Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Donovan Huffington Post

Pincrete, I have answered the question about which statements are quotable, why they are notable, how they could be used in the article, and why they are important to this article. The questions keep going around and around. Please remember the question you asked when you are reading the answer so that you are not comparing the answer to some other question. I am now answering your question about which text specifically can be included based on the Donovan article. That text is here.. And before you jump on it again with another objection, this group cannot find the guts to separate the Movement from the Films because the single-purpose editor EKJ wants them merged. Therefore the Movement and the Film are merged in the same article. Therefore they should be treated as the same thing. Therefore this commentary on the Movement goes into the film page and it gets merged with the film commentary. If they cannot be treated as the same thing, they should not be in the same article. Make sense? If you cannot merge it, you get a coathanger (like now) and Wikipedia policy is to have a separate page or not mention it at all. But the Movement does exist and it does have a ZDay, so it should be mentioned. If you refuse to have a separate page, you have to merge the commentary. Are we there yet? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Film series ≠ movement. Movement just isn't notable for own article. That said, it appears it's a free for all in the reception section, so if anybody did a film review, throw it up, I guess. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar, please remove (or strike-thru) pointless characterisation of other editors, (in fact almost everything after 'that text is here'). I am really not interested in your issues with other editors and resent you involving me in them. Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

EKJ is a single purpose editor. That is a observable, objective fact of life, and I have as much right to say that as he does to call me a meat puppet and a Zeitgeist groupie, statements to which you voiced NO objections at the time or since. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I didn't defend another's right to malign you, your justification is feeble, and you are the one (twice now) claiming a right to turn this into a 'slanging match'. I have no interest in taking part thankyou.Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC) … … ps I didn't object to him calling you a 'ZG groupie', because he didn't (as far as I know), to the best of my knowledge, you are the only one to use the term.Pincrete (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

So I think this is the confusion. Blog sites like Huffington Post & BoingBoing are decent enough when quoting for opinion if referenced as opinion in relevant section of article where opinion is appropriate. Used outside of that for factual information is the gray area that requires discussion. If editors feel tZM needs more detail, which it doesn't seem there is much support for, stronger sources than Huff are preferred for factual info (How many members/direct quotes/ect). Adding commentary on tZM doesn't seem to have much support either (tZM saving world/tZM will destroy world). Cross referencing info with independent secondary source would be the way to go, if editors feel tZM needs more detail. The Zday thing is certainly something to talk about, but it kinda seems like that discussion stalled from lack of better sources and enthusiasm. Once upon a time it looks like it had a sentence. I don't know if there's much support/opposition for a return of that line with the NY times source. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It was pretty much decided several archives ago and on the other Zeitgeist movement article that Huffington post source is not a good source. Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects) comments on other editors, etc. The Movement is not notable enough to list their events because then it becomes an exercise in making it sound more important when the reality might be that it is not sufficiently reported on or in media to warrant that. Dead horses do not have feelings. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Think the blanket statements of "[It was decided]Huffington post source is not a good source" misrepresent the consensus. As it stands Huffpost is not to be given "carte blanche", but there must exist a good reason to resort to using it as a source. Movement is not notable, hence why Huff maybe useful. As far as I can tell, ZDay is movement's major/only activity/event, so including the factual statement that they hold such event is not controversial nor would it be misunderstood movement is more important because of Zday. Event did get a write up in NY Times. I'm not interested in expanding tZM section, but this is something that I think there is some precedence for including if other editors want it. Sfarney really likes that article, but think more than just that article would be needed to justify expanding section. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Huffington Post article tells the goals of the movement like no other source. I don't know (nor does anyone else in this forum, apparently) whether the goals named in Huffington are the same as the videos. We don't have any "sock puppets" or "meat puppets" around who could tell us what it is really about. But this is a pretty good summary. The films are wherefore, and the movement is therefore, as we say in the board rooms of America. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the article is what you purport to be its benefit, "tells the goals of the movement like no other source." There should be other source. Huffpost isn't ideal source, likely due to concerns over editorial oversight, fact-checking, and neutrality. Page currently has sources that detail what movement stands for. I don't know if there is much desire to expand section into specific agenda and give more weight to movement. Doesn't appear so. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So why not use primary sources, as we do with the Catholic Church, LDS, ADL, Jewish Defense League, and the Better Business Bureau. Nobody accuses Zeitgeist or Peter Joseph of lying. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We use the primary source already at the bottom of the page. Peter Joseph's webpage Zeitgeist movement is given. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We merely name it, but we don't "use" it for anything. It sounds like we could use a little help from the source.[1] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful. Primary source, put out by the group. Not notable. Written in house to explain the Zeitgeist methodology. It is more for Zeitgeist fans, not encyclopedic. It has never been written about in a way to quote it by legitimate sources. It has been removed many times from the article. Listing their website stops short of advertising. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We should go with the WP:RS policy which states clearly where primary source can be used. I'll look it over to see if something there will help. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The New American

