statements I never made. As for this thread, the RfC on splitting the article is still open, and until that matter is resolved it is clearly not possible to determine which, if any, article Joseph's biography should be merged with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No excuse. You have no excuse and that is not a defense. An RFC does not shut down the talk page. You did not respond to the fact that previous consensus from the movement page was for putting all of this into one article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's right - you have no excuse for misrepresenting what I wrote. And I have given all the response to your premature merge proposal that is required - though frankly, why you expect anyone to respond to a thread you keep dragging wildly off-topic is beyond me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If there was a pending proposal/intention to merge PJ, that information should have been presented to the present RfC. Outside editors might well have taken a different attitude knowing that was the case. We were asked to make a judgement based on the present situation.Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And only now you glimpse the agenda? Wow. Just wow. There were leaks of this next step four weeks ago. And of the full program, too: Combine, Abbreviate, Summarize, Eliminate. For short, just CASE it. That is, make it all go away. That is the program of covert vandalism. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, can I assume your previous post is expressing opposition to the PJ merge?Pincrete (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone posted an RfC to that effect? We could turn the whole of Wikipedia into a Worldbook or a Comptons, you know. It doesn't have to be this gigantic sprawling mass of hundreds of thousands of articles. We can just eliminate anything the Vatican or CIA or PETA or Sierra Club or RNC or anyone else does not like -- that way we wouldn't offend anyone. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If good faith is assumed, then this is just a competency issue with EKJ. Telling him that he doesn't know what he is doing is no personal attack. It looks like editor threw everything into an argument that two articles should be merged, but arguing a decision was already reached in an open RFC that never proposed what EKJ is proposing and doesn't appear to be emerging with a consensus even on what it was set up for is procedurally flawed. The arguments about Fb seem to be some poorly constructed strawman. And, if I understand what EKJ is driving at, I don't foresee much support for the logic that "joseph = movement, movement = not notable, therefore joseph = not notable." 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears EKJ was involved in this same discussion to merge on the Joseph article talk page about a month ago. Consensus still opposed to merge there. I'm a rookie, don't know if there is a way to find talk page for deleted article, but if there was a consensus back on the movement's page then it appears evident that it didn't conclude what EKJ thought it did. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The article was not deleted. It was forwarded into this article and then edited because that was the consensus of the previous RFC.

For short, just CASE it. That is, make it all go away. That is the program of covert vandalism. Grammar'sLittleHelper, big mistake to name call on a talk page in regard to your fellow editors. You assume too much if you think there is a plot to do in any information or articles. Diff of what not to say about other editors on a talk page [2]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I used the wrong terminology? Regardless, it appears this time you've accurately identified what the consensus actually was, merging the movement article with the film series and not merging joseph article with series. I get that you want the articles merged, based on the joseph talk page. Support for that merge did not reach consensus. Asserting it has existing consensus is observably untrue. Cease the chicanery. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the talk page of the old Zeitgeist Movement article. It still exists. I am not talking about the Peter Joseph talk page. Chicanery means the use of trickery to achieve a political, financial, or legal purpose. "an underhanded person who schemes corruption and political chicanery behind closed doors synonyms trickery, deception, deceit, deceitfulness, duplicity, dishonesty, deviousness, unscrupulousness, underhandedness, subterfuge, fraud, etc. That is another personal attack. You do not advance your ideas or credibility by doing thus. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking through it, doesn't seem that merger was ever specifically suggested. See a lot of rants, but nothing that points to what you are suggesting about a consensus to merge the joseph article. The archives are a snake pit to navigate, but even so the consensus not to merge on the joseph page should be clear to you. Merging the joseph article does not appear to have much support and it is reasonable to believe you knew that when you suggested there was consensus anyway. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is this thread rehashing the Huffington Post blog again? It is clear that is not a usable source, being rejected by a notice board. Could we go back to the issue of combining the Peter Joseph article in a section of this article? Say, as a precursor to the the movement section? Thank you. Joseph does not have the notability beyond the Zeitgeist things Peter Joseph as can be seen from his current article on Wikipedia. So redirect seems in order. This thread has zero to do with the current RFC. Talk pages do not seek to improve articles when a discussion is underway about something else. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Huffington Post was not rejected -- Nobody knew the RSN was happening, so only a few people spoke up. The case for RS wasn't represented, and the decision was ONLY that it could not be used holus bolus. Huffington Post provides an interesting catalog of party planks and arguments. Zeitgeist is not a conspiracy group or a film fan club. It has real issues and real proposals for solution. It doesn't matter what source we use to put those issues out there -- primary sources are just fine if we have no other secondary sources. But Huffington Post IS a secondary source. The primary source talks about SEVEN annual events, so we can use that, too. We don't put more strictures on this article or this group than on any other group. You want to check the Catholic Church page and count the Vatican quotes? How about going to the Latter Day Saints page and counting the cites to LDS sources and writers. But so far, this discussion is circling the drain on Consolidate, Abbreviate, Summarize, Eliminate. And nothing is good enough for a source, so obviously the group does not exist. Once again, look at the Burning Man page and count the citations to original sources. The company that runs Burning Man has its own web page, even though it has only one event: Burning Man. Then ask yourself why this group of editors is trying to Consolidate, Abbreviate, Summarize, Eliminate everything to do with Zeitgeist. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This thread isn't. The citation section you started is still kicking around expanding on tZM. I guess that discussion stopped being interesting when nobody supported interjecting negative commentary. Looked like decision reached was there has to be a good reason to use a HuffPost ref. Eh. If you have something to say about that you know where that discussion is. It appears a merge of the Joseph article isn't supported here or on the Joseph article talk page, but EKJ knows that. Consensus indicates Joseph is notable for activism and film series. Even if the guy wasn't notable beyond "Zeitgeist things", that's probably still notable enough for Wiki. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." I personally don't think the Joseph article is that great, but it was surviving deletion votes years ago with less material. I think I agree with Sfarney, we probably should just go ahead and merge all "Zeitgeist things" into the Post-scarcity economy article. Thoughts? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"This thread has zero to do with the current RFC." Or any RFC, Joseph article merger wasn't discussed, but you know that. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

'No Merge of Any Kind is Viable as per Wikipedia Standards" First of all, as we see regarding consensus at the top of this Talk page, The Zietgeist Movement doesn't even belong with the Film Series AND the films should be broken up into 3 articles. Is the Matrix Trilogy only one article? Each Zeitgeist film is notable on its own - The Zeitgeist Movement (which was started to rep The Venus Project - not rep the films) is notable on its own -- AND Peter Joseph is even more notable on his own! P.J. produced a video for the band Black Sabbath. Enough said. He has given TEDx lectures and has appeared in many documentaries and countless interviews outside his film work. Enough said. He is a part of UNESCO. Enough said. Also, 99% of the time in his vast number of interviews, he talks about the zeitgeist movement, not the films. Apparently, people here seem to think that since he was "made famous" by his films (and the movement which "has the same name") - he should be forever known as the "zeitgeist guy" - that is just nonsense. I don't even like peter;s ideas really. But this debate is really annoying as trolls seem to be obsessed with this guy. Sanjit45 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• DO NOT Merge Really stupid stuff here on Wikipedia today. Sheesh. I hear this enclyclopedia was supposed to use the power of crowds to make wise decisions. This is obviously not the case here! We have biased trolls like Earl King trying to manipulate whatever they can.

Reality: There are three films. They stand on their own. There is a movement. It stands on its own. There is Peter Joe. He is a person who is separate from all these things and his media sources prove that. JWilson0923 (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• JWilson0923 Not sure where you heard Wikipedia uses the power of crowds to make decisions but that is not the case. Its also not a good idea to say the discussion is stupid or make personal attacks on fellow editors. Talk about content and not other editors being trolls here. You can be blocked for making personal attacks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • JWilson0923, The editor who offered that "warning" has extensive history of calling people sock puppets, meat puppets, and single-purpose editors. His own editing history shows little activity on any pages outside this single purpose (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist (film series), The Zeitgeist Movement, Resource-based economy, The Venus Project, Jacque Fresco) for the last six months.[3]

EKJ's clumsily pushing a POV and he's not alone there, but the coatrack criticism gambits fuel more drama. Anyway, I think there's a strong argument that the films ought to remain bundled together. Films are on same/closely similar subject, didn't receive increasing independent coverage, and are decidedly cult classic & FRINGE. The movement is inspired by the films and is otherwise non-notable. I maintain that the Joseph article should be kept separate. He did become famous from the films and that did gain him personal coverage for his theories/ideology. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you err, there. The Movement is not a film fan club, from what I read. The Movement grew out of the much earlier Venus Movement, and the films grew from the same. The Films and the Movement are siblings, not parent-child. If anything, the films were created by one member of the Movement to embody the arguments of the Movement, not vice versa. A description is here. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus that that HuffPo "article" is neither an article nor a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly a reliable source for the author's opinions. Whether such opinion deserves mention in the article or not is a question of WP:WEIGHT rather than reliability. Personally, I would have no particular issue with excluding such opinion from what isn't a particularly mainstream source, were it not for the fact that contributors have argued in favour of including opinion from even less mainstream sources - seemingly because they prefer the opinions being expressed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the page should tell something about the agenda of the group. It is not a film fan club. It is a social advocacy group, and this (a, b, c, ...) is what it advocates. The film is an expression of the program advocated rather than the reverse. Without mentioning the group's advocacy (e.g., "this is a conspiracy film"), the Wikipedia is not doing its job. Merging the group and the film (with TZM only a footnote) is a pretense that the wart on the frog is more notable than the frog. Maybe the real solution is to create a Venus Movement page, renowned for its propaganda piece, Zeitgeist Films, in which the producer, Peter Joseph, puts forward his personal interpretation of the Movement, its reasoning, and its program. The Venus Movement also gave birth to the Zeitgeist Movement, which holds a Zeitgeist Day every year since 2008 to publicize its program. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no Venus Movement and there is already an article on the Venus project another small for profit company, which probably would be better if Fresco its creator were combined into it. Joseph is not particularly notable outside the small box of the Zeitgeist material. Also the bulk of what you just wrote above is original research. A theory of yours of this being the brother or sister or sibling or born out of this or that. Grammer I am reminded again of this essay meant as a good will offering and gentle reminder for the Zeitgeist among us that edit here [4] revealing yourself through your editing, as you said above in another plea like blog like comment, that the Zeitgeist has a real program for real solutions to problems, I suggest that bringing up things like Huff post blog over and over is counter productive. Find some better sources. Also the number of bodies that comment on an RFC is something, but the more important thing is the quality of arguments being made. You adding the Huff post blog piece on the article recently seems a bit over reaching currently as it has been hashed out that its not a good source by multiple people and a board used to determine that type of thing. Telling something about the agenda of the group? The article does that now already. Including the Zeitgeist faq's material in a type of presentation is not going to happen. We give their webpage. Any interested party can go there and learn of their plan assuming they have one. Also there is no Venus movement. None. Zero. It is one guy and his girlfriend that live in rural Florida. Its totally debatable about the origin of the movement. Our sources say that Peter Joseph 'introduced' the movement at the end of one of his movies. The claim by Zeitgeist that it has no leaders is iffy at best. Its a company owned by Joseph and directed by him. They claim from Zeitgeist that it is grass roots. We can not make the article a mouthpiece of the Zeitgeist company. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You really should learn how to thread your remarks, Earl. No way to answer this but in-line.

