Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Zeitgeist Addendum needs its own Wiki page.

Zeitgeist Addendum is a 2 hour film that exists on it own, regardless of it being a sequel. A new page should be created and it should be taken off this main "Zeitgeist The Movie" page. This would allow for direct awards and criticisms to be presented in context of that film. Every feature film should have its own page if there was consistency here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon2112 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Zeitgeist Addendum meet enough of the criteria in our notability guidelines for films to survive a request for deletion? --Versageek 23:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. It is a huge work which has been noticed and reviewed by many. It should have its own page. It meets the notability guidelines. --Skyperiod (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it doesnt have its own page either. I found that firm first and it has been talked about on the internet as much as the first. I also see it won an award. I will try to find time to add a new page once I learn more about wikipedia. Would you like to help "skypperiod" ? Redisco27 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There actually was a separate article for Zeitgeist: Addendum. Here's an old revision of it. – Sylph (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

When I gave Addendum it's own article, it was deleted, because it was already decided on to merge the article with this article. But when I add the synopsis back into this article it gets deleted and there are people here saying it needs it's own article. So which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.121.124.189 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Zeitgeist: Addendum needs its own page. The ideas it contains are different from the original movie. If anything, Zeitgeist: Addendum is more important than Zeitgeist: The Movie because Zeitgeist: Addendum is what started The Zeitgeist Movement. Dustin184 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This page should reflect the 2010 UPDATED version - It has replaced all other versions.

Since The Official website states that the 2010 Update replaces the Old Version and outside of old internet posts the old version is no longer being produced by any official medium of zeitgeistmovie.com. In fact, it has been literally removed from the original Google video post and replaced by Vimeo as the Official Online viewing. The would alter the description(s) of the ending, for example, as the World Government issue no longer exists in the work, etc. Skyperiod (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a really bizarre case, in which a previously released film has been "replaced." The Wikipedia article is about the original 2007 version of the film, to which all of the references are referring. I do not like the idea of wiping the slate clean. It's like revisionist history. The original film was released, circulated, and commented upon. Just because the producer has attempted to "replace" the film (perhaps because certain parts are now embarrassing for him) does not mean these events never happened. Perhaps there can be a new section called "Zeitgeist: The Movie (2010)" -- but the remarks about the original, including the criticism, should remain. Pretending that the other version never existed is an inappropriate move for Wikipedia. -Jordgette (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Jordgette. The makers of Zeitgeist do not get to control what outside sources say about them. This is not 1984. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this sentence in the article explains everything you need to know:

"An updated version of Zeitgeist released in 2010 removes the North American Union section among other changes."

The parts of the movie that have been removed should stay in the article because they are still part of the history of the movie. Also making a new section for the 2010 version is just needlessly confusing, as only a few things have been changed.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is illogical. Yes, the film has content which has exited for 3 years which is now removed, but it isn't the role any one here to say what the film is or is not based on version. In fact, the page could reflect the very first version which is now not even addressed; likeswise, in 10 years, the 2010 update version will be the obvious "real" version so the temporal issue is moot. It is only logical to update this page to reflect the film as it "Officially" exists and how it is distributed, which is the new Vimeo version and the DVD version. The "original" 2007 version as addressed on this site is out of production and hence this page needs to be updated. You opinion about the director is irrelevant. It isn't up to the public opinion to decide what is official- only the creator. It is his project/film and hence his changes are what define the film. I will be changing this page to reflect the correct ending. Also, the bias on see on this site is very unhealthy. Be technical- not political- please--Skyperiod (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree, based on the previous arguments. It isn't up to an artist to control what has or has not been written about his/her past work. The original "Zeitgeist" was seen by a very wide audience. If U2 released an 'updated' version of The Joshua Tree with some songs removed, because Bono didn't like them anymore, would we remove what Wikipedia said about the original songs? No. People heard and remember those songs and they are part of rock history. The same principle applies here.

Skyperiod has made a series of unilateral edits, with which several other editors have already expressed their disagreement. I would encourage another editor to revert these changes (unlike Skyperiod I would like to work toward a consensus and not act unilaterally). -Jordgette (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted all of these recent edits by Skyperiod. Skyperiod, if you make a suggestion and ALL the other editors in reply reject it quite clearly, you cannot simply impose your will on the article. If you have a problem with our view, you can take that problem to another venue on wikipedia. See the page on noticeboards where you can get help for a list of fora.