This article in the New American [2] is published by the John Birch Society it is about the Venus Project and Zeitgeist group. It contains a lot of information and is used in various related articles connected to post scarcity topics. Just because it is John Birch Society that does not seem like a good reason not to use it. The publication has been around a long time and suppose it is a reliable source. It is a critique of those two groups and discuss's ideas connected and comments on those ideas. Shall we use this article more?? or should we not use this article in our sourcing?? It seems like one of the better interviews on the Fresco aspect of Zeitgeist. Thoughts? Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Who 'supposes' that the JBS is a reliable source for anything but their own fringe opinions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We could post a quote from JBS to the Barack Obama and see how long it stays up. That would give us a quick measure of the RS value in the John Birch Society publications. For example, we could say: Obama is known to use class frictions to promote his political agendas: 'Using the “isolate ... personalize ... polarize” Alinsky tactic he has relied on ever since winning society’s lottery and attaining the presidency, Obama singled out one specific group for scorn.'[3] If JBS is a reliable source, that could really help to spice up the Barack Obama article. Would you like to make that test, Earl King Jr.? ~~ Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup - that hits the nail firmly on the head. If the opinions of the JBS on their perceived political opponents are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, they are as equally worthy of inclusion on mainstream subjects as they are on minor movements. Though the suggestion that the views of the JBS merit discussion anywhere but within an article on the JBS would seem to me to be entirely contrary to what WP:WEIGHT has to say. In fact, per WP:WEIGHT, the views of the JBS would be if anything more worthy of inclusion in an article on Obama, since they would at least be counterbalenced by more mainstream sources - something singularly lacking here. Not that I see any actual merit in citing them regarding Obama, any more than I would see merit in citing TZM's views of Obama or the JBS in articles on those subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

They seem to have had a profound influence all the way to the present on American politics [4]. It seems like a real group that has been written about often. John Birch Society is probably much more notable than Zeitgeist or Venus Project political movements in regard to reliable citations. Since they are all three fringe maybe since all are marginalized they fit together. My guess is the Birchers are writing about Zeitgeist because they endorse part of the second Zeitgeist movies way of presenting money mechanics at least in a cursory way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Use it It is a notable group that has written about Zeitgeist. The interview is interesting. Hard to find much on this subject and this link contains a lot of information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:RS - there is no possible way that JBS could be used as a source for 'information' on anything related to Zeitgeist. The only question even worth discussing here is whether their opinions on the subject are relevant. And so far nothing you have written even supports that. We don't cite poor sources just because better ones can't be found... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is the same kind of "guilt by association" that Goldberg and Berlet used to say that Joseph was an antisemite. However, the WP:RS policy does not have a knothole for this kind of thing. If King can push it through the WP policy makers, or maybe edit the RS page, we can use it in the article -- when the exception is on the RS page. Otherwise, we have to stick by the Wikipedia policy as it is written. And only as it is written. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I get your points. Could you not make this about an editor just the subject discussed? Why are you bringing up Goldberg or others. I don't understand. I take it you are saying no? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are commenting on my comment, please use proper threading so the context of your comment is apparent. This is not about you. This is about WP:RS policy. If you modify the policy, or if persuade others to modify it so that the New American is within WP:RS, we can use that article as an RS. If WP:RS remains as it is, we cannot use that article because the New American is not within WP:RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why JBS cannot be used for the OPINION of JBS (or a member of it), though I endorse what AndyTG says about 'information'. I haven't read the piece yet, but rather than abstract discussion about JBS or its relative merits, what text is proposed EKJ?.Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Consider all the reasons Huffington Post's Donovan cannot be used. Those reasons apply double to JBS. If JBS is used, HP should also be used. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Apples and oranges Grammer. Lets not tangle Goldberg and Huffington Post blog story with this. Its a separate issue. Pincrete The New American article is really a treasure trove of information including personal interviews they did with one of the Zeitgeist players who still profoundly influences Zeitgeist J. Fresco. As far as what part to use, if you have time to read it or other people here do then we can discuss. I am just getting feedback. Has it gone through reliable source noticeboard? No idea. As far as using it or not by connecting it with Huff post blog, that is a non starter because its a different set of issues. Earl King Jr. (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

We can't use it, King. Please read the WP:RS policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar, HuffPost is OK for OPINION, if wanted and the author has some weight and something to say. EKJ, I didn't ask how wonderful the JBS piece is I asked what text was proposed. Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter Joseph's plan is to copy the Venus Projects ideas. He complained that the Venus project had no transition plan when they split up or in effect that the Venus project did not actually do anything in the real world. However his model is still the Venus project. Example of something from the article on a transition period to some transformation to Zeitgeist ideals: How would resources be seized from their current owners? Getting a direct answer proved to be impossible. Fresco spoke of crises, Nazis, Charles Lindbergh, and President Roosevelt’s takeover of industries during World War II. But he never explained precisely how resources would be expropriated. Should owners be compensated? He said on the subject, “Socialists believe that… that people should be compensated for their factories that the government takes over.” (Again, not a direct answer, but since money would be abolished, any compensation would seem to be of little use in the Venus Project.) The key to seizing goods, it sounds like, is to wait for an economic collapse of epic proportions. Then, property owners will voluntarily surrender their factories and resources for the greater good, Fresco said. Since its a direct quote from Fresco it gives some insight into the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. We are not going to quote the JBS for statements about what Joseph, TZM, or the Venus project plan to do - they aren't even remotely a reliable source for anything but their own opinions - and most of what you have copy-pasted from the TNA article is in their words, not Fresco's. Though if you want to waste your time disputing this, feel free to take it to WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing blocks