There is no Venus Movement and there is already an article on the Venus project

Thanks for the correction.

another small for profit company, which probably would be better if Fresco its creator were combined into it. Joseph is not particularly notable outside the small box of the Zeitgeist material.

Back on the soapbox, eh? The same serenade you been singing for a year. Why are you spending all this time on your single-purpose account?

Also the bulk of what you just wrote above is original research.

No, it's in the Huffington Post. I don't know much about TZM except to be sure that the page currently is a crippled shadow of what it should be.

A theory of yours of this being the brother or sister or sibling or born out of this or that. Grammer I am reminded again of this essay meant as a good will offering and gentle reminder for the Zeitgeist among us that edit here [5] revealing yourself through your editing,

Wow! That is your last shot. One more personal crack, and we go to ANI.

as you said above in another plea like blog like comment, that the Zeitgeist has a real program for real solutions to problems,

I said real solutions, not necessarily the best solutions. Communism is a "real" solution, too, even though it brings about more problems than it solves. Zeitgeist doing more for the world's problems than abbreviating and deleting Wikipedia pages.

I suggest that bringing up things like Huff post blog over and over is counter productive.

I suggest you don't misrepresent the RSN on Donovan's Huffington Post opinion article.

Find some better sources. Also the number of bodies that comment on an RFC is something, but the more important thing is the quality of arguments being made. You adding the Huff post blog piece on the article recently seems a bit over reaching currently as it has been hashed out that its not a good source by multiple people and a board used to determine that type of thing. Telling something about the agenda of the group? The article does that now already.

No, it does not. The page is dumbed down be beyond all recognition.

Including the Zeitgeist faq's material in a type of presentation is not going to happen.

It just might, King. Fortunately, you alone do not call the shots. Some of us want a good Encyclopedia.

We give their webpage. Any interested party can go there and learn of their plan assuming they have one.

Well, that was an admission, for sure. Any other political group has a precis of the agenda represented. We can do that here, too.

Also there is no Venus movement. None. Zero. It is one guy and his girlfriend that live in rural Florida.

Ain't that something, King? A wikipedia page on one guy and his girlfriend, and yet you argue that a movement with several hundred thousand people and an annual event is not notable enough to have its own page. Does anyone else notice the contradiction, here? Which of King's positions is incorrect?

Its totally debatable about the origin of the movement. Our sources

Original research, again? You hardly have any sources, King.

say that Peter Joseph 'introduced' the movement at the end of one of his movies. The claim by Zeitgeist that it has no leaders is iffy at best. Its a company owned by Joseph and directed by him. They claim from Zeitgeist that it is grass roots. We can not make the article a mouthpiece of the Zeitgeist company. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this a mouthpiece for Eli Lilly and Company? Tell the story, King, and get the facts. Quit trying to censor the Wikipedia by deleting pages. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is no article on The Venus Project. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Yet another section of this page has become almost totally unreadable because editors seem more interested in 'slapping each other down' than moving forward. In the end, whoever started it, whoever is to blame, (whatever you think of the motives/sincerity/intelligence of other editors) it's BORING guys/gals. … … (now somebody point out what a hypocrite Pincrete is!) Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not censoring anything. There is no censorship on Wikipedia. I have never deleted a page. What page are you referring to? The merge of the movement page in to this article? That was a redirect not a deletion and it was a consensus to do it. Most of the information stayed with the article.

:Ain't that something, King? A wikipedia page on one guy and his girlfriend, and yet you argue that a movement with several hundred thousand people and an annual event is not notable enough to have its own page. end quote from Grammer.

Anyone can make an annual event. That is not significant. One reported on by the old New York-Times article is notable, as one of the very few citations that stand out as valuable. Huff post blog does not really count and has been rejected in general as a good source. Another editor mentioned the flogging of a dead horse in that regard. If Zeitgeist has several hundred thousand people, that is doubtful or unknown. Regardless, here it can not be proven, no source. There is no way to say how many people are involved beyond YouTube clicks, but those are not members and bots click on those things also. There really is no way to say if the movement is current or history. I have tried to improve the article, recently a reference that someone dug up [6]. Grammer, no need to get excited. I am not your enemy. Yes looks like the Venus Project merged into the Fresco article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected

Article is now protected one month due to the edit war. See WP:RFED for how to request changes during the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jay Kinney

I just made a minor fix to the indenting in the reception section of first film from Jay Kinney's review. I'm not sure what is going on with that though. Kinney appears to be a cartoonist, the citation is a dead link, and boingboing.net appears to be a blog site. So what is the deal with including this? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The ref was wrongly formatted (not dead), Kinney WAS a cartoonist. You'll have to get someone else to answer your other questions ('cos I don't know).Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right about that -- Boingboing has zero credibility as an RS. It's just community blog. Much better sources, still not used, are the wealth of texts such as New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses[7] and The Extreme Right in Europe: Current Trends and Perspectives[8]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliability has nothing to do with it when it is clearly an opinion, (since we can be reasonably sure that Joe X knows what Joe X thinks). There is no good (policy) reason why both Kinney AND your new sources cannot be used for comment. It's muddling the issue to contrast the RS of one opinion against another, other criteria apply to opinion.Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Think what I'm confused about is what makes Jay Kinney's review significant or at least significant enough to warrant a fat block quote. Kinney's observations are nearly identical to that expressed earlier in the Globe and Mail blockquote. It seems Kinney is notable for being a cartoonist and esoteric, but I'm not sure why either of those would make for a good reason to quote him for a movie review. The observations quoted don't appear to be unique or specific to his field of expertise, so... not sure why EKJ slipped it in there. If we want to just stick every negative review of the film on here that's fine with me if it is sourced well, but that's a lot of internet to copypaste. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This question becomes particularly poignant when Trevor Donovan's opinions are forbidden and reverted. In contrast to Kinney, Donavan is a recognized writer with a track record of commentary on a number of movements. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Think it's about context. Donovan's opinion, if noteworthy, could probably go in the reception section too, if properly attributed as opinion. It just seems that pulling in everyone's opinion dilutes quality of article. For the most part the reception section details the views of those with some pertinent commentary from relevant background or from respected publication. If Kinney offered an esoteric's perspective on christ myth theory or something, it would probably seem more valuable. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, you don't have to be an expert to write a film review, especially (as in this case), the reviewer is not disproving specific theories in the film. Grammar, which opinions of Donovan do you believe warrant insertion in the article as positive reviews? Pincrete (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur, you don't have to be an expert to write a film review. That doesn't address why this review is of encyclopedic significance. Ultimately you'd want to quote an expert who writes reviews for major publication over former cartoonist on blog site. If the reviewer isn't providing some specific insight then I don't know what the point of including the review is. Ivor Tossell's quote already provides same criticism and I think in a much more comprehensive way. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, I have answered that question above. Donovan does not review the film. Donovan reviews the ZDay event, with comments on the Movement. See this diff. … … comment left unsigned by Grammar'sLittleHelper [9]

Grammar, then it is somewhat disingenuous of you to compare weight of opinions to justify inserting matters of fact. Though I still don't know what specific factual text, you believe is justified from Donovan, either to describe the Movement or tZM day.Pincrete (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone asked again the Huffington Post/Trevor Donovan article is good for. The article states the following about the Movement:

1. 337 sympathetic events occurred in over 70 countries worldwide on ZDay, March 13th, 2010.
2. NYC was home to the main event, 30 different countries represented in the audience.
3. TZM is the activist arm of The Venus Project (not a film fan club)
4. As envisioned by TZM, in a resource-based economy, the world's resources would be the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples, and that idea must make some people want to toss their cookies and vandalize Wikipedia pages.
5. As told by Joseph in a presentation at ZDay, because America has such a vast gap between rich and poor, it is plagued with higher homicide rates, drug use, obesity, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, infant mortality, and imprisonment.
6. The Zeitgeist Movement has more than 360,000 registered members worldwide.
7. Joseph said in his presentation: resource preservation is equal to human survival
8. The movement's founder, Jacque Fresco, who was 94, told the audience that there is currently enough food to feed everyone in the world, but not enough money to pay for it.
9. Americans throw out 40% of their purchased food.
10. Joseph said that a society based on money depends on waste of excesses, wasting resources, and building products that will fail