No where in this article does it reference any source of the film it now describes. The official site has the version is represents. It does not have any other version. The DVD of the version this article describes no longer exists or is it in production. The Google video also no longer exists. Therefore it doesn't matter the history, it isn't referenced. The site goes to the Vimeo and that version is not what this Wikipedia describes. Keep this article as representing the old version is technically wrong. The film isn't a song- it is a dataset. I will changing this based on the technical reality that in 10 years, this wikipedia articles will be changed anyway to reflect the current version, so why not get it over with now? The census here should be "what is" not "what was". You opinion is based on a temporal disposition and mine is based on a empirical. The logic here is faulty and biased. Skyperiod (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The film is a film, not a dataset. Again, the creators do not get to control how others analyse the film. If you want us to pretend that the 2006 version, which is the one which achieved notability, never existed, then my reference to Orwell above is more apt than I realised. Censorship is doubleplusungood. If you want to add well-sourced information on how it has been revised since 2006, that's fine. Consider the treatment given, for example, to the special edition version of Star Wars IV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very glad you mentioned 1984. As soon as I read the header "This page should reflect the 2010 UPDATED version - It has replaced all other versions" I literally fell off my chair laughing. Even the tone of the sentence sounds like it comes from the Ministry of Truth. At least he doesn't deny that previous versions existed, haha. 111.83.30.39 (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And even if it is a dataset, if tomorrow YouTube decides to delete all user-uploaded videos, should YouTube's Wikipedia article be wiped of all references to user videos having been hosted there for years, simply because we can't find them anymore?

Regardless of how you feel on this issue, you really shouldn't go against discussion-page consensus. That's a good way to get your editing privileges revoked. -Jordgette (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You think this article should reflect the current data 10-15 years from now, even though virtually no one will have had access to a dvd of it with that old version, for that period? You think just becuase 3 years go by that suddenly everything is stuck in time? Also- how do you rationalize the fact that Wikipedia cannot link to a non-official version and be taken seriously- yet this article upholds a non-official version, which is no where linked? This is like linking to a remake youtube video that some yahoo does...is that how wikipedia maintains its integrity? Skyperiod (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See VsevolodKrolikov's note below on predicting the future. -Jordgette (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the future- it has to do with the now. Your point is non-existent. The version on zeitgeistmovie.com is the only distributed version. That's it. This articles does not and can not link to the only version if is to be accurate. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can get on with our lives.Skyperiod (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OH- i see now. Yes, I agree that this [age should be updated. The fact that the verions this film is talking about is no where to be linked or the like, as pointed out, means it is just odd to have content here which is not related. Lets update!!! ;) Redisco27 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is stupid, the article should still mention the older version of the film. Imagine if someone has a copy of the "old" version and they get confused why some things are different, they should be able to read about the different versions on Wikipedia. You cant just erase your mistakes from history.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone is now trying to remove the sentence that mentions the 2010 update, which makes it so the description doesn't match the current movie. So we've gone from people trying to censor the existence of the old version, to people trying to censor the existence of the new version. Ironic isn't it?Grandthefttoaster (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 update should be mentioned as a subsection on this page as it only makes small changes. The fact that they have updated does not mean they can shed the film's criticism, all they have really done is make the lie sound slightly more convincing. Hadashi (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is this page wrong?!

Hola! I'm trying to find out about the film I just saw and was looking into it. But - there data here which doesn't not exist... It appears the people who have been contributing to this site have it wrong. I will do a bit to correct the posts, but its sad to see how poorly used wikipedia is. ;( Redisco27 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussions above explain why the article should describe the version of the film that attained notability, and why the producer's removal of (apparently now-embarrassing) material should not alter or eliminate what had been written about the original notable version of the film. I encourage another editor to kindly revert Redisco27's changes to that effect. A new section discussing later editions of the film may be appropriate instead. -Jordgette (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the external link to Acharya S. as it clearly fails WP:EXTERNAL. I'll have a look at the other suggested changes, as some of them might be reasonable. But any attempt to edit out material referring to earlier versions of the film should be viewed as POV censorship and not tolerated. These attempts are ironic, given the accusations the film makes of secretive conspiracies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the other changes referring to the North American Union and the future world government - I'm checking the original "final" version of the film, and it mentions international bankers, the US constitution becoming obsolete without anyone realising, that the same people are behind the media hiding information, (not telling you things), who are also behind the EU, AU, the NAU the apparently forthcoming "Asian Union", who want to have a "one world government" (big letters on the screen). Linking this to the wiki page New World Order (conspiracy) seems uncontroversial, save to those who find the term embarrassing when it's applied to themselves, and that's not a reason to take it out of wikipedia. Changing the reference to "Destruction of the World Trade Center" to "9/11 attacks" seems entirely fair. The film looks at the pentagon attack too. I'll make the changes in a short while.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VsevolodKrolikov -- you've done an awful lot of legwork here. -Jordgette (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem!VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by Ehdrive