I guess the article takes extra attention because of Zeitgeist members [5] who regularly edit here. Just posting this as it is an overview of some aspects of their agenda as an editing block discussion group. Its not a problem that they edit but just a gentle reminder [6] Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., unless you are prepared to name the 'Zeitgeist members who regularly edit here', I suggest you strike through your remark.Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

In the past that may have been a problem, but I've not seen recent attacks. The reddit post is now seven months old. Although, I think Peter Joseph more recently posted on his facebook about the article, in his opinion, lacking. If you are proposing an edit block you'll have to be more specific.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not proposing anything. Just a reminder that while people are free to come here, even Peter Joseph can come here to edit if he likes, some basic guidelines should be followed and that a recurring problem concerning the beliefs of the Zeitgeist folks compared to independent sources and reliable sources exist at times. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If you aren't proposing anything (difficult, given the complete lack of evidence provided), Why did you entitle this thread 'editing blocks'? And it should of course also be noted that the recurring problem Wikipedia has with contributors seeking to impose their own views on articles on organisations is not always restricted to members or supporters - there are very often equally-questionable actions taken by individuals seeking to express their personal animosity towards the said organisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing blocks, means blocks of people that go to articles to promote a certain stance about something such as there is no connection from the movies in regard to the movement, a common theme among Zeitgeist supporters. Like 'voting blocks' people that act in concert. About copy pasting, another editor asked about what part of the article to use and that is a possible part. It was not formatted for sticking in the article just shown as is for viewing. As far as 'evidence', not sure what you mean. A source if reliableis a thing in and of itself at face value. It does not require evidence or defense or apology by an editor, it just needs presenting as what it is. Earl King Jr. (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence that there is a block of editors doing anything. And please try to respond to comments in the right thread - whatever you are trying to say about copy-pasted material has nothing to do with this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not my job to provide evidence as this is not a legal case. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And this talk page is not a forum. Please don't start threads on the basis of vague musings about 7-month-old postings on Reddit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that the Zeitgeist group is monitoring this page and asking people to come and edit and that you Andy are part of their presentation about that, is not forum like, it is just the reality of what they are doing and how they interpret the Wikipedia article [7] I suppose their Los Angelo's California chapter has a few members in it. You are listed on their front page as a problematic editor along with another editor. Nothing vague there, its part of the Zeitgeist call to come to Wikipedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum, EKJ. Please stop. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I never said it is a forum. Andy said it was looking that way. What I said is that people come here to edit drawn by the internet discussions from the Zeitgeist movement. That is just a statement of fact that could have some effect on the page because they have an agenda and numbers and I referred to that as an editing block [8] scroll to bottom.

Just a simple question i.p. 173.228.118.114 have you edited this page under other user names or other i.p.'s? [9] you have several edits and it appears all centered around Zeitgeist except for one where you follow my user name to an edit some days ago. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You have brought up tZM writes about the wiki article in the past. Nothing has changed, nobody cares. This isn't a forum. This isn't a soapbox. Please stop grandstanding. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is sad that TZM Los Angelo's California choose to make accusations against Wikipedia editors on their front page. Fortunately, there have been no recent attacks against the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Followup on RfC to split the movement from the films.

Where are we on this? The RfC has been archived (in archive 4). The !votes were 14-7 in favor of the split. Is there something we are still waiting for? 72.207.120.219 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that consensus for a split seems clear enough to proceed at this point. If anyone wishes to dispute this they can make a neutral request for closure from an uninvolved contributor. I'd suggest asking at WP:AN for an admin to do it, to ensure proper closure and avoid further friction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No consensus strong enough to split the article again. There was a strong consensus previously from the first RFC to merge the 'movement' and the film series. It is argued that the 'movement' is a publicity by the filmmaker to promote the movies. Other editors have argued there is no actual movement beyond a couple of mainstream references that are now aged. As far as a vote not sure that matters so much and the 'vote' was highly iffy with much canvassing taking place. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there something about my suggestion that if you want to dispute the consensus that you should request a closure from an uninvolved admin that you have difficulty understanding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your assumptions about the subject and a consensus. We have an i.p. from god knows where saying about a vote. That would need some overview anyway for starters. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two options. You accept the consensus at the RfC was for the split, or you request it be closed by an uninvolved admin. If you don't request a formal closure, you are in no position to object to the split. As I am sure you are aware, this topic is subject to general sanctions, and trying to weasel-word your way out of accepting an RfC decision you don't like isn't going to look good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There was no real consensus. Arguments are based on strength of arguments not based on votes anyway. Wikipedia is not a democracy and other issues come to play in controversial articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, if you aren't going to request a formal closure, you aren't going to be in any position to object to the split. I suggest that we give you a day or two, and if you haven't made the request, the split should go ahead. And that is all that really needs to be said here, since we are under no obligation to rehash the arguments already made in the RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions though its strictly voluntary to do anything. There are many eyes on this article any of which can do as they think best. We could start by reviewing what happened at the RFC in a separate thread. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Entirely unnecessary. The RfC has taken place. If you aren't going to request a formal closure, there is no legitimate reason why the split cannot go ahead. The consensus seems clear enough, and you have no veto whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Formal closure would be a reasonable option. I was under the impression that the RfC was going to be formally closed, and it was just a case of waiting. How does one go about getting a formal closure?Jonpatterns (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs: "Formal requests for closure can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure" AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

They have been at Requests for closure for some time now with no action. I personally requested one admin who has been watching this area recently to make a decision on the three RfCs that have been archived without a close, though suggested the possibility of him having multiple admins help rule on the three RfCs that have been left unresolved.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the request for closure is here. Alternatively, the draft could use an Article for Creation request.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Request for Closure is still there. I have restored the split-merge RFC to this talk page and put a comment in it to prevent archival. If anyone wants the other RFCs restored, they can move them here, or they can edit the Request for Closure. Closure has been requested, and formal closure is appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC: One or Two Articles? Should film series and movement be split?