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar, this isn't text, I adopt the same attitude as the RSN, give me text instead of (repeatedly) asking for 'blanket approval'. If you feel this source is not being given a fair treatment here, take specific text to a RSN. The 'importance' of Donovan's claims does nothing to establish him as a RS.Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on the blockquote from the Jay Kinney's review? The reception currently contains a pretty solid cross section of experts in film/politics/journalism/conspiracy theories and already features a better source giving the same criticism. So is there a good reason to include Kinney's quote and with as much weight as it is currently given compared to experts? Should we compile a list of every Z list celebrity who's ever blogged or tweeted that they liked or disliked the film? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Which other review gives the same criticism (the confusing use of modified screenshots & news items)? And what kind of expertise would one need to make such a criticism? Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ivor Tossell in the Globe and Mail, the prior blockquote, provides criticism of video editing in a much more comprehensive way. I'm not arguing that Kinney's observation is wrong, but I don't see the point of including it if he isn't an expert in any of the dimensions relevant to a discussion of the film or is in any way associated with anything related to content of film. It isn't from a source that indicate notable coverage, it is just a blog site. If Alexander Zhiroff wrote on a blog site that he found the movie confusing, would it be necessary to devote a blockquote to? I don't see why that criticism would be given equal weight to that of the various experts who've reviewed the film. For the most part the reception section sticks to solid sources of those with some connection or expertise or from mainstream publication, but book ending section with the observations of a former cartoonist on a blog site seems misplaced. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at the section. It's pretty tight up until that point. "newspaper The Arizona Republic", "A review in The Irish Times", "Ivor Tossell in the Globe and Mail", "Filipe Feio, reflecting upon the film's Internet popularity in Diário de Notícias", "Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, mentioned Zeitgeist in an article in Scientific American", "Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln", "New York Times article, Alan Feuer", "Alex Jones, American radio host, prominent conspiracy theorist and executive producer", "Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan", "Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney", "Paul Constant writing in Seattle newspaper The Stranger", "In Tablet Magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg", "Chip Berlet" (???), then it goes "According to Jay Kinney". It kinda looks like quality of section declines sharply in last two critiques. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Referring to Kinney repeatedly as a former cartoonist is just silly, that was 30 years ago and everybody is a former something. Why not say former editor (which is equally true and more recent), or current writer? I don't agree that the criticisms are identical, while many critics point to 'dubious' editing, Kinney is specific about WHY at one point. He isn't just saying he was confused, he is implying the editing was intentionally disorientating. Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Is current editor/writer of esoteric literature any better than former cartoonist? What makes this a good review to use? Being specific doesn't make it significant. It should have a good reason to be included, especially if it was important enough to devote so much weight over most of those other experts I listed. Chip Berlet is a good review, didn't realize it was same person. Look at that list and tell me if you can spot the weak link. You didn't answer my question and I was polite enough to answer yours. If Alexander Zhiroff wrote on a blog site that he found the movie confusing, would it be necessary to devote a blockquote too? Is the reception section going to become a free for all for anyone who can post to a blog site? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea who Alexander Zhiroff is, and hypothetical questions about IF person X wrote a review are not exactly helpful. Kinney doesn't JUST say he found the film confusing, so the hypothetical is doubly unhelpful. To be included Kinney/Zhiroff/person X would have to pass certain minimum notability requirements and have something pertinent to say. I think Kinney passes both tests, you don't. Let's see what others think.Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Zhiroff is on wikipedia and, judging from article, would be just as relevant an individual to cite film critique as Kinney. If it isn't clear, my point is I'm against throwing in reviews from random people. You haven't elaborated why Kinney meets minimum notability requirements as a writer on Western esoteric traditions being quoted for something that has nothing to do with that. Having something pertinent to say is warm and fuzzy, but film's editing has been criticized by experts earlier in article. So I have to ask, what kind of threshold are you setting for this section? Look at that solid list of experts and tell me with a straight face former cartoonist/current esoteric writer deserves equal weight because he has a wiki article and makes an observation repeatedly made by better sources. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you still feel Kinney's blockquote ought to be used, would you at least concede it would be appropriate to identify the guy? Everyone source in that section follows the advisable pattern of identify who, what publication, and background. After that impressive list of movie makers, journalists, conspiracy theorists, skeptics, ect; "According to Jay Kinney" breaks dramatically from that pattern. "According to Jay Kinney, author of books on Western esoteric traditions," "According to Jay Kinney, former underground cartoonist," "According to Jay Kinney, as re-posted by Mark Frauenfelder of group blog Boing Boing," Trying to find a decent intro into his quote should illustrate why including it is silly when put beside those that precede it. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kinney is identified by his link, do you think it should say 'author Jay Kinney'? or 'editor Jay Kinney'? I don't think it needs either (and what good reason would there be for describing his profession 30 years ago?) … … ps 'esoteric writer' is not the same thing as 'writer … focusing on aspects of Western esoteric traditions'. Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Other sources in section are given intro to illustrate why their input is significant. It may just be a stylistic choice, but I think it is helpful to reader. Underground cartoonist is what the guy is notable for, he happens to write mysticism books now. I feel like you are evading the point when you quibble over whether he should be called a former cartoonist, esoteric writer, or writer focused on aspects of Western esoteric traditions. Question remains, why use this review? Is Jay Kinney a typically WP source for movie reviews? Has this review receive unique coverage? Does having the review re-posted by Mark Frauenfelder make it significant? I'm trying to figure out why you feel this ought to be included beyond that it just exists. Really, look at that list of other sources in the section. Each has a strong reason to be used, having a relevant background related to the film. What distinguishes Jay Kinney's review and why does it deserve more weight? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kinney's essay is in his voice and its a reliable source that is used. He is well known and was a part of the underground scene or comic alternative writers and then became a notable writer. Editors on Wikipedia have opinions but T talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject, much less other subjects. Only one editor here is debating this and discussions on something like this should not go on forever unless other people throw in their ideas about it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If Kinney is notable for writing movie reviews and commenting on political movements, demonstrating that notability should be easy -- easier than asking us to accept your word. And please use the customary threading. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Kinney's essay is in his voice and its a reliable source that is used. He is well known and was a part of the underground scene or comic alternative writers and then became a notable writer." Just not a notable writer on anything relevant to film. This doesn't address why his review is significant or why it ought to receive more weight than those of previously cited experts in the fields of journalism, conspiracy theories, and film making. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kinney - in the text used - isn't commenting on a a political movement, he's commenting on the linking of speech to picture. The logic above would imply that NO film reviewer should review a documentary unless he is an expert in the subject of that documentary.Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Being a film reviewer is a valid background for inclusion. Kinney's isn't a film reviewer though. Quick search indicates this may be only film the guy has ever reviewed. There is no special reason to quote any observations he makes as it has no basis in his expertise/background, nor has his review received any special coverage. He is a notable figure and has his own Wiki page, but not notable in any dimension related to the film or even in discussion of the film. I mean, ask yourself why his review is being quoted for that one observation. It might as well be any observation made in that review, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason beyond editor went looking for a reviewer to speak through. Can you explain why it's given more/equal weight than that of quality expert sources? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Zeitgeist may be powerful, but its power is tainted with some simplistic and pernicious memes that have already received more propagation than they deserve." This is a line towards the end of the review, summarizing Kinney's feelings on the film. Why shouldn't that line be what's quoted? or this one: "It's a shame, really, that Zeitgeist is, ultimately, such a mess. There are plenty of legitimate questions about what transpired on 9/11, just as there are plenty of shady doings in international finance or puzzling aspects of religious history, for that matter." Sorry if it seems I've lost good faith, but the inclusion of this review has all the appearances of cherrypicking for criticism. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Since Kinney is a writer on Western esoteric and occult traditions, wouldn't this statement from his review better reflect his expertise? "Fittingly, the video features a quote from Thomas Paine reducing Christianity to warmed-over sun worship, which was a daring bit of religion-baiting 200 years ago, albeit not so earth-shattering today." Thoughts? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, there aren't objective guidelines for use of a review, 'To be included Kinney/personX has to pass certain minimum notability requirements and have something pertinent to say. I think Kinney passes both tests, you don't. Let's see what others think'. Do you really think his comments about religion are either interesting or not already better said by Bible scholars? Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Common sense would indicate you defer to recognized experts for relevant commentary in an article, as has been the case in the reception section prior to this recent addition, but you refuse to address that... so whatever. I think that's a pretty objective standard, but if you don't feel that way, whatever. I can't tell if your question is sarcastic, but it seems that it has been your contention all along that his review ought to be included because he's notable as writer on Western esoteric traditions. If Kinney or his review ought to be included I'd say it's an improvement to quote him for something he's an authority on. No explanation has been offered why we ought to cherrypick out a comment he makes about video editing. Why not quote for line that best summarizes his review? Or one that fits his area of expertise? I ask you these things, but if you aren't interested in answering them, then don't bother. I don't know how this works, but EKJ and you support including and Sfarney and myself do not. EKJ added that review last week. Does consensus indicate it's left in or taken out? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just assumed I should discuss before removing, but is it up to you and EKJ to convince us to support the changing from prior consensus? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly do I say 'his review ought to be included because he's notable as writer on Western esoteric traditions'?. What kind of expert (in your opinion), is qualified to say that words and news images have been 'spliced together', in such a way that it is impossible to know what the connection between the two is meant to be? Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You repeatedly allude to "certain minimum notability requirements" you feel make his review worth including. You don't elaborate on that, but take the time to nitpick whether I refer to him as a former cartoonist or esoteric writer or writer on Western esoteric traditions. I've explained my issue with including the review, detailed why it is a poor source on the basis of undue weight to someone without a pertinent background, why it appears the quote has been cherry-picked, I've made suggestions for compromise, and have done my best to pose questions to you that might advance this discussion. I don't feel you are addressing the points I've raised or being intellectually honest in your replies. You are a more experienced editor, I yielded to your knowledge on consensus building. EKJ included this review last week, its inclusion was contested by myself, you defend it, Sfarney recommends removal aswell. It doesn't appear there is consensus to include the recent edit. I am removing it. I may be mistaken, but I believe it is upon EKJ and yourself to argue for it's inclusion rather than me to argue for its removal, as the edit had not achieved consensus. If I am wrong, let me know. Thank you. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Saw your revert, Pincrete. I think you are mistaken to put the Kinney review back in. I don't think it can be said to have gained consensus. EKJ stuffed it in last week and neither you nor he have addressed why it ought to receive as much weight as it does or why that quote ought to be selected as representative of the review. I'm not willing to edit war over it though. I barely know what I'm doing, but editors who should know better are permitting awful sloppy edits to hang around for years. I'd urge editors to be a bit more critical about what goes into the article. A newbie like myself shouldn't have to be the one to catch that EKJ cites a different source for another source's quote. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

104 wrong citing happens, especially when 'edit-warring' happens, an article can't 'settle down' and get tidied. I've left a message on your talk page to explain other recent edits. I've offered my reasons for wanting the Kinney. 'Prominence' is hardly the description of 'bottom of the list', blockquoting is normal for mid-sized quotes. There may not be consensus but only you and I have expressed an opinion.Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That is one explanation. Though I think there's just a certain editor who's more prone to making sloppy edits to push POV. I'm stumbling across stuff that has been in this article awhile now that has no basis in the sources that are cited to support it. I'm new, maybe that happens all the time, but I think that excuse falls apart upon investigating contributions. I'm not touching the section again, but I'm pretty sure that if the new edit doesn't achieve consensus it ought to be removed and discussed until a conclusion is reached. I could be wrong though. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussing who is to blame, and impugning their motives contributes nothing, it simply wastes space and turns the talk page into a 'slanging match'.Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Pincrete. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that article is protected, is it appropriate to request edit to remove inclusion of Jay Kinney review due to its contested inclusion prior to a consensus being reached? Or does it automatically achieve consensus based on inability for anyone to alter it? I hope I'm not edit warring. I think some of the reverting activity I was involved in may have been a mistake. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wessex Scene

