Talk:Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

Explain the "Multiple Issues"

   * It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2011.

It is a true summary of a film, the movie is the reference you need.

   * It may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Tagged since January 2011.

It is neutral. Identify a point where we advocate the reader to watch the film.

   * Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since January 2011.

It clearly states the movie position.

   * It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since January 2011.

It states what the movie states.

   * It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since January 2011.

It is the facts in the movie.

   * It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since January 2011.

It is the facts of the movie, no advertisement.

   * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since January 2011.

Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stp52x (talk • contribs) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is obviously no legitimate reason for a lot of these flags. I suspect trolling or personal motives behind this. 86.52.43.196 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to poison the well...I am not "trolling" this article. Rather, I don't see why it should be held to different standards than other Wikipedia articles. To address your points:

1.It needs additional references or sources for verification. The various sections contain more than just a plot summary for example the Zeitgeist:_Moving_Forward#Part_II:_Social_Pathology section states:

The other component is the monetary economy. The monetary system regulates the money supply and interest rates by buying/selling treasuries. More critical views of the monetary system are explained. In the final analysis the current monetary system can only result in default or hyperinflation. This is because when money comes into existence it is created by loans at interest. The existing money supply is only the principle. The interest to pay the loan that created the money does not exist in the money supply and must be borrowed repetitively in order to service the debt. Due to this exponential money supply growth, the value of money is eventually destroyed.

This requires sourcing...see WP:RS

2.It may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. The original movie has a criticism section (Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Critical_reaction). Please read WP:NPOV.

3.Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since January 2011. See response for #2.

4.It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. See response for #1. Also see Wikipedia:Systemic bias

5.It reads like a personal reflection or essay. The style and tone of this article is not in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) and WP:MOS. It is the facts presented in the movie without opinion. These arguments against this article are aimed at the movie's message not and have nothing to do with this article.

6.It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. See above answers and Wikipedia:Writing better articles

I hope this clears up why this article has been tagged w/ Multiple issues.Smallman12q (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Watch the film for yourself and come up with a description of its content, then. Everything described in the Content section is sourced straight from the film. None of the other Content sections in documentary film entries list the entire breadth of sources the documentary uses for its material...There are already sources that don't belong in the article, as they are sources that the film itself doesn't reference.86.52.43.196 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Number 1 example is actually a description of the views versed in Addendum. Number 2 I am kinda wondering, because the criticisms expressed in about Zeitgeist: The Movie are on part 1 and are done by academics along with the skeptic community. No academic to my knowledge has commented on Zeitgeist Moving Forward, the film just released and you expect academics to have written criticisms or appraisals of it? This kinda makes your point about number 3 being moot. Also the article is mainly about summarizing the claims of the film, there is no need for sourcing a summation of the film. You can add citations for the claims as things go on, but to say that the article needs to be sources when its summation is just baffling. This makes the points you bring up in 3 and 4 completely moot. With number 5, your going to have be more specific. I view this mainly as an attempt of a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to refer to an ad hominem remark...I am no troll. I am merely asking that the article provide reliable sources per WP:RS to support its claims. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (WP:OR) which includes anything not covered by WP:RS. See also WP:FRINGE.Smallman12q (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not continue to add flags that are inaccurate. It does not read like an advertisement. If you are going to continue to flag it as such, please provide citation as to where exactly the article reads like an advertisement. At this point in time, it does not, as it simply describes the films accolades, and its content. It also does not include personal research. If you watch the film itself you will realize that the content section is exactly what it describes, the film's content.86.52.43.196 (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is WikiPedia an Internet REFERENCE whose purpose is to provide free and factual information on a given subject? Yes
Is Zeitgeist: Moving Forward a movie made by Peter Joseph with the four parts listed? Yes
If someone who has not watched the movie yet instead read this article first, would the article give an accurate summary of the content of the movie? Yes
Is the movie controversial in its content which has created large Internet groups both in favor of and in opposition to it? Yes
Is WikiPedia in the business of censoring information which explains what the subject that someone may be searching for is about because it is controversial.. ??? Gravitas73 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Smalltalk12q, but your objections appear to be erroneous to me as well. The article appears to be a fairly accurate description of the film's content. There is no advertising here. There's no "fringe" content here as per definitions laid out in WP:FRINGE.--Majicko (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Until an individual can clearly identify how this article infringes upon the following, I am going to remove the accusations:

   * It needs additional references or sources for verification. 