Ehdrive has changed the article heavily, removing all the information about the sequel movies and the Zeitgeist Movement. This seems like vandalism and I reverted it.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not vandalism. He's done a lot of good-faith work and actually checked out the sources. Apparently nobody had tried that before and just assumed on faith that they were okay. Did you check them out before you reverted his work? I'd argue that you're the one vandalizing, since you are intentionally inserting false facts that aren't confirmed by the sources cited. I am reverting your reversion, pending further discussion on the matter. -Jordgette (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh what? The only change he made that has to do with a bad source is the section about the award the movie won. Mostly what he has done is removed the entire section about the sequel movies because he says they aren't notable. That doesn't make any sense at all, why should an article about a movie not mention the sequel at all? The sequel is just as notable as the first movie.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you name some of these false facts that I'm inserting? If it's just the information about the awards, I can see the sources are out of date, but I found new sources for that information:

http://www.artivist.com/festival/artivist_awards.php

http://www.cortoweb.com/icfilms/eng/2008_winners.php

Grandthefttoaster (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to add the awards back in with the appropriate sources. I also encourage you to take the material about the sequels and create new articles on them. If they are in fact notable, they deserve their own articles, like all films and their sequels. Creating new articles is fun. As for Ehdrive's other edits, I think they generally improve the article. The level of detail in the plot description, for example, was pretty over the top before. I might expect that on the article for a Twilight movie, but not a documentary. -Jordgette (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what was wrong with just having a separate section for the sequel in the same article like it was before. I have seen that in other article where the sequel wasn't hugely notable. It is still better then pretending the sequel doesn't exist. I agree with you that the plot description of the first movie was too long.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's a different movie, then it should have its own article (assuming that at least one secondary source has reported on it), and there should be a backlink to the sequel article at the bottom of this article. As far as I can tell this article is about the 2007 film, which attained notability on its own. The sequel is its own animal and should be treated as such, in my opinion. -Jordgette (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what other people have to say before I make a new article or anything but in the meantime I put back the award information and stuff from the opening.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. -Jordgette (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist article was deleted repeatedly for non notability. The sequel certainly is significantly less notable that the first. I don't see how it needs to be mentioned. The article is about the first movie, not any movie the director may have made afterwards.Ehdrive (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly relevant to mention sequels and other works spawned as a result of a film's success. This is legitimately practiced in film articles across Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the sequel is significantly less notable then the first movie. The biggest amount of press that anything Zeitgeist related has gotten is from this New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html) which mentions both videos. Secondly, even if it isn't notable, it should still be mentioned just for being the sequel to the first movie. The point of the Wikipedia article is to have all the important information about the movie, so the fact that there is a sequel is relevant. For example the movie From Dusk till Dawn 2 is not a well known movie at all, but it is mentioned in the article about the first From Dusk till Dawn movie just because it is the sequel to it. Not mentioning the sequel in a movie article doesn't make any sense. The article can have a huge section quoting every review of the first movie out there but we're going to pretend that the second movie doesn't exist?Grandthefttoaster (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The movement should also be mentioned in this article as it is mentioned in the NY Times article and even has it's own Wikipedia article. I'm not sure what Ehdrive's problem is, s/he continues to remove information without discussing it.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Son/Sun