Noticed Wessex Scene is still being used as a source in the reception of third film; "Fouad Al-Noor in Wessex Scene said that the film was more focused on solutions than the previous film, and commented that while there are controversial elements, he challenged those using labels to describe the film to watch the films." It appears to be a student paper, nothing on author other than he's apparently an electronic engineering graduate. Thoughts? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

104, you are probably technically correct, I also noticed it. More negative comments, from another writer on the same paper were also used till recently. It may be that it is being allowed because it is one of the very few positive reviews. A student paper would not be RS for much factual stuff, but might (just about) be used for opinion. I am neutral about its use.Pincrete (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness there really ought to be some standards in play regarding what gets dropped into the reception sections. I guess this isn't as bad to me as the Kinney review because third film reception section has little in the way of expert opinion/strong sources, but still. I guess I'm neutral about it too. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If we use the positive one then we should use the negative one as well. If that was taken out it should be restored. I have no problem with a student paper. Sometimes out of the way sourcing is good, like someones PHD thesis etc. If it truly is against guidelines?? then both should be removed. As said there is virtually zero positive commentary on Zeitgeist beyond a tiny fraction and there is an overwhelming amount of negative, sometimes stridently negative information about it. Though stridently negative this is just what happens with conspiracy fringe things. Claiming the towers were blown up by the U.s. government or the Bush family as the original movie claimed is bound to yank a lot of chains. As compared to agitprop, that term I suppose means that it agitates people. It certainly seems to have done that here so we have to stick with our reliably sourced informants and not our editors perspective except as minor workers collating information for presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think 'reception' is slightly different from other sections in that (so long as the overall response is not distorted) it is legitimate to put opinions which go against the predominant one, even when they are relatively marginal. I have been slightly involved with Schindler's List which includes some negative opinions, they benefit the article because it is of interest to know WHY some people have criticised a mainly highly respected film. Whether 'Wessex Scene' passes that test I'm not sure, since - from memory - it doesn't say much.Pincrete (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My main concern is quality of sources being used. This is reception of third film, criticism should be specific to it and not to other films, movement, or director. I haven't seen much in the way of press specifically for third film either way. I am sorry for beating a dead horse, but I would prefer to use professional journalists, film critics, and academics in related fields for relevant commentary. I don't think Sfarney has proposed anything for the reception sections, but it would be immensely hypocritical to green light Wessex Scene and block Huffpost. It seems like a slippery slope from there. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

HuffPost is 'blocked' from use as FACT, no one has suggested text to use for 'critical opinion'. Several of us have 'green-lighted' in principal its use as opinion, but as I recall it doesn't say much.Pincrete (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy crap"

Just because of the last section I've been looking more closely at the reception sections of this article.

"Other reviews have characterized the film as 'conspiracy crap,'", this is apparently literal when it states "other reviews." Looks kinda like this was quote mined from a movie review of [Able Danger]. "Able Danger's various generic elements and ambitions, while successful on their own, resist melding into a successful pastiche; perhaps the invocation of September 11 for the vaguely satirical purpose of tweaking conspiracy crap like that found in Zeitgeist: The Movie..." I don't know. The off the cuff diss to Zeitgeist is legit as far as being cited correctly, but it seems undue coatracky to put that in reception as if it was from a review of the movie this article actually describes. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that the article in question isn't a review of Zeitgeist: The Movie, the statement is entirely misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see where in the article it says 'Other reviews have characterized the film as 'conspiracy crap,', what I see is Other reviews have characterized the film as "based solely on anecdotal evidence," and "fiction couched in a few facts," . If I'm wrong, apologies.Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That's because it has been removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The village voice review was taken out of the article by Grammer. It said, perhaps the invocation of September 11 for the vaguely satirical purpose of tweaking conspiracy crap like that found in Zeitgeist: The Movie (an Internet film that, like Krik's recent "Be Kanye" ads, went mega-viral last year) proves too preoccupying for such a winking, if well-made, film. So, actually it is notable and refers to Zeitgeist as conspiracy crap. Probably better to readd that back in. Its notable and though it is not directly reviewing Zeitgeist it goes to some length in saying why in their words that it is conspiracy crap. I would say return that to the article. There is nothing misleading about it. It is straightforward. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So random negative comments about Zeitgeist are 'notable', but material from journalists actually discussing the subject isn't. A novel interpretation of Wikipedia policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

False edit summary Andy. It is not a random comment. It has been in the article a long time. Have no idea what you mean by your second sentence above but you jumped the gun on your revert. Citing consensus or lack of is not good. Consensus has kept that edit. You and one other dissagree. Very iffy to do that without discussion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't need consensus to revert the misleading assertion that a review of the movie described it as 'conspiracy crap', since no such review was cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of that comment was a example of wp:cherrypicking. And I have not published anything in the Village Voice. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The review doesn't describe "Zeitgeist" as being "conspiracy crap"; it describes it (indirectly) as containing "conspiracy crap". I don't consider that close enough for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with A Rubin, if it doesn't say CLEARLY what we claim, it shouldn't be used. Additionally think 'conspiracy xxx', may be over-used in the text.Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Right wing?

Also took out one of the "right-wing" wordings. Clearly a movement that bemoans the hyper-rich, disparity of income, and resource hogging is not a "right-wing" movement. Not as Wikipedia defines it. Right-wing is supposed to endorse unequal wealth. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Does the source refer to 'right-wing'? Your/my interpretation of what is/is not 'clearly right-wing' is irrelevant. … … ps the use you removed (as far as I can see), is referring to studying John Birch etc., NOT tZM. I am neutral about its removal, its addit. info but not strictly necessary.Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"The exposé theme runs through both its sequels according to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, a think tank that studies right-wing movements," that's the instance of right-wing Sfarney removed. Eh. It is sort of an aside. It is accurate though. In reception section Chip's quote leaves his view that the banking conspiracy theories expressed are right-wing. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

How come my "interpretation of what is/is not 'clearly right-wing' is irrelevant" but 70.36.233.104's interpretations are relevant? Fact is, as editors, all our views are relevant and enable us to make sensible choices for inclusion of relevant material. Berlet is notable for his commentary on right-wing groups, but that does not make all groups on which he comments "right wing." AND Berlet did not say that TZM is right-wing. Putting those words in the article, however, strongly suggested that TZM is right-wing, which it clearly is not. It is just erroneous and irrelevant to the statement. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

??? Chip Berlet's review calls the banking theories right-wing, it's a direct quote. He isn't referenced for tZM, just film, not same thing. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Right/Left wing" is a broad brush, a blunt mallet that adds nothing. And since "right wing" was repeated twice in the article, it gives a false impression. There are many issues in life, and often the "right-wingers" have left-wing attitudes. For example, Libertarians argue that people should be able to make as much money as they can by any means -- right wing, yes? But Libertarians also argue that no sexual activity between adults should be criminalized and prostitution should be legalized -- left wing, yes? So are libertarians right or left wing? Peter Joseph argues that super-rich international bankers have an undue influence on world events. He argues (a) that they should not be super-rich (left wing argument) and (b) that they should not be influencing world events (right wing argument). The text inferred TZM is right-wing and was a misleading half-truth. That is how I see it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar, since nobody said '70.36.233.104's interpretations are relevant', it's a pointless question. Both the text you removed and the text 104 is talking about are quotes, therefore your/my/104's own definitions of right-wing are irrelevant and since the text you removed did not imply that tZM is right-wing and since nobody has objected to you removing it, this whole discussion is pointless.Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"104's interpretations are relevant.", I agree with Pincrete that this should be totally added to the article so the reader isn't given the impression that my interpretations are irrelevant. This statement is irrelevant though, but not any less pointless that this discussion. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The movie according to our sources is extreme right wing in its ideas and presentation. So, removing information from the article is getting a bit out of hand. The movement section could have an entire section on the subject. The movie according to [10] and other sources is a trope of classic right wing theory that transformed from a dire warning of the Illuminati taking over the world to Zeitgeist taking over the world and making the world a perfect harmony of living and acting. Also repeating that the movement and the movies are different is not sourced except to the Zeitgeist people themselves. Is it mere coincidence that the guy that made the movie called Zeitgeist also made a movement called Zeitgeist? This is also questioned and actually made fun of in several reliable sources so lets not use Wikipedia as a soapbox for saying otherwise because that would be opinion and reliable sources trump opinion from editors or Zeitgeist members who are free to edit here. Multiple articles concur that it may be Josephs way to distance himself from the thinly veiled conspiracy right wing diatribes of the first movie. A section in the Zeitgeist movement section on that would be a good idea. Perhaps with cited material and pointing out that the critics have singled out this particular movie in relation to the protocols of the elders of Zion and classic theories of secretive groups manipulating us all is useful. Joseph uses that material in his movie as the basis of Zeitgeist the movie. We have lots of references to the movie being based on right wing conspiracy stuff. The later movies turned that whole thing into a liberal dream of saving the world through J. Fresco and quotes from Krishnamurti and several others. All that is cited in our sources. So the question is asked in or sources, how did the Zeitgeist movie go from a right wing extreme presentation to an extreme left wing presentation. That is integral to understand the movie and our sources ask this question. That is a good question and deserves a place in the article because it is frequently commented on by our reliable source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's true that tZM's ideas are seen as 'communistic', by some (because of common ownership?), but as 'far right' by others (because of tendency to see everything as the fault of an over-weening govt./cabal? ). Regardless, it isn't WP's job to decide which is true.Pincrete (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. By corollary, we should be careful to avoid characterizing it as one or the other, even by implication. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