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.

---

Should the article on Zeitgeist (film series) continue to also describe the Zeitgeist Movement, or should a separate article on the Zeitgeist Movement be re-created? Currently The Zeitgeist Movement redirects to Zeitgeist (film series). Should the article (the result of a previous merge) be split? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please !vote for One article or Two articles, or, synonymously, for Split or Keep merged. Be civil and concise. Please avoid threaded discussion in the Survey section. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: the last two editors to vote have mentioned a draft article would be desirable, to see if notability can be established. I have knocked one together, though help to improve it would be desirable, see Draft:The Zeitgeist Movement group.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Keep merged There is not enough information in the current Zeitgeist movement section to warrant its own article. It should be developed and further citations added before a new article is created. Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sticking with Keep Merge because I believe this is a Fringe Topic and needs more sources from major publications in order to be notable. Please see my comments below for more information. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - WP:COATRACK complaints currently prevent content expansion. Expanded content exists here, here, and here. The zeitgeist movement topic meets all the notability requirements of WP:GNG. This notability is verified by a rather large #List of sources for The Zeitgeist Movement (roughly 30 reliable sources) and further bolstered by a 2011 AFD discussion that agreed to keep the then separate article on The Zeitgeist Movement. To further the goals of the encyclopedia, restricting appropriate content cannot be allowed. OnlyInYourMindT 08:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC) updated 20:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Split - there is a enough coverage and notability for the group to have its own article (see comment in threaded discussion). Including all the information in the film article upsets its balance, which should be focused on the films. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged Things like WP:RFC are pretty strong guidance for action and there was already one on this article a few months ago and it said 'merge' and that was done then.Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

One article - sources aren't adequate to support two; one article is more resistant to fan's continuing efforts to promote their fringe views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - The most apt description of the article I've seen is "schizophrenic". Most all problems here seem ultimately rooted in the merging of two distinct topics (film and movement). Willondon (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - Additional press mentions of the Zeitgeist Movement:

1. Nicola Sturgeon is backed by Occupy protesters in London The National-May 10, 2015
2. Forest boy "inspired by Zeitgeist movement" Telegraph.co.uk-Jun 17, 2012
3. «Биологически я несу его гены, но это — не самое главное» Yarsk.ru-May 26, 2015
4. Jim Rickards on dollar debasement & Peter Joseph explains Zeitgeist Movement RT-Mar 7, 2014
5. Zeitgeist solutions for the world RT-Sep 15, 2011
6. Zeitgeist a Blend of Skepticism, Metaphysical Spirituality, and Conspiracy Religion Dispatches -Jan 16, 2011
7. Beyond capitalism and socialism: could a new economic approach save the planet? The Guardian-Apr 22, 2015
8. Segment: Peter Joseph on "market paradox" RT December 11, 2014 03:30
9. The Zeitgeist Movement on "Off the Grid Ora.tv-June 08, 2015
10. They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present NEW YORK TIMES-March 16, 2009*