The fact that the words 'sun' and 'son' were not homophonic is irrelevant - as irrelevant as would be the fact if they were. It has no bearing on the argument, and its presence in the article gives undue weight to criticisms of the idea that a man may have been used as a substitute for worship of the sun. I have removed the sentence as violating NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.174.62 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if editors think it's irrelevant. The source quoted provided that as one of his points of criticism of the film, and therefore, including it as such is legitimate. We don't include or exclude material based on our personal disagreements with sources, so long as they meet reliability requirements, and are accurately attributed, which this material was. Please see WP:NPOV. Nightscream (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The film (at least the original version) puts both words onscreen together in order to demonstrate their homophonic relationship. Even if that wasn't the producer's attempt, it is clearly the impression created, which is why it is mentioned in the scholarly criticism. -Jordgette (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It does matter if editors think it's irrelevant. Human reasoning is the fundamental process by which material is vetted for wikipedia. We do exclude material, however reliable and well attributed, when the material is unrelated to the article. Please see WP:PBAGDSWCBY for advice about veiled personal attacks.

I accept, Jordgette, that you may have understood from the film that the fact that 'sun' and 'son' are homophonic in our language is important or relevant somehow. However, when this common misunderstanding is not addressed or even mentioned in the article, it is less-than-impartial to include rebuttals of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.47.245 (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor's assertion that material is relevant only if that assertion can be illustrated with reference to some Wikipedia policy, guideline, consensus decision, or basic principle of good writing. Without those criteria, "human reasoning", which is not some solitary principle that exists in a vacuum, has no contextual or situational prism through which to be properly applied. Since the writer of the initial message I responded to above did not cite any such principle, then other editors are left to assess his/her assertion by examining that material in question with respect to WP policy: Was the Son/Sun matter in the film? Was it one of several points criticized by the source cited? Is that source a reliable one? Was that criticism given weight in the article that was proportionate to that point's appearance in both the film and the source's criticism of it? The answer to all of these questions appears to be "Yes", so I was forced to conclude that the User:86.132.174.62's assertion of irrelevance was based on some personal aesthetic or bias, rather than a reasoned analysis involving Wikipedia policy. If this is not the case, then he/she should've been clear in explaining which policy was not being followed, and how/why it was irrelevant. Because he/she did not do this, my conclusion was that his/her assertion was baseless. This was not an "attack", veiled or otherwise, but a dispassionate explanation of how editing here is predicated on the site's rule, something I routinely give to new editors who have not yet learned about them.

By contrast, your message above, in which you admonished me to read a page called "Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you", even though that obviously is not a guideline or policy page, but someone's attempt at humor, is indeed an attack. If my response above came off wrong, I apologize, but you could've simply have expressed your criticism of it in a civil manner, as I would've been more than amenable to listening to it. Instead, obliquely calling someone a "dick", under the pretense that what I said above is in any way remotely worthy of a ban (when it is the former, and not the latter, that clearly violates WP:Civility), is hardly a way to set the best example when attempting to admonish someone of incivility. If you have some criticism of me, then let's discuss it politely, okay?

Also, please make sure to sign your messages. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is your straw-man: 'Was the Son/Sun matter in the film?' No, it was not. (Your the referring to the homophonic relationship of those words.) Now can we please work on a solution to this WP:NPOV violation? 86.133.47.245 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no NPOV violation. When I watched the film, I assumed the producer was referring to homophony between the words (and I still cannot understand why those words were put on the screen if this wasn't the intention). Apparently I wasn't alone, as the scholarly criticism suggests. This point in the film has been criticized by scholars; that is all that matters for it to be included here. I don't see why the reference should be removed from Wikipedia except perhaps to sanitize the article of criticisms that may now be embarrassing to the producer and his fans. -Jordgette (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a portion of the film that alludes to, or that critics believe alludes to the Son/Sun matter. About 18 minutes into the film, the narrator says, "For Jesus is the Sun. The Son of God. The light of the world." (I'm guessing that the first usage of the word was with the letter "o", though I think it's fairly obvious that the latter is with the letter "u".) This continues with passages quoted from the Bible, given by both the narrator and presented in on-screen text, which allude to or make references to this. Jesus is said to be the "Son" (with the word "son" appearing onscreen), and referring to as the astrological entity, as indicated by the descriptions given, which mention "clouds", "light", which show the Sun, etc. This is why critics have responded to this point, and why the Wikipedia article must make mention of it, just as it should make mention of their other points as well. The POV in question is that of the critics, and including such points of view is entirely within policy, so long as those sources are reliable, and quoted accurately, so there is no WP:NPOV violation.