So long as that does not involve 'cleaning up' what RS or critics say, yes, but that is no more true here than using any other descriptor. We aren't here to decide what they should have said, or what they really meant.Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is o.k. to characterize the original movie as right wing conspiracy stuff. Its not up to us to clean up the article the way we believe or the way Zeitgeist presentation would promote themselves. The first movie is direct about what it is talking about [11] We have many sources that say almost the same thing. It is an extreme right wing Alex Jones, not Venus Project, inspired conspiracy approach with lots of digging into classic conspiracy about bankers, the Fed, secret cabals etc. ARIZONA According to several friends, Jared Loughner, suspect in the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman, Gabrielle Gifford, Loughner was fan of conspiracy theory movies produced by right wing radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. The two movies are “Loose Change” which claims 9/11 was an inside job, which Alex Jones was an executive producer and “Zeitgeist” another conspiracy theory movie which had parts of Jones movie “Terrorstorm.” “Zeitgeist” claims that the Federal Reserve was behind several wars and manipulates the American public and that there was a secret conspiracy for a “One World Government” or “New World Order,” common themes in the Patriot Movement. , so many sources say this that it is beyond question that this is about what the movie is about. Arguing otherwise amounts to denying all the notable sources that go to extremes to dissect the movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

EKJ, 'According to several friends … …' isn't a very reliable claim. There are enough people making more reliable connections to not need that! The Daily Telegraph has a similar 'friends of the Forest boy say … …', equally dubious. None of them justify the general description 'right-wing' IMHO.Pincrete (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Socialist Standard reviewer agrees with much of the film and generally approves. That fact puts rather a large hole in the claim that the film is "right wing." The reviewers who claim that the films are antisemitic are just funny. Hugely funny. The statements by antisemitism expert Michelle Goldberg are either fact or opinion. They are not both. This august body must decide which. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Goldberg's statements are clearly opinion, and are attributed as such. I don't remember Socialist Standard agreeing with, or approving of much in the film (though it found some common ground between Marxist and tZM analysis). If they did it should be included in critical response.Pincrete (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If Goldberg had said in her opinion the film was child pornography, would we use that? The Socialist Standard opinion is cited in the current text. Check it out. I don't think they would say the same of the Republican Party or the KKK. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If a number of reasonable weight sources had described a film as child pornography, yes we would say it (as attributed opinion), its a good analogy, since there have been notable instances of album covers/films being characterised as paedophilic/pornographic/mysogynistic. The accusers have rarely meant that the creator was a paedophile/women hater etc. I don't think it would difficult to find sources describing KKK as racist, Republican Party I'm out of my depth. Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The first film is overtly right wing. It uses film excerpts from Alex Jones to make its points. It has the classic antisemitic tropes of conspiracy mainstay material from the last couple of hundred years which is right wing fringe and John Birch Society more currently. The article needs a section about that. A critical reaction to the right wing conspiracy Loose Change aspect of the movie. Alex Jones believes in most of the movie and he is a walking advertisment for fringe conspiracy. He interviewed Peter. Is there doubt that the first movie is based on right wing conspiracy thinking? No. [12] or [13] or [14] and on and on [15] Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you citing an article which states that 'in the case of Zeitgeist the labels “left” and “right” are pretty useless descriptors' as evidence that the film is 'right wing'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it shows that it the movie has done a good job of confusing people and that is the point of that persons argument. That it has sucked in the right and then the left aspects of presenting society either/or like that.

And what about things like this There are lots of strange things about the Zeitgeist phenomenon, but strangest is how it got started. It’s a global organization devoted to a kind of sci-fi planetary communism, but it was sparked by a 2007 documentary steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. The first Zeitgeist documentary borrowed from the work of Eustace Mullins, Lyndon LaRouche, and conspiracy-mad Austin radio host Alex Jones to rail against the cabal of international bankers that purportedly rules the world. It was this documentary that reportedly obsessed Jared L. Loughner, the disturbed young man who allegedly shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I could go on and multiple examples of the movie being outrageously right wing in its conspiracy concepts are just about the only sources we have on the movie. Even the NewYork times oft cited article says the later movies moved away from the conspiracy aspects. The above is from the Goldberg article [16]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We cite articles for what they say, not for what you would like them to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I just gave an extended quote from Goldberg. There are multiple good sources saying more or less the same. Please talk about content and not other editors. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you cite Goldberg for 'right wing'. But you have also cited another source which states that ' the labels “left” and “right” are pretty useless descriptors'. As for other sources, we aren't going to cite a conspiracy-theorists' forum, no matter how many times you link it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We should not be repeating a comment by Michelle Goldberg in which she snidely compares Peter Joseph with antisemites -- and infers that Joseph is one himself -- since Peter Joseph is a living person. Her statements that Peter Joseph "borrowed" ideas from the people she names are without foundation -- and probably without fact. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• We should not be repeating a comment by Michelle Goldberg in which she snidely compares Peter Joseph with antisemites -- and infers that Joseph is one himself If a respected source says that it is a thinly veiled antisemitic trope its o.k.. What is not o.k. is a Wikipedia editor blogging on a talk page about a respected source being snide. Also when you say Her statements that Peter Joseph "borrowed" ideas from the people she names are without foundation -- and probably without fact. you fail to understand the role of an editor which is to give the overview of something without taking a personal side. Unless you are notable on this subject, have something published, have some connection to it where we can cite you as some kind of authority, journalist, etc its better not to feel you have to tell us what you think personally about someone like Goldberg a respected well known journalist. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, don't think so. I meant exactly what I wrote: "Snide adj. derogatory or mocking in an indirect way.". Godberg calls Joseph an antisemite (which is derogatory) in an indirect way ("steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories"). The Chip Berlet quote is guilty of the same ("the world of right-wing antisemitic theories of a global banking conspiracy"). There is no exception in WP:BLP for cherry-picking the derogatory statements from RS. Those statements, though couched in weasel wording and apparently within the policies of their individual publications, violate Wikipedia standards and also "fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." I am removing the statements from the article. If you revert, I will immediately raise the issue to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a blog comment Sfarney. It is also a nasty attack on a living person something that Wikipedia frowns on. That type of communication on the talk page is not allowed. I suggest you strike it through or remove it. If you wish to interact here follow some talk page guidelines. Any editor here is within their rights to remove your comment above or at the very least collapse it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, there may be valid reasons for excluding Berlet (or others), but your opinion as to whether they are snide/correct etc. is not one of them.Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC) ... The use of 'Eustace Mullins' is discussed here Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)/Archive 2#Eustace Mullins.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have seen it. The statements violate WP:BLP, as stated above. I have deleted them as required by WP policy, and I will delete them again and raise the issue if the edit is reverted. If you disagree, please study my statement above and address what I have written. Goldberg and Berlet are making associative, non-factual smears that are outside the bounds of WP:BLP. If you know anything of legal slander, you understand that the one who merely repeats malicious gossip is just as culpable as one who originates it. WP does not go there. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm sure that Goldberg's and Berlet's statements are factual, I am just commenting here on one point. Repeating "malicious gossip" on the Internet is not actionable in the US, per Section 230. I haven't checked the statements (in the original source) to determine if they should be deleted under WP:BLP. (If someone specifically asks me to, I will check, and recommend a block of the offending party, whether the editor adding the information, or the editor deleting the information.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Views are accurately represented and accurately attributed. It should be noted they describe the conspiracy theories as anti-semitic. Though even if they described the director as anti-semitic or right-wing, it should be fairly well understood that in this instance those labels are a matter of opinions that can't be proven or disprove. Not sure how much weight these comments ought to be given, but as it currently is it doesn't seem to be enough to unbalanced the article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

"Actionable" is not the criterion of WP:BLP. Cherry picking the remarks of two reviewers to characterize the films (and thus the producer/director) as antisemitic is a violation of BLP, particularly since neither of those reviewers has any factual information. It is just a smear, and it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin I would be grateful if you would look at the disputed text and offer an opinion. There seem to me to be two issues, one of which is linking the film's ideas to a number of far-right writers (inc. Eustace Mullins ), the second is the writer's own opinion that the film is "steeped in … … covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,". Disputed text here:[17], source used here:[18], Eustace Mullins' is discussed here. I admit to being on uncertain territory, but reverted because there seems to be a lot of 'I like/don't like' editing on this article.Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, ignore above request, events have made it redundant.Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, find some good reviews, not try to evaluate the truth or 'fairness' of those that have been written.Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, I have taken the issue to the BLP Notice Board Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive224#Non-factual smear on Zeitgeist the film page. It is my belief that you are operating in good faith, and therefore repeated reverts will not solve the question. Please note that I have not argued "fairness" -- that quote is misplaced. I argue that deliberately repeating slander when you know the slander is without foundation -- that is slander. Wikipedia should not be used as a megaphone for slander. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP? No Grammar'sLittleHelper You can not endorse portions of cited information and reject other portions because you mistak BLP for something it is not. You can not censor the article. That may sound strange but if the writer or the information you are now threatening to edit war over says something its not up to you to water it down or change the meaning. Saying above you will revert again is not a good idea either. I suggest you step away from the article a little because it seems you have tied us all up in knots on the talk page. I have asked you many times to stop extrapolating on your own ideas. Goldberg is a professional who has written about this subject from her perspective. Editors that are involved in the subject are once again advised to read what another editor suggested about cooling it if they edit here Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement/members Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note:This RFC ( and the one above discussing split/keep merged), are awaiting formal closure. This one (Documentary/Documentary style etc.), has been resolved by the acceptance of 'Documentary' and no single version of the texts A-D. Comments are still welcome on both.Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What proposed version of the lede of Zeitgeist (film series) should be used?

Cast your !votes for A, B, C, or propose another alternative. Be civil and concise. Please avoid threaded discussion in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A. Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary-style film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, presenting a number of conspiracy theory ideas. Peter Joseph created all three films. The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph.

B. Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. The series presents a number of ideas and theories that challenge conventional views of historical events, and suggests a radical transformation of the global economy based on available resources, similar to a post-scarcity economy. The films were created and produced by Peter Joseph. The first of the series was released in 2007 and has been distributed through DVD sales and Youtube uploads, as have the sequels. Another in the series is due for release in 2015, titled InterReflections I.

Because of the controversial statements, theories, and proposals in the films, they have met with some negative reviews in the mainstream media, which accuse them of cultivating conspiracy theories. They have also spawned a global movement, The Zeitgeist Movement, with annual conventions in a number of major cities and a following difficult to quantify.

C. Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary-style film presenting a number of conspiracy theory ideas with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. Peter Joseph created all three films. The Zeitgeist Movies are a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph.

D. Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. All three having been created by Peter Joseph. The first film criticised religion and the banking system. It presented certain conspiracy theories about historical events. The second two films also questioned the historical narrative. However, they broadened topics to include psychology. They also looked at solutions to perceived problems with society, these included having a post-scarcity economy and a technocracy.

References

Survey

• D - A, B and C appeared either too negative or too positive, so I have added a fourth one.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• D - Seems to be the least objectionable of the bunch. If the movement is not split, it should also be mentioned in the lede. OnlyInYourMindT 19:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• D Also agree that if the movement isn't split, it should be mentioned in the lede. "The movement is not the movie". The film hardly mentions the movement. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• B is my choice, though it could be improved. My choice is guided by the recurring theme of "conspiracy theory" in all the other definitions. After you get past the neutral lede, the Wikipedia page on conspiracy theory is a lengthy speculation on the causes for the "conspiracy theory" disease among humans. Thus, if the Encyclopedia is consistent (and the link will be direct, of course), we would be defining the Zeitgeist film as a litany of pathological ideas. The language is not a credit to an encyclopedia with WP:NPOV; and Wikipedia becomes more and more like a catechism of the Establishment: "This you are required to believe, that you are forbidden to believe." To an independent thinker, the language is offensive and unnecessary -- adults make up their own minds about that kind of thing. (Also, "conspiracy theory idea" is an ungrammatical redundancy. Not every noun can be adjectiv-ised, and "theory" is one that cannot.) Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• A Which seems to be the current lead on the article. It is closest to the sources we have. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• A, although I have little objection to changing "documentary-style" to "documentary" if reliable sources are found. That may be a matter of definition, but the other choices clearly do not reflect reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• I don't like any of them, but I guess A is the one I favor most. If B replaced "number of ideas and theories" with "conspiracy theories", then I might be able to go for that. D would need to be rewritten from scratch to fix the grammar issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• A, with reservations about the usefulness of voting. The sources say what they say, no matter how us random guys on the internet vote. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• B, it seems the most informational to me. They could all use copyediting, though. Eman235/talk 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• I don't like any of them, but preferB or D though both need editing. No RSs that I could see use 'documentary style', it is 'loaded'. The 'trademark' text should be altered to refer to the production company. I agree with NRP about the need to use "conspiracy theories", rather than 'ideas' in B. Most of the second para in B could go (some criticism? … mainstream media? … global movement? … major cities?, much of this sounds promotional or so vague as to be meaningless).Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• A, with a few changes, such as changing "documentary-style" to "documentary" and adding a mention of "post-modern economy" after conspiracy theories. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• A Seems closest to summarizing the body of the article (perhaps with change to documentary?). Capitalismojo (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• A - because it most succinctly describes what it is, according to the sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• A first, for brevity, C is second preference. Per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE in particular, it is essential to maintain the prominence of the fact that the first movie is (a) full of conspiracist nonsense and (b) not actually a documentary. Merola's brother, who was art director on Zeitgeist, has also gone into the conspiracist propaganda film business, pimping cancer quackery, so it's clearly a systemic behaviour and not an accident. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Thread one

Why is the trademark info important enough to appear in the first paragraph? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. That it is trademarked is the fact that separates this "Zeitgeist" from all other zeitgeists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It is probably there to promote the conspiracy theory invented by one of the major contributors to the article that the movement is a money-making scam invented by Peter Joseph. For those interested, the evidence for this can be found on the talk page for the now-merged article on TZM - it should be noted that no reliable source considers this trademark relevant - and that no reliable source (or even unreliable one, as far as I'm aware) has made the same 'scam' claim. Describing TZM as a trademark in the lede, rather than as an organisation is of course a violation of WP:NPOV... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

TZM(TM) may be notable, while the Zeitgeist movement might not be. They are not exactly the same thing, although both could be discussed in a single article. (Regardless, describing it as an "organization" is wrong; if it is notable (or even at all important), it's because it isn't organized. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement has had seven years of annual conventions simultaneously in at least a dozen cities. I do not know whether they had monogrammed napkins, and maybe that would be the deciding factor. But otherwise, it sounds pretty organized -- at least as organized as the Rotarians. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, the facts of the matter are that there are multiple secondary sources discussing the movement, and none discussing the trademark. Whether there enough sources to justify an article on the movement is open to debate, but either way, using the lede to assert that the movement is a trademark while omitting to even mention the movement itself is a violation of WP:NPOV - which applies to non-notable subjects as well as notable ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Its just information from the internet that says who owns the Zeitgeist franchise namely Peter Joseph. Its confusing because they stalwartly say in the movement there are no 'leaders' but that obviously is not true. Peter Joseph owns the company and has complete artistic and commercial control of all things Zeitgeist because it is his Gentle Machines Company which he owns that basically is the Zeitgeist movement and movies. He controls their websites. We are just informing our readers of basic information. It is neutral. It certainly is not negative in any way just informative which is what an encyclopedia does. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., repeating your batshit-crazy conspiracy theories won't make them any more true. And please stop pretending to be 'neutral' - it is self evident from the vitriol you have been spewing out that you harbour an intense hatred for TZM. Why, I have no idea - though I do wonder if you are a former member?. You are clearly unfit to edit any article concerning TZM, Joseph, his movies, or any subject remotely touching on them, and since it has been made clear through multiple ANI threads that the community isn't prepared to deal with your repeated violations of Wikipedia policy, I shall be raising the matter at ArbCom, where I shall of course be providing a complete record of your partisan soapboxing, violations of WP:BLP policy, promotion of frankly deranged conspiracy theories, harassment of contributors who dare to challenge your invented claims of 'consensus', and most of all your abject refusal to comply with Wikipedia policy regarding a neutral point of view. Frankly, given that yours is to all intents a SPA account, I would consider an indefinite block to be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You just made a very intense personal attack over a content dispute in what is supposed to be a free ranging discussion. Is a request for comment the right place for unwarranted personal attack? Is Wikipedia in the business of putting up with personal attacks? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump was trying to say that he prefers more neutral language in the article. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well actually he said that Earl is unfit to edit these articles, I think that was pretty clear. He's right about Earl driving away contributors, he's probably the main reason I've stayed away from serious discussions about these pages, even though I can see these articles need attention from neutral editors familiar with policy and standards. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you talking about editors and not content in this RFC? Wikipedia is a voluntary thing. I highly doubt that anyone is driven away that is actually interested. Who says Earl is driving people away? Andy? Not. He said I was bat shit crazy and interpreting that into anything other than a personal attack is ridiculous. Also saying that Earl is unfit to edit these articles even if interpreting something he thinks Andy is saying is also a personal attack and is not called for Jeraphine Gryphon ^{(talk) - Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)}

Thread two

There are no sources (to my knowledge) that use the term 'documentary-style', although there is one that describes the film as a 'pseudo documentary'. There are many sources that use the term 'documentary'. If you take out documentary-style and information about the trademark from option A you are left with:

Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, presenting a number of conspiracy theory ideas. Peter Joseph created all three films.

I have no objection to this lede, although its possibly too short to summarise the article.

@Arthur Rubin: How did you come to the conclusion A reflects source and the others don't? C is just a slightly re-ordered version of A, so therefore must equally well reflect the sources. There is a debate whether to include citations in the lede or not. I can add these to D if required.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT Four sources using the term 'documentary' Jonpatterns (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly it is not a documentary in the ordinary definition of that term. At the very least it is documentary style which is a kind way of explaining it. Pseudo documentary is the reality of what it is and the sources for that far out weigh documentary [19]. Calling the Youtube film a documentary is not really correct. A documentary documents something real. The movie documents the buildings being blown up by the U.s. government with controlled demolition. Hence it is mostly referred to as a pseudo documentary. Pseudo is another word for fake. Lets not mislead Wikipedia readers into thinking as many members of the Zeitgeist movement think that the movie is a real documentary. That would be poor information giving. Conspiracy film pseudo documentary would be the most accurate way to proceed. Other wise the article becomes an arm of the Zeitgeist block of supporters and non neutral. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The ordinary definition of documentary is "Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements"[20]. This applies even if all the facts are wrong. No documentary is without its flaws. To claim a documentary is not a true documentary is the No true Scotsman fallacy. Injecting "-style" or "pseudo" is a pejorative and a POV and not encyclopedic. Such things are fit only for the critical response section, not the lead. If the film style is documentary, then it is a documentary film. OnlyInYourMindT 03:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist cites stand-up routines as evidence. Yeah. Lesson Learned: The Internet sucks [21] Zeitgeist is a Conspiracy theory pseudo documentary if it is a documentary at all. It is not a pejorative at all. That may be the disconnect here. It is described over and over for what it is and that is the meaning of citations and references for the article [22]. The group associated with it is also not notable because it relies on the black hole of the internet social gathering sites for credibility. It does not matter how many people clicked on it on Youtube except as an oddity of clicking culture. Unlike Spinal Tap which is a mockumentary it basically is based on old tropes on a certain group who controls the Fed and the Rothchilds etc. I am not saying it is pure garbage but many of the citations say its crap or nonsense. We have to say what the citations say not whitewash things with Lalalala Zeitgeist cliched material, such as the movie and movement being different from one another. If our citations in the body of the article call it crap, call it pseudo, call it nonsense, conspiracy theory, propaganda, using Jewish conspiracy without naming it like some of the classic hate groups do then why not just mention all that like we have in the article. The argument of saying the citations are somehow not to be used because they are not fair or you do not like them because you perceive them not to be not neutral is not a good argument. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This lead is pretty close to what we have and maybe even more accurate in reflection of the sources in the body of the article

That's quite a source you got there, Earl. It ridicules Zeitgeist for including a George Carlin clip ("as evidence," allegedly), then the reviewer gives his example of how real evidence is gathered: "Example: go to any indie fuck music review. You'll most likely find the word 'zeitgeist' in it." The masthead is even better: "How do you stop a Walker? Gunshot to the head."[23] Here's hoping all your sources are just as good. Or even better! Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie is a conspiracy theory pseudo documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, presenting a number of conspiracy theory ideas. Peter Joseph created all three films. The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph.Earl King Jr.