Those editors who want the articles united argue that the films are propaganda. So the result is notable propaganda from a non-notable movement. Not a tenable position. A movement notable for its propaganda is a notable movement. And since the movement did not arise completely from the films (it was a part of the previously existing Venus Movement), it is actually and historically a separate entity. Current page looks like one of those mythical monsters, part goat, part lion, and part eagle. Neither fish nor fowl, but trying to be both.[10] But the editors who lobby for one article argue that this will soon be solved by reducing the Movement portion, and reducing again, -- hey, where'd he go? All mention of Movement removed completely. This is not an accusation -- this is their statement of their intentions. (Sorry for twice voting with these remarks. This is date of combined statement.) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged Those who want to split might consider writing a draft article and see if what can be reliably sourced meets WP:N. Considering the number of clearly unreliable sources mentioned above and below, this would have to be considered carefully. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged for now. After someone creates a draft article that demonstrates notability, that would be a good time to have this conversation again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think the whole structure is a mess. If these films actually meet WP:NF then personally I would split this article into four articles: one for each film and a Zeitgeist Movement article. I would add a section to the Movement article about the films, that would link to the three distinct film articles. The film series article could be retained although it might be a bit redundant, but it certainly should not be retained in the form it is currently i.e. basically three (or four) articles glued together. Betty Logan (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• One article. The Zeitgeist movement has not become any more significant since last time this was debated. Rather the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) I am persuaded otherwise, see below. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The films are either notable or they are not. If they are, then each one should have a separate article per the norm on Wikipedia. If the Zeitgeist movement is not notable at all then it shouldn't be covered at all; if it is then it should have its own dedicated article, rather than being shoehorned into a film article. It shouldn't be bunged into a film article to circumvent the notability requirements. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Split. As OnlyInYourMind and Willondon point out, merging two related but different topics into one article is detrimental to the accurate coverage of either. --Waldir ^talk 09:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Split. The first film doesn't seem to have much in common with the second and third films in the "series", so the movies should be split into their separate pages. I am not sure if the Movement has enough notability by itself outside the context of the films. If the Movement isn't split, I would like to see the article be reorganized to resemble the Kony 2012 article. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep merged for now. The draft article doesn't persuade me of the notability of the movement. An editor above speaks of 'mentions', unfortunately that is what so many seem to be, hearsay references to (for example) friends of 'the forest boy' saying he was influenced by the films/movement, Amazon promotional of a book, all with little independent content about the movement itself. I agree that it is anomalous to have a movement 'shoe horned into a film article', but that is a reflection of the dual anomalies of that movement arising from/adopting the name of a film series and that name being 'owned' by the filmmaker. This isn't necessarily 'circumventing notability requirements' since notability requirements for a mention/section are more lenient than those for an article. Though I agree that the main coverage of the movement should go AFTER coverage of the films, or as part of the film which gave rise to the movement, regardless of chronology.Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC) addendum, I also see the logic of AndytG's final point below, that if we can't say very much about the movement, then we say not very much !!Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Split The original merge was not justifiable to begin with. The Zeitgeist Movement has lots of direct, notable press with no relationship to the film series. The group was started to support The Venus Project and is not a "fan" club for the films or anything like that, which is what this current article implies. Today, It has international press as well that also confirms an independent existence from the films. I also agree all three films should be given their own article. The history shows that the entire move to collapse these 4 articles into one really looks like covert vandalism and an attempt to marginalize. JWilson0923 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Split - Whether it's "Fringe" is a matter of opinion. Content should be judged by it's nature. One is a film series, and the other is a movement. They are totally different things.Rationalbenevolence (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Split. I'm not entirely convinced that TZM meets our notability guidelines, but trying to cover it properly in an article on another subject simply isn't working. Even with the best of intentions writing about a political movement in an article about movies is going to skew the coverage. If it merits coverage, it needs to be done properly, in an on-topic article that doesn't needlessly conflate criticism of the movies with criticism of the movement - and if it doesn't merit an article, we should say nothing more in this article than that the movies helped inspire the movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Split Zeitgiest Movement clearly meets all the notability requirements of WP:GNG. As far as being "fringe", the media coverage does not support it. It is wide and vast, The problem with the existing article is that is assumes this group is defined by the movies made by P Joseph. This is not the case based on viable secondary media reporting. Sanjit45 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Split -- summoned here by bot. To me, the Zeitgiest Movement meets notability guidelines. Two articles would be better. The ZM has many reliable sources and press that could support it's own article. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 02:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged -- TZM is FRINGE, but doesn't appear to be notable FRINGE. Overwhelming majority of sources are self published or iffy blogs. Press received outside of Huffpost is obscure. It would need more mainstream coverage to warrant an independent article. A couple paragraphs here briefly detailing the basics should be sufficient. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean a non-obscure source like the New York Times... "at the second annual meeting of the Worldwide Zeitgeist Movement, which, its organizers said, held 450 sister events in 70 countries around the globe." See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0 The truth is that there are many new reports from all over the world. If TZM is fringe, so is The Venus Project by which it is based and so is Technocracy JWilson0923 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SeeOther stuff exists, also note the difference between 'its organizers said, held etc' and 'it held'.

Split -- Looking at Jon's draft, there's plenty of sources/info to use to write about the group, trying to mush that info into this article about several films has caused problems since a lot of it is "off-topic". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Split, I think, since True Believers in TZM are unable to accept that the films which spawned it are fatuous, and we badly need to stop the flood of well-intentioned people trying to recast a Truther propaganda film as some profound social commentary. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you have voted both ways! Would you like to amend/remove one?Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I have struck the earlier one. I am persuaded that we need two articles: TZM has a somwehat different demographic more akin to Occupy, whereas the films are conspiracist claptrap. Not all members of TZM are conspiracy nuts, whereas the Merola brothers clearly are. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC running tally, collapsed to not obstruct discussion

Tally: Count Name Comment 1 Z1720 merge 2 OnlyInYourMind Split 3 Jonpatterns Split 4 Earl King Jr. merge 5 Tom Harrison merge 6 Willondon Split 7 Grammar'sLittleHelper Split 8 Arthur Rubin merge 9 NinjaRobotPirate merge 10 Betty Logan Split 11 Guy merge 12 Waldir Split 13 Kage Acheron Split 14 Pincrete merge 15 JWilson0923 Split 16 Rationalbenevolence Split 17 AndyTheGrump Split 18 Sanjit45 Split 19 Comatmebro Split 20 70.36.233.104 merge 21 Jeraphine Gryphon Split To merge = 8 To split = 13 (at time of posting) collapsed and updated by:Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Inserting comment to prevent archival. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I would also suggest that the Zeitgeist movement section be placed after Zeitgeist: Moving Forward section. Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720: I invite you to change your !vote. The current merged article has been accused of WP:COATRACK and as a result some editors decided to remove encyclopedic content against WP:PRESERVE policy. As such, attempts to expand the section are currently met with reverts. Rest assured expanded, developed content does exist: Here you will find the text of the movement when it was originally merged into this article. There is also a rewrite underway by Jonpatterns. OnlyInYourMindT 07:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking back through the article history to 2012, we can see that there used to be a considerable amount of expanded content. OnlyInYourMindT 08:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

When I cast my vote, I decided based on the content I saw on the article page. After reading some of the previous RFC and DR, I think this dispute is between those who believe the movement is WP:FRINGE and does not have enough reliable sources (and thus should not get its own article) and those who believe the movement section is off-topic from the article (and thus needs to be split.) Regardless of the decision in this RFC, information about the movement should be included in the film series article because the movement was inspired by the movies and removing this inspiration in the film series article would be removing significant understanding of the topic.