Whether these critics have made an incorrect inference is certainly a legitimate topic for discussion, and if other critics counter these ones by pointing this out, we can quote them too. But Wikipedia cannot make this judgment itself, as that would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

In articles on controversial topics, Wikipedia, being a reference source, can only refer to what the different sides say in published sources, and cannot make value judgments as to whether a given opinion/criticism, or one of the sides in an conflict is "right". Any attempt on the part of we editors to present material in a way that would convey a judgment on our part would violate the aforementioned policies. There is no empirical evidence for a number of pseudoscientific ideas, such as astrology, alchemy, creationism, fung shui, alien abduction, homeopathy, Flat Earth theory, etc., but Wikipedia cannot express that. It can only summarize what others in regards to those topics. Nightscream (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:AGF simply not apply on contentious topics? Please stop implying that my motives are anything less than pure -- I cannot see how that could possibly contribute to your point.

I think it is clear here that Wikipedia is doing more than "refer[ring] to what the different sides say in published sources". The source presented[1] for the paragraph in question makes some very different claims from those written. "I thought it was only a pun to start with. I mean the sun of God 's-u-n' 's-o-n' -- it's a perfectly good pun in english -- well, its a fairly bad pun in english -- but it doesn't work in egyptian, and it doesn't work in greek, and it doesn't work in latin, it's just a pun" First, allow me to say that this can hardly be called a 'scholarly criticism', but if we give that any criticism by a scholar is a scholarly criticism, we still have a great disparity between this and the resultant statement: "He points out that "son" and "sun" are not homophonic words in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and therefore no such misunderstanding would occur". Furthermore, he makes claims in the video that are simply not represented in the text. For example, on Horus he says first "Horus isn't a sun god", which has been omitted, and the final sentence attributed to him -- "that the December 25 birth is not part of any of the myths, including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known, as December 25 was actually the day when the god Mithras was born." -- is simply not at all representative of what he claims.

By paraphrasing so artistically the editor in question is at least violating WP:NOR; "It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources." While Forbes may be very happy with how the paragraph turned out, it is simply not true to claim that that paragraph is truly representing a position that he advanced. It is a synthesis of other ideas, of artistic paraphrasing, of biased omission and false inclusion. 86.133.47.245 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines "pun" as "the humorous use of a word or phrase so as to emphasize or suggest its different meanings or applications, or the use of words that are alike or nearly alike in sound but different in meaning; a play on words." "Alike or nearly alike in sound" is homophony; saying the pun doesn't work in those languages is saying that there is no homophony in those languages. Therefore there is no synthesis or original research involved in this wording. How would you like the sentence to read? If you have a suggestion for a wording that's more fair, let's hear it. But it's looking like cutting it altogether isn't going to fly here. -Jordgette (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

86.133.47.245, I'm not sure who you're addressing with some of your accusations and references, but if you could be more specific by specifying/addressing the editor(s) it would be easier to respond to your concerns, though I understand Jordgette's "sanitize" comment to be the one you were referring to regarding your perceived motives. For the record Jordgette, I agree that we need to be careful about such comments. You may not have meant anything about it, but it's easy for others to perceive such comments differently than how you intended them, something I myself have encountered regarding my own words.

Also 86.133.47.245, editors who intend to edit here at length are expected to sign in for an account. It's free, takes seconds, and it would be easier to address someone with a distinct name.

For the record, I do not feel that "any criticism by a scholar is a scholarly criticism", which is why I twice mentioned accurate quoting (and by way of my context intent, I was including accurate paraphrasing as well). From what I gather, you seem to feel that the transcription of the sources is not as good as it could be. If that's the case, then we should be able to hammer out a better one.

I'm also not sure what editor you're referring to "the editor in question" violating NOR, since this article, like any other, is edited by many people. Looking over the article's edit history:

• The part about the "pun" was first added by on August 9, 2009 by a user whose Username or IP was removed (I didn't even know that was possible, or under what circumstances this was done).
• It was removed by User:82.0.220.117 on November 16, 2009.
• Jordgette then restored it, albeit as a reference to the point as "homophonic" that same day.
• For my part, I did a series of edits on September 20 related to sourcing and wording, though I did not alter that particular passage.