-Where?

   * The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. 

-A film motivated by a global movement consisting of 120 chapters and nearly 15,000 members, with over 5 million views, is not notable?

   * It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since January 2011.

'Personal essays state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)' Where does this article express anyone's opinion? It is merely a summary of a film.

   * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since January 2011.

-Where? How is this summary poorly organized? Please identify particular passages in the article that supports this claim.

(Stp52x (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)) This article contains only the negative reception of the film, as though Wikipedia is trying to discourage people from seeing it. Wikipedia has done this with the previous two films as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.117.80 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Argumentative

This article is sadly useless as a description of the movie, and instead seems to be merely a repeat or rehash of the verbal soup that is the movie. I had hoped that the article would be clearer than interviews with the documentarian. That said, I hope someone deals with the flags, as they're pretty much right-on. Regurgitating the content of a movie is original research. 67.180.92.188 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." - regurgitating content of a movie does not meet the criteria of original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.92.230 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reception

The reception article by Michelle Goldberg does not in any way deal with the actual content of the film itself, instead it tries to go on a rant about The Zeitgeist Movement and how it is antisemitic based on two of the previous films which are completely separate and bear no actual standing on the third film itself. The issue I find with this reception being added is that it should not be here since it goes onto to loosely associate the movement with antisemitic views all because of Charles Lindberg supposedly being antisemitic as well. I do not believe this review even needs to be there due to the fact that it contains really nothing of description, praise or even criticism of any kind related to the third film and only bashes the movement. Whether what Michelle says is true or not is irrelevant, since it does not pertain to the actual content film in either praising, critical or descriptory manner it does not need to be mentioned. I would like anyone else's input before removing it in it's entirety, because after I had removed it previously, it appeared again the exact same day after I removed it.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The revert summary says "rv unexplained deletion. Use edit summaries EVERY time!"

When you delete content from articles, especially when it's from a cited source, you should describe in your edit summary why you made the edit. Otherwise it's almost certain it will be reverted. -- intgr [talk] 07:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've readded the review, but only after removing most of the existing text which did refer to the movement, not the film. I added comments by the reviewer about the film itself. Ravensfire (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to get some RS concerns about the sources used in the reception section. First twinge was a review labeled as from the San Francisco Examiner (website sfexaminer.com), when it was really from Examiner.com, a self-described "pro-am" journalism site. Our article on them notes concerns about reliability and fact-checking. The reviewer's bio doesn't show a whole lot that may be relevant to the field. I've got a MAJOR concern about using Michael Ruppert as a review source - he appears IN the movie and is apparently a member of the movement. I've found no reviews in major sources and IMDB/RottenTomato do not have links to any major reviews. EDIT: I've removed the Ruppert review for the reasons above. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how a person who is critical of the ideas, who obviously isn't a member of the Movement, is allowed to be represented in this article, but a notable person, who agrees with the ideas cannot be represented as he was interviewed in the film in question. That is a double standard. Doesn't matter if he was in the film, he publicly gave his opinion on it, and he is a notable figure. Meets the criteria of the Reception section.66.209.54.90 (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging with the article on Peter Joseph

Given that the film has over 4.5 million views on YouTube in roughly 2 months, I definitely don't think this article should be merged. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Youtube views aren't a reason for inclusion or a separate article on Wikipedia. What I think the best option is, is to merge this article, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Peter Joseph into The Zeitgeist Movement article. As that seems the best candidate for an overarching article. Maybe with merging the articles something decent can finally come out of it. Zeitgeist: The Movie seems proper enough to stand on its own. --Sloane (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability

It has been mentioned on Russia Today Russia Today --voodoom (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not of much use though - extremely short and it's just a very, very brief overview of the film. Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)