I believe this movement does qualify to be a fringe theory, and WP:NFRINGE says, "A fringe subject...is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (emphasis theirs.) Looking at the links below, most are not major publications and some only mention the movement in one sentence. The only two articles below that I would consider major publications with significant coverage are the New York Times and the Telegraph. I would encourage those who would like a new article to focus on finding more coverage of the movement from major publications to base the new article on. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Important to note that WP:FRINGE is quite different from WP:NFRINGE. The difference is explained under WP:NFRINGE, and I am disappointed that anyone would confuse them. That confusion may, however, be the genesis of the whole disagreement. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I think the above comment could be insightful. Can you expand on what you mean? My interpretation is WP:NFRINGE explains that a WP:FRINGE topic can have its own article page when it is notable (or "receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") Would you agree with this assessment? Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you have said it. For example, Modern flat Earth societies are definitely WP:FRINGE, but look at the size of the page. WP:FRINGE says you do not include the ideas of Modern flat Earth societies when discussing Geography, but that policy has does not remove the page on Modern flat Earth societies. Contrary to what some argue, a subject does not have to pass through the James Randi sieve to appear as a page on Wikipedia. In fact, the WP:FRINGE argument is inapplicable to this discussion. Using the WP:FRINGE argument here is a good example of Sophistry. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - examples of sources, for context see rewrite. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Tom harrison: I've added 10 more sources to the above list. OnlyInYourMindT 20:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720, Tom harrison, and OnlyInYourMind: I've added 6 more to the list above. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I've updated the 60 Minutes source to http://www.cuny.tv/highlight/sp2000039. At first I thought the piece was a spoof, but upon further digging, found that "BROOKLYN COLLEGE 60 MINUTES is a production of Brooklyn College and CBS News," and, "The special is produced by Stephanie Palewski, a veteran 60 MINUTES editor, who was invited to teach a graduate course." It's a very unique situation, but now I'm leaning toward reliable source. OnlyInYourMindT 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Things like WP:RFC are pretty strong guidance for action and there was already one on this article a few months ago and it said 'merge'. If an RFC suggests or encourages a merge and it did and that is why the article was merged, it is generally appropriate to pursue that as an outcome. This previous decision was not made based on article length, but on the underlying connectivity between two issues. I suspect that this film creator and his films, relative to all other artists and films in Wikipedia is a case of "This artist and their films are not notable enough to stand alone as articles, so merge them together" as was decided last time around. If we make this decision based on "words" it becomes who can spend the most time padding an article with words so that it meets some threshold so that it becomes two articles. This does not increase the notability or the distinctiveness of the articles, only creates the illusion of such. There is a terrible problem on this article also of people arriving and editing from the subject itself [11] and yes I have to point out that this is an ongoing problem. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Can those editors against the split please explain why they feel the sources listed above are not enough to establish notability for the movement? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No one said the movement was not notable completely. But, it is owned and operated by the guy that made the movies and announced by him also originally so the very issue is how real is it? There are zero membership numbers anywhere. Is that grassroots,?? as the old article claimed. No way. The citations if needed can be used in the merged article and mostly are. The Huffington post citation was removed previously as a non notable blog arm of that paper so it does not count. Most of the citations are old. Virtually nothing in the media on this group in recent times. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ownership of name is not an element of the WP specification, so let us not invent rules de jour. We have seen enough of that. The movie grew out of the decades-old Venus Movement, and the Zeitgeist Movement grew from both sources. The Huffington Post page states, "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." This is the same that other publications call Editors-at-large and guest editorialists. It is not random user contributions (like Wikipedia). Grammar's Little Helper (talk)

No. It was already decided here that it is not a reliable source. Look at the archived discussion for the page. It is a blog. A blog is not a news story. It is just a person grinding an ax about something and possibly getting paid several dollars a word in the process if they are looking to fill empty space on the paper. That is very different from a news story. It says in big bold letters before the story it is a blog story. It was already removed from other articles related and will also be removed here if it is used. It is not a reliable source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And only a person with a microscope could tell the difference between that and a NYTimes editorial, where someone is (surprise!) grinding an ax about something. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: Policy states WP:NEWSBLOGs "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". Was the writer not a professional? OnlyInYourMindT 08:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a non notable fluff piece filler piece that has already not passed in archived attempts to gain consensus of using it. It is a blog. I suppose he is a pro. but that just means someone is paying him to write. Mostly this space is for editors to come and write their thoughts. Not discussing minutia about things already well known on the talk page by current editors. The whole point of an RFC is to get new people in here to comment. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the deprecation is dead wrong. Travis Walter Donovan is a former executive editor for the Huffington Post. Here is his web page stating exactly that, and here is a portfolio of his contributions to the Post. The topics are broad and deep. This is not the profile of someone who writes "fluff pieces" or "filler pieces." Donovan is a professional whose choice of topics is guided by the interests of his readers and the editorial policies of his publication -- like any professional. I wish people would do a little research before sounding off with misrepresentations of Wikipedia rules and distortions the real world. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the writer is a professional, WP:NEWSBLOG policy says the HuffPost Blog is an acceptable source. Notability on wikipedia only applies to topics, not sources. Sources are governed by Verifiability, not notability. One editors faith in a vaguely referenced past consensus does not stand up to the current weight of arguments. Consensus can change. OnlyInYourMindT 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:NEWSBLOG clearly does not apply. It might be appropriate under WP:SPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