Instead of focusing on the intent of any particular editor (unless you can name a particular editor, and present evidence and reasoning for an inappropriate intent that excludes other, less nefarious possible ones), we should focus on content. Since the material is indeed in the source cited, I see no synthesis of source material, though it's possible that it may not have been transcribed or paraphrased as accurately as it could have been. Re-watching the video and re-listening to the audio file in which John Dickson interviews Dr. Chris Forbes does not support this accusation. In the interview, Forbes does provide his reasoning as to why this "pun", as he calls it, does not work, though moreso in the audio interview than the video one. He explains that those two words do not constitute a pun in ancient Egyptian, Latin or Greek, and the article passage reflects this, so I don't see how the article fails to represent the position he expressed, though perhaps it can be more attributively stressed?

(As a side note, Jordgette, I don't think that saying that "there is no homophony in those languages" is the most accurate way of articulating Forbes' point. What Dr. Forbes points out is that there is no root homophony among the words because they are English, and not derived from those ancient languages, as they both come from the Middle English. As for points omitted, again, this is even harder to use to as an accusation of violating NPOV or NOR, because omissions could possibly be the result of the editor(s) who wrote the passage simply having gone on memory rather than having the material close at hand when writing it, and failing to recall the points, or perhaps thinking that merely mentioning some of them rather than all of them would provide a more concise summary. This is more a matter of bad writing, which is one of the pitfalls of having a self-organized, open collaborative encyclopedia, and we can address these omissions by simply adding them.

I've edited the article to include the distinction between Horus and Ra, rewrote the Christmas and pun matters to more precisely attribute and paraphrase Forbes' arguments, etc. 86.133.47.245, please let us know what you think, and what improvements could further be made to the article. Writing your own version of the passage(s) and presenting them here or in the Sandbox, might help us see what you have in mind. Nightscream (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Point noted on the "root homophony" matter. But I no longer see any reference to Son/Sun in the article as it currently stands. Did you mean to cut it completely?

On the behavior matter, I will be more careful in the future about focusing on content. In my defense, I was careful not to directly accuse the editor, but the accusation was implied and rightly interpreted as such. Mea culpa. -Jordgette (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

????? That's strange. I distinctly remember adding material on the "pun" matter. I even created a wikilink for John Dickson when I found that he had an article, and a redirect from the Centre for Public Christianity and his article. But it wasn't in the article just now, nor indication in the History of it being removed. Oh well. I included it just now. As for saying things that are misconstrued, hey, mea culpas all around. They go great with margaritas. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The "editor in question" was meant to be generic -- poor phrasing. I wasn't trying to point a finger. My fist statement was though -- and you were right in your assumption. But yeah, mea culpas and margaritas sound good to me :).

I'm sorry that my demands have turned the paragraphs into such colourless word-mince, but if that is the only way to achieve neutrality so be it. I'm perfectly content with the results -- apart from one nitpicking: "took issue with what they perceived as the homophonic relationship between the words "Sun" and "Son" in regards to Jesus, with Forbes dismissing this point as a pun". Clearly there is a homophonic relationship. That is not the issue with their perceptions -- that that is a point is the issue. Maybe something like this would be acceptable; "took issue with what they perceived as an argument centered on the homophony between the words "Sun" and "Son" in regards to Jesus, with Forbes dismissing this point as a pun", though I understand that that might be heading a little out the other side of neutrality. 86.140.63.100 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's wordy but it works for me. And it's a bit more accurate, as they weren't taking issue with the homophonic relationship really, but rather the perceived argument. I'll make the change. -Jordgette (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Accord! Thanks, to you both. Brocerius (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This "Horus isn't a Sun god" comment might be confusing. Read an article on Ra "In later Egyptian dynastic times, Ra was merged with the god Horus". So the movie's got a lot bigger point than Chris Forbes does in he's statement. And you critisizing guys should actually better read Solar deity. 62.221.56.166 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The film outright states that Horus is a sun god without any kind of reference to Ra - it makes it very clear that they mean this literally. Horus was never an outright sun-god, when it is said he was merged with Ra it means he was a sky-god (and of war and hunting) and Ra became one of his eyes (the moon was the other). Also Set was not the personification of darkness and the night, he was a god of the desert, they probably mean Sekhmet who was generally considered the daughter of Ra. Jesus was not a 'solar deity' in any case, he bears no relationship or similarities to any of them.