}}

References

Please let's stop this. There is no such film genre as "conspiracy theory pseudo documentary," and I would suggest that this is not the place to invent one. Nor is there a genre called "pseudo documentary." All the recognized film genres are listed on this page. Earl King Jr. is not citing the recognized trade definition of documentary, which can be found here. You can scour that definition at length, and nowhere does it state that all the editors of Wikipedia have to agree that all the statements in the film are true. It does not state that the Academy judges must agree that all the statements in the film are true, and the phrase "something real" is not used. The definition of documentary seems to boil down to one word: nonfiction. Dictionary.com defines that word to mean

the branch of literature comprising works of narrative prose dealing with or offering opinions or conjectures upon facts and reality, including biography, history, and the essay (opposed to fiction and distinguished from poetry and drama ).

Please note that the definition includes "offering opinions or conjectures," which includes even the blackest objections to the Zeitgeist films.

And once again, the presence of a film on youtube is not an indication of its credibility. National Geographic has hundreds of films on Youtube, and so do the Discovery Channel, NPR, BBC, most of the major studios, and many music video producers. The continual description of Zeitgeist as "a Youtube film" is an intentional slur, and not even correct. Zeitgeist was largely distributed through DVD sales. Let's get it right and be neutral, factual, and informative, just like we promised when we took our Wikipedia oaths. This is not a defense of Zeitgeist, but a defense of that lofty goal. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You might be over reacting. Zeitgeist is very documented as being a conspiracy film. Nothing is being made up as to genre. Wikipedia has classifications or categories for subjects at the bottom of article pages. Here they are Categories: 2007 films English-language films2008 films2011 films The Zeitgeist Movement 9/11 conspiracy theories American films Bible conspiracy theories Christ myth American independent films Propaganda films Pseudo history Sequel films Just how can it be that it was categorized like this if there was not some reason to do that, namely the citations that were in the article. Someone added those categories and they have been there a long time. I am not saying to source our article to that, which is not possible. I am saying that the categories are not really to be interpreted as derogatory or pejorative just what some Wikipedia editors, not myself, thought were accurate ways to categorize this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy film"? Nope. Once again, that is not a recognized film genre. All the recognized genres are listed on this page, and "conspiracy film" just ain't there. Try again. Hint: "Conspiracy Theory" is the title of a thriller film (genre: Thriller, subcategory: Action thriller) starring Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts. "Conspiracy Theory" is also not a recognized genre. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• The genre has been extensively discussed in the past. There is absolutely no way we can call these films "documentaries" without violating WP:NPOV. Propaganda or agit-prop is closest, so if we absolutely must stick with (our) list of (arbitrarily restricted) genres then Category:American propaganda films is closest, but documentary-style was a compromise worked out in the past. I presume there is no substantive dispute as to the fact that the films are conspiracist, other than simply not liking the fact. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A link would be good. As for NPOV, 2016: Obama's America is classed as a documentary. Love it or hate it, it just is. Has nothing to do with whether anyone agrees with it, likes it, feels offended by it, or gets a rash. That is what kind of film it is. Same with JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America, Looking for Fidel, Last Days in Vietnam, Knocking, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, The Story of WikiLeaks, Why We Fight, The War on Our Civil Liberties, These Streets are Watching, School of the Americas Assassins, Secrecy, Stealing America, and hundreds of others. The argument is as silly as claiming Love Story is not a drama because you (and a raft of professional film critics) didn't consider it was dramatic. The genre is the genre. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Every source calls these films "documentary" (in some form). And yet you call usage of this term a(n) NPOV violation. Which means you must believe these films are less than documentaries, and that claiming documentary is an attempt to put them on an undue pedestal. The opposite perspective also exists: that these films are clearly documentaries, and that calling them anything less is an attempt to unduely discredit them (as if they need help with that ;-).

The solution here is not to pick a side or create a SYN compromise, but to characterize the controversy. So I propose we increase our neutrality, call the films films in the lead, and then each film section, where applicable, can have a sentence on The Great Genre Disagreement of 2015. :-) OnlyInYourMindT 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

the solution is not to pretend that there is any actual problem, because anybody who thinks the Zeitgeist series are documentaries, has no place on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"...anybody who thinks the Zeitgeist series are documentaries, has no place on Wikipedia." So much for cooperation and consensus. Now it gets back to pushing and shoving. @Robert McClenon: It ain't workin' boss. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, anybody who genuinely believes these are documentaries is so far down the conspiracist rabbit hole that they lack the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. The Zeitgeist movies are paranoid conspiracist nonsense, as our articles on the subjects they cover makes absolutely clear. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, WP:THOUGHTCRIME isn't policy as yet. Feel free to propose it at WP:VPP... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No it does not get back to pushing and shoving and Robert who has been kind enough to help us is just going to point that out also. Jzg is correct. For what ever reason a group of editors have recently pushed the idea of a second RFC on this subject after the other pretty clearly said combine the article. Also why violate neutral presentation that our citations give us? It is purely a propaganda film. The movies are not documentaries. I said at the onset that we are really being kind and compromising in the extreme to call the movies documentary like. We could just as well call them propaganda like or using agit-prop techniques etc. etc. Cooperation and consensus. Listening to experienced editors might have a good effect. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sauce, goose, gander. Just a day or two ago, someone wrote, "... saying that Earl is unfit to edit these articles ... is also a personal attack." But now that others are similarly attacked and same writer defends the attacker, we see the author of those words was not principle, but only personal pique masquerading in princely robes. I myself did not defend Earl when Andy attacked. I should have ... in this way, a discussion descends to debate, and from debate to quarrel. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The above is also a personal attack. Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks. Do not encourage others to make personal attacks. Comment on content not editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't, of course. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

we are really being kind and compromising in the extreme to call the movies documentary like

An encyclopedia that is kind or compromising is a corrupt encyclopedia. To avoid corruption is to uncompromisingly characterize what sources say. And EVERY source in the world that mentions a genre says documentary. Every movie website. Every review. Every news story. Only a few sources like The Irish Times and The Socialist Party of Great Britain avoid mentioning a genre altogether. The third film in the series even won AOF's award for Best Political Documentary. All the evidence is on the side of documentary. One source calling the genre a "pseudo-documentary" is a huge lack of evidence to support your position. Let's not create a corrupt encyclopedia. OnlyInYourMindT 07:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@OnlyInYourMind: some of these editors seem to assume that every view of the subject is partisan. To run a dangerous parallel, I offer you the assertion that Adolph Hitler never set himself on fire and ran through the streets naked waving his junk at old ladies and young girls. That is not a defense of Hitler -- that is no more than a defense of history. And that defense, my friends, is not partisan. Similarly, this discussion is not about attacking or defending or "being kind" to the Zeitgeist films. This is about the integrity and dignity of the Encyclopedia. People are not going to run out and buy DVDs and watch them hypnotically, believing every word, as a result of reading "documentary" on Wikipedia instead of "documentary-like" or "so-called documentary." It just ain't gonna happen. We don't hold the world's sanity in our hands. But we would cheapen the Encyclopedia if we referred to corporate employees as "capitalist running dog lackeys" (like the old Worker's Daily) or otherwise let personal opinions/attitudes taint our statements of fact. And frankly, it doesn't matter whether our opinions/attitudes are staining the page or the those of some professional film critic. Crudding up the intro (which should be a simple statement of fact) with personal opinion simply cheapens the Encyclopedia -- just like it did the Worker's Daily. People don't come here for opinions or to be told how to think or feel about stuff. They come here for facts, and "documentary-like" is just plain WP:WEASEL. We might as well say, "Well, it sorta is and sorta isn't, y'know?" And it doesn't help if some big-shot reviewer from the Globe & Mail said exactly that. It still makes us look weak and weaselly. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two proposed edits

1 minor Zeitgeist (film series)#Reception 3 present text:

A review in the The Socialist Standard regarding production values said the film had a "well rounded feel." In terms of content they criticized the "shaky economic analysis" contained in the second part of the film, said that Karl Marx had already undertaken a more scientific analysis, and that, "despite these false beginnings the analysis is at least on the right track." Regarding transition to the new system proposed in the film, the review critically noted that in the film "there is no mention of how to get from here to there."[32]

Fouad Al-Noor in Wessex Scene said that the film was more focused on solutions than the previous film, and commented that while there are controversial elements, he challenged those using labels to describe the film to watch the films.[33]

Proposed text: Name of author writing in the The Socialist Standard said the film's use of animation and humour gave it a "well rounded feel.", though he criticized the "shaky economic analysis" in the second part of the film, saying "Karl Marx had already undertaken a more scientific analysis", and that, "despite these false beginnings the analysis is at least on the right track". Regarding transition to the new system proposed in the film, the reviewer noted "there is no mention of how to get from here to there." [24]

These changes are largely more specific phrasing. I propose removal of 'Wessex scene' since it's a student review and more importantly doesn't say anything. Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think both of those changes would be an improvement. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou talk, I thought I was all alone here, and everyone had 'gone to the circus'. Pincrete (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2-lead

Kage Acheron and AndyTheGrump, have variously pointed out that 1) 'conspiracy theories' applies only to first film 2) no description is present of films 2+3.

Thus: the first film contains etc (as now approx.) … …whilst 'addendum' and 'moving forward' advocate the abolition of the present financial system in favour of what the films describe as a 'resource based economy'/'post scarcity economy'.

I'm open to all suggestions as to how better to briefly summarise the films' main claims neutrally. Because of the 'lockdown', it is necessary to establish a consensus before proposing any edits.Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that is also an improvement. The NY Times source in the second film reception section also explicitly makes that observation, if there is any dispute. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I support noting the difference approach of the second two films, compared to the first. Mentioning 'resource based economy'/'post scarcity economy' would definitely be informative. However, the second two also contain conspiracy theories. The biggest difference is that solutions are proposed, rather than just perceived problems being stated.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

IF(?) 2+3 also contain CT's, 'whilst Add & MF ALSO', would cover that.Pincrete (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen the others. NY Times source says it "was all but empty of such conspiratorial notions". I get that these films view financial institutions/modern economics as illegitimate/corrupt, but I don't know if that sentiment alone constitutes a conspiracy theory. Source doesn't describe it as such at least. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Source doesn't describe = it doesn't.Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The description of the second film includes the lines:

...subjugation of Latin American economies by multinational corporations and the United States government, including involvement in the overthrow of Latin American heads-of-state.