After "professional", WP:NEWSBLOG goes on to say "but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note, the words "with caution" come after the words, "use them." So, what "caution" would you like to apply to that source? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: I'm confused. Do you think WP:NEWSBLOG applies or not? You have not given a reason why it would not apply. You then quoted it as if it does apply. The quote then continues, "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer" which is policy again telling us to use this source. Yes, with caution, but to use it. OnlyInYourMindT 02:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG suggests that some articles are displayed as if in a blog, and we should consider those as if displayed as a news article if they are subject to editorial review. On the other hand, reliable publications (such as Forbes) host blogs, and those are not subject to editorial review. Function over form. In the specific case mentioned, I believe it is the latter case, and could be used only If attributed to the author and only If the author is a recognized expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no evidence for that belief ("not subject to editorial review"). On the other side, Huffington Post headlines the article with the words, "[one of] HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." And what does "signature" mean? According to the dictionary, Donovan speaks for the Huffington Post like its own signature. Having provided that endorsement and left the article on the web page since May 2010, the Huffington Post editorial staff implicitly and explicitly indicate the article is a welcome Huffington Post statement and not a rogue opinion piece. Whether there has been formal editorial review of the article is pure speculation, and a moot quibble. HP is only one of many web sources testifying to the Movement's notability. There are also many books, pro and con, that have not been listed. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We have no evidence that it is subject to editorial review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted previously, the editorial is presented under a banner of editorial endorsement: "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." I cannot find any legal disclaimers stating that "the opinions expressed here are of the individual writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners or editorial staff of Huffington Post ..." Do you see any? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. A rational person would assume that something attributed to one of "HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors" is credited to that contributor and should be attributed only to that contributor, not to HuffPost. The fact that the contributor is an editor of HuffPost might make it reliable as attributed to him, per WP:SPS. The question of it being in blog format is irrelevant, per WP:NEWSBLOG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: From HuffPost terms & conditions, section 5: "We are an Internet Service Provider, e.g., We are Not Responsible For and Do Not Necessarily Hold the Opinions Expressed by Our Content Contributors: Opinions and other statements expressed by users and third parties (e.g., bloggers) are theirs alone, not opinions of The Huffington Post. Content created by third parties is the sole responsibility of the third parties and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed."[12] OnlyInYourMindT 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Typical lawyerly language reserving the right to drive on both sides of the road. A "signature" is not a signature, and a web site characterized as an "internet provider." You're right. No skin. And it is not the only reference. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Huffington_Post_HuffPost_Green_blog_by_Travis_Walter_Donovan_per_WP:NEWSBLOG OnlyInYourMindT 19:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Good on ya. Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft

• Draft:The Zeitgeist Movement group

As recommended by Arthur Rubin, I have create a draft to give an idea of what a split group article may look like, it includes 'Ref List' for former merged article. Its not very good, it will need additional work. When people criticise sources please be specific on which sources and what issues.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: there is already a draft see above.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The draft like you say above is 'not very good'. Probably it is not so good because it also is a good indication that there is very little sourced information on the 'group' and what there is is not enough for a separate article that is not short of being a stub article. Example this: from the mock up.

History

The Zeitgeist Movement was founded in 2009 by Peter Joseph. The founding was shortly after the late 2008 release of Zeitgeist: Addendum, the second film in the 'Zeitgeist' film series.[1][2][3] The name of the group is a trademark of Joseph's Gentle Machine Productions.[4] In its founding year the group described itself as "the activist arm of Jacques Fresco's Venus Project".[5] In April 2011, the two groups ended their association.[2] In January 2014, the group released a book called The Zeitgeist Movement Defined which was written by the 'TZM Lecture Team'[6][7] and is composed of eighteen research-based essays covering subjects such as psychology, economics, and scientific theory.[7] end quote from mockup.

Review: The Zeitgeist self published 'book' called The Zeitgeist Movement Defined is primary, not notable, some in house musings from group members, etc. which was written by the 'TZM Lecture Team' whatever that is and is composed of eighteen research-based essays covering subjects such as psychology, economics, and scientific theory. Research based on nothing more than a fringe group theory of conspiracy and changing the world through getting a big machine to tally everything up and act from there. In other words it sounds pretty silly and no one and I mean no one in the critical fields associated with Zeitgeist ideals/ideas has commented on it. So, its not usable. The 'book' a loose term, is for sale as are the movies so promoting the book is overt blatant advertising. There should be zero mention of the book. Multiple editors have removed mention of it time after time from the article as not notable or advertising promo. Also the movement was announced at the end of his second movie by Joseph. That is not clear above. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Split implemented

Just noting that I have implemented the split of the TZM article using the draft version. Given that there were two other RfCs other than this one that got archived, is there a desire to see those closed as well?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