The film suggests that society is manipulated into economic slavery

Either the description is wrong, or the film contains conspiracy theories. Using 'whilst Add & MF ALSO' would work. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Third option, or that isn't considered a conspiracy theory. As an example, a general complaint that a government acts in its economic interest over human rights isn't often called a conspiracy theory. The accusation of neocolonialism isn't generally called a conspiracy theory either. Assertions of a New World Order/masonic cult trying to take over the world is generally regarded as a conspiracy theory, but I haven't seen these films and the source doesn't indicate something like this is included. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Over throwing governments or enslaving populations is a little more than 'acting in economic interests'. Also consider if these actions where reportedly in the public domain. conspiracy def.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh the whole, I don't think that is disputed though, Iran–Contra affair, 1973 Chilean coup d'état, Bay of Pigs Invasion. In a general sense, it is accepted by mainstream scholarly opinion that America has been involved in the business of giving Latin America the business. That would be my guess as to why source doesn't describe that as a conspiracy theory. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As I don't have any source extra sources I've decided to be neutral on whether describe the second two films as containing conspiracy theories.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment we are discussing whether the single word 'also' is justified, (unless a VERY brief description of the CTs could fit into the lead).

I know a bit about one of the interviewees (Economic Hitman), his claims go WAY beyond the known events of US involvement in S.America, but I don't know what he says in the film. The text Jonpatterns quotes (subjugation etc.), would justify 'CTs' but … … Personally, I am not keen on it, as it tells little and may be overused in the article. Am also neutral, in the end.Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Source doesn't describe it as conspiracy theory, text Jonpatterns quotes contains statement widely accepted as historical fact and not theory, and source explicitly highlights non-conspiratorial content of subsequent films, so I don't understand why either of you would be neutral about adding unsupported characterization on your own. I don't think either of you will be accused of being tZM members for not bending over backwards to spin a source. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To summarise what I was saying, a) we are basically discussing 'also'. b)a VERY brief descrition of content would be preferable to using 'CTs' AGAIN, if only because it becomes meaningless through overuse.Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC) … … ps conclusion = 'also' not worth it, though very brief summary of 'subjugation … economic slavery' + solutions possibly so.Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Essay material

This is a good essay by Brian Dunning (author) on some basic Zeitgeist aspects [25]. The author is notable and this essay may be good for breaking down some finer points in the current article such as According to a New York Times interview with Peter Joseph Merola in which he was asked about the 9/11 conspiracy claims made in Zeitgeist, he says he has since "moved away from" these beliefs. While it's great that he was willing to come out publicly and say that he's abandoned one line of irrational thinking, to me it says more that he leaves it in the movie anyway (Zeitgeist has gone through a number of revisions, and he's had ample opportunity to edit out sections he no longer believes). This is only speculation on my part, of course, but I'd guess he leaves it in because it so dramatically illustrates the evils of the establishment, which is a pillar of his philosophy. If true, it would show that the content of Merola's films are driven more by ideology than by fact. There are a lot of other fine points in that essay which seem usable. Comments? Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The reception section is becoming a bloated anthology of every instance someone said something negative about the film. I think Dunning is a good source, as a noted figure on skepticism. I think parts of the essay may be useful, for when they directly comment on content of film. Though, unsurprisingly, what you've fished from the essay is a thought Dunning explicitly states is speculative and is a criticism of Peter Joseph rather than films. Gettin' old, EKJ. If editors feel Dunning's voice ought to be included, I'd recommend combining the reception sections for Michael Shermer (founder of the Skeptics Society) and Tim Callahan (Skeptic magazine) with Dunning's to reflect reception from skeptic community more concisely. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The essay says the '... film sequel which almost completely omits the conspiracy theories and untrue history.' but not completely omits conspiracy theories.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like undue weight when sources are highlighting "evolution from the conspiracy theories in the original Zeitgeist film to the utopian and philosophical topics Merola now talks about". I haven't seen these movies though. I concede that if the AAmero conspiracy stuff is in the sequels then the "almost completely" line ought to be given appropriate weight and mention of that conspiracy theory included in the synopsis for the corresponding movie(s) as well. Is that in the films? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, that it could potentially be undue weight. Why do you class Amero as conspiracy, but not purposeful economic slavery? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

An accusation of purposeful economic slavery is often rhetoric, opinion, and hyperbole whereas the assertion the nations of North America are secretly plotting to circumvent the democratic process and institute new currency is much more specific. If this is in the film it should be mentioned in the synopsis. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict … 1) On quick reading, I think it's an excellent essay … 2) re 'bloated', there's always room, even if by removing something less important … 3) EKJ's quote is too long and more of a 'dig' than a point, though there are many good points … 4) why are we spending so much time on whether claims are CTs, rather than finding brief descriptions of WHAT the claims are ? Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, both (I believe) are in the synopsis.Pincrete (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I did propose consolidating paragraphs from individual noted skeptics to form a more concise skeptical response portion within the first movie reception. This is the first I've heard of the Amero conspiracy theory. No mention of it appears in third film synopsis currently, at least directly mentioning the Amero. "From his student art studio, Merola purports to have uncovered plans, known only to a select few of these hypothesized bankers, to combine the currencies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single denomination called the Amero, as a next step toward an eventual one world government." I wouldn't direct quote for it, but if this is in the film it'd be worth a mention. If it isn't in the movie or if it is just Dunning's interpretation based on what he knows of Merola outside the films, then probably not. I guess if it doesn't play a big part of the movie then it may not need to be included if anyone thinks it constitutes a weight issue. It is a very specific conspiracy theory though, so I think it'd be worth a mention. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

4) good point. I support 70.36.233.104 to add information from this new ref to skeptical response section, possibly with some consolidation. According to dotsub transcript the first movie does mention the Amero and the second does not. The synopsis on the first film does already mention the North American Union theory, if not the Amero (which redirects to a different article called North American monetary union).

Z1 dotsub transcript, Z2 dotsub transcript. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a part of the film Zeitgeist that is narrated by Peter Joseph that talks about the Amero [26] Zeitgeist was a Youtube or Google released movie so this might be a reliable source for the article, Youtube, as a back up citation for this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I see it now, Jonpatterns. Thanks. Sounds good to me. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hope no one minds, but I've sub-sectioned this, as it is partly a continuation of prev. section. Cosolidation would be good, problem I foresee is danger of 'synth' or excision of everyone's favourite review, but that is not a good reason to not attempt same. General principle (in my understanding), about synopses is that, whilst descriptions should be neutral, refs are not needed for the PRESENCE of a claim in the film, except where that presence itself is disputed/disputable. I think, the same logic would apply to 'content' elements in the lead.Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected

Article is now protected one month due to the edit war. See WP:RFED for how to request changes during the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC Closure

The RFC has run its 30 days. The bot has pulled the RFC tag, so that the RFC is ready for closure. Although the closure can be done by any experienced editor, I would recommend a closure by an administrator who has the tools to deal with disruption. You may post a request for closure to Requests for Closure, which transcludes to WP:AN. It might be useful to request an administrative close due to the history of disruptive editing of this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a request for closure of the first two RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussions elsewhere

There is a discussion here regarding an editor's behaviour on this article. Anyone wishing to participate in that discussion should be reminded that their own behaviour may be examined and WP:Boomerang can be applied.Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The above ANI has now been closed. Decision is at the same link as above.Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community-authorised_sanctions. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Can this end already?

Looking at the series page, it is translated into two languages on other Wikipedias. However, looking at the individual articles, there are 25+ Wikipedias that have the original film separated and only English Wikipedia has them merged into a single article. The other two films are translated into 10+ Wikipedia projects. While WP:OTHERSTUFF is there to keep crap out of Wikipedia, I think it is perfect in this case to show that this article needs to be “un-merged” and separate articles created. I have not looked in depth at the Zietgeist Movement, but each of the movies are notable independently.

While I think we need to keep the series page, it is too lengthy and crammed with everything for each movie as well as the movement and Mr. Joseph. I see this page being shortened to have brief synopsis of each film and then individual articles for each film as there are in 25+ other Wikipedia projects throughout the world. That alone to me shows independent notability as all other projects with the exception of this one (English) agree.

Again, I am not sure about the Movement as I have not taken a closer look outside of references I have read for Peter Joseph, but the films themselves need their own space.--TTTommy111 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I see this page being shortened to have brief synopsis of each film and then individual articles for each film as there are in 25+ other Wikipedia projects throughout the world. That alone to me shows independent notability as all other projects with the exception of this one (English) agree. No connection to the article about what you are saying. Wikipedia's are not considered reliable sources. That includes this Wikipedia. As far as 'stopping' that was what the RFC was to get ideas. It also turned out to be a confused mess, so doubtful their is a real consensus to un-merge. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is going to be the first time that I disagree with you, but you are completely off point. I did not say that we are going to use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia. I am saying that sister projects have all decided that these articles remain separate. That is a pretty good sign to me that they should have their own articles in English as well. When people link from these 25+ other projects for one of the movies, they are directed to the series page here and not the movie. So far, two other projects have translated the "series" page here which shows that these projects agree that the series projects as a whole are notable as are the individual movies. If 25+ other projects have already decided this, why are we still arguing about it here? If we decide to keep it merged, what is the rationale? If you familiarize yourself with WP:OSE, you will see what I am referring to. I am not sure of the entire history of this article, but it is very long and complicated by having three movies and a movement all lumped together. There are numerous information boxes as well. Never seen this in Wikipedia before. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As of now, To merge = 8, To split = 13. Seems like there is support for the split. It may not be a guideline, but I think it is helpful to see how other articles handle similar issues and the reasoning that led to that consensus. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in the current vote. I am wondering if there was a consensus to merge everything in the first place. Are you able to point me to that? I have searched but cannot locate it. Probably under my nose. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

TTTommy111, the links are at the top of this page leading to tZM talk. I was not in anyway involved with that discussion, but having had a quick look, there is a lengthy admin decision to endorse the merge.Pincrete (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

TTTommy111, majority vote would not constitute a consensus, especially given the recent admin endorse of merge. The best route for those favouring split would be to work on 'draft' article to establish viability or improve present section.Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@TTTommy111:There is a draft here, help improving it welcome. It needs some work, some of the refs have been discussed here.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, is there somewhere specific that comments can be left about your draft? My initial reaction (some weeks ago), was that some sourcing (eg Toronto) was very weak. Personally I would have no objection to SOME claims being in tZM's voice (in 20xx it claimed/announced etc.).Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the standard procedure is, but some editors have already used the talk to make comments, see Draft talk:The Zeitgeist Movement group.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)