The lede

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Adding material to the lede about micro-chips which isn't expanded on in the article body isn't in accord with the MOS, and frankly I can't see the justification for selecting other seemingly-random parts of the conspiracy theories for inclusion in the lede either. [13] The lede is supposed to summarise, rather than sample. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I wish you were willing to do some work editing rather than reverting. It is good information that the article can use. The idea is to expand the lead as it is tagged to expand Expand the whole thing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read what I've just written? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like cherry picking & undue weight to highlight something not expanded on in the body and specific to first film and not film series. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"The authors are members of the socialist youth organisation, Resistance.", doesn't even appear to be a film review as much as one political group's opinion piece about film/movement. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. The opinions of obscure movements with few members are rarely of encyclopaedic relevance. And they certainly shouldn't be asserted as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Zeitgeist Movement as an "obscure movement[s] with few members"? If so, I agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As should be entirely apparent to anyone not out to use this talkpage as a soapbox, no, I wasn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No and lets not turn this into a negative display. The point is that it is a legit ref. The movie is about chipping people. It is about 'elites' as bankers 'tricking' the common folk into going to war. Right? Right. The lead must reflect that. Currently before the lead was tagged as not containing enough info. Adding basic info. is good. I would think the Zeitgeist supporters would welcome this information also not that they matter here. Lets not white wash what Zeitgeist advocates. Lets be straight forward and just what the movie is about according to sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Or in plain English, let's go out of our way to make this as much of a hatchet-job as we can, with no consideration of the manual of style, or of letting the readers decide for themselves what to think of the movies. Evidently placing this article under general sanctions has achieved nothing, and you are going to continue as the NPOV-violating SPA you have always been. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted again. EKJ, it seems like you aren't addressing the issue raised with the edit. Bringing up Zeitgeist supporters is inappropriate. You quote a dismissive review of one of the films done by a political group to present it as representative of the film series. This is problematic from a POV perspective as well. I think it's been explained clearly. 14:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)173.228.118.114 (talk)

I will point this out from the original source:

Zeitgest also suggests the Great Depression was a conspiracy organised by an elite group of bankers to consolidate capital . . .

The first sentence of Earl's addition:

In the original Zeitgest movie the information presented suggests the Great Depression was a conspiracy organized by elite bankers to acquire money.

As to the rest of the paragraph, it is also very similar to the source, though those parts are more close paraphrasing than straight lifting from the source. For this reason alone, the material should not be restored.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If what User:The Devil's Advocate wrote is correct, EKJ not only used a close paraphase, but did so in such a way as to state something significantly different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Recommendation

Are there any uninvolved admins here? Can both of these editors be topic-banned? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And while they are at it, topic-ban Robert McClenon from trolling on my talk page. [14] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Have the rules of the general sanction been violated? Are the editors staying constructive, or has the argument dissolved into attacking individual editors?Jonpatterns (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the sanction has been violated, but this does seem a continuation of the problematic editing issues from before that decision. EKJ will make a provocative edit by using undue quote from anti-zeitgeist opinion piece as the source, editors will share concerns about those issues, and he'll justify it with something like, "Lets not white wash what Zeitgeist advocates". It is obnoxious, but I don't know if that's a violation of the sanction. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And see also EKJ's recent efforts regarding the Zeitgeist Movement article, where he has been engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour over his attempts to include a cherry-picked and confusing half-sentence quote, despite objections from experienced contributors. His current behaviour regarding these articles seems to involve making edits, demanding that his version stays until discussions are concluded, and then refusing to actually engage in a meaningful discussion. Instead he responds with non sequiturs. [15][16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Two edits and the lead

There was discussion some time ago about two edits to criticism and then about improving the lead. Thoughts? … … ps glad to see everybody is still getting on so well here! Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the student review as it basically says nothing and intend to make the other changes mentioned in the above link shortly.Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Documentary style and tidy up

An RfC last year determined that 'documentary' was the apt description for the series, or that a non-genre description should be found. It doesn't make sense to retain 'documentary-style' on individual films. Unless someone can come up with a non-genre description, I intend to replace with 'documentary', or remove where no descriptor is necessary. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There was hefty discussion that "documentary-style" is not a recognized category in films. Categorizing a film as documentary does not require or imply endorsement of the truth of the statements. It is enough that the producer intended it to be understood as fact. "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction or maintaining a historical record."[17] None of the reliable sources use that term. Anyone with questions should review the discussion from that time. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made a series of edits to movie I. What I've done is 1) remove duplicated comments … 2) move 'critical' comments to 'reaction' such that flow is short neutral factual intro, synopsis, critical reaction … 3) some copy-editing to prune slightly … 4)'documentary-style film' has been shortened to 'film'. Little factual info has been removed but comments are welcome. Pincrete (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking good, Pincrete (talk · contribs). I almost fell off my chair with words "the status and authority of TV news." OMG! I know these are Berlet's words and not yours, but it calls to mind "the status and authority" of the news program that recited the names of the pilots in the Asiana crash. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of removing 'Wessex Scene' review (student review that mainly says 'if you haven't seen you shouldn't judge'), I've tried to NOT remove on the basis of 'worth' or 'weight', but simply to remove duplication and tidy into a standard 'factual background/synopsis/reaction format. Pincrete (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)