The "God's Sun = God's Son" thing should absolutely stand. It was a noteworthy part of the original film and it is still implied via phrasing and heavy emphasis. You may be embarrassed about it, but tough tits, the mere fact that it was removed after the film was aired to live audiences and put online makes it notable. Hadashi (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find the whole "Sun=Son" criticism to be an unnecessary strawman towards what is just a simple pun. There are some people who will argue this (and I rightly call them idiots for it) but where exactly did Zeitgeist make the claim? Saying he implied when he talks "light of the world" and "the savior of human kind" is not the same when he says, "He is the SUN of god..." The context of it was for a pun to be used in the event to set this up the way he did. The question should not be "whether or not Zeitgeist is right about the son=sun parallel in the film is valid" because that was never a comment or argument that zeitgeist uses. The question should be asked is, "why are these overreacting and mostly apologetic criticisms being cited as legitimate criticism?" I don't see many evolution articles mention creationism in except specialized subjects in skepticism and pseudoscience.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no mention of 'Zeitgeist Addendum' or 'Moving Forward'

It seems like there should be some mention of the other films in the series, especially as the 'Movement' now seems to have distanced itself somewhat from the first one, probably because of all the inaccuracies and the subsequent bad rep. The whole emphasis of the newer films is significantly different and focuses on a oddball but oddly compelling mixture of 30's technocracy ideas mixed with psuedo-academic social and economic criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.31.225 (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that the The Venus Project was actually a rather sound idealist project for a move towards sustainability. This Peter Joseph has done that a huge disservice by mixing it up with random nonsense like "Christ myth" and "9/11 truth". Why on earth would the drive for sustainability want to be associated with such cranky nonsense. Whatever the "Zeitgeist movement" is, it started out on the wrong foot entirely and badly needs to dissociate itself from these films or their author. This also means that the Category:Zeitgeist is a misguided and tendentious grouping of valid economic criticism and cranky conspiracy theories. Wikipedia probably shouldn't carry such a problematic category. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

on further inspection it turns out what the Zeitgeist movement advocates is stateless communism, but with the difference that they promise that nobody would have to work. Essentially an utopia (or dystopia) where humanity hands all control over to the machines and then devotes itself to hedonism exclusively. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, exactly. The Venus project ideal cities are reminiscent of Soviet urban planning (the workers shall live here, the shops shall be here etc.). What I find interesting about the Zeitgeist film is that it appears to be being Beta-tested. Before the 2007 version there were earlier ones with even more outlandish material - including the claim that the word Horizon in English was evidence that Christianity was derived from the Horus myth. The 2010 version appears to have removed some of the more severely criticised parts from the 2007 version. Maybe by 2050 it will be a good work of scholarship.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The upshot appears to be that Peter Joseph Merola is both the least suited person to do produce a documentary about anything involving historical scholarship, and the least suited person to head an activist movement. Since these are not only two things he did, but also tried to combine in the most unhappy way possible, I suppose it is safe to say that this entire "Zeitgeist" thing is only of interest as an example of how not to do things, and perhaps as involuntary comedy. I hope PJM is at least a decent marimba player. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Scholarly Responses" - Really?

The first "scholarly response" listed, from an article published in Scientific American by Michael Shermer, lumps Zeitgeist: The Movie and Loose Change with The Twilight Zone and The Sixth Sense. Obviously this article is not serious, so it should not be considered a "scholarly response".

The ISBN for the second scholarly response's source is wrong. That ISBN is for "Documentary in Practice: Filmmakers and Production Choices". The ISBN for the book listed is actually 9780745640099

The third response, from Chris Forbes, is potentially biased since he is a member of Diocese of Sydney, part of the Christian Church.

I think scholarly responses should be objective reviews that use logic, examples, and sources for their information in their critique. None of these scholarly responses meet this criteria.96.255.93.14 (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

An article in Scientific American by a professor and published author trained in psychology, philosophy and the history of science, as Dr. Shermer is, is indeed a scholarly response, as is the reaction by a Senior lecturer in Ancient History at Macquarie University like Forbes. The fact that Shermer places the film in a greater tapestry of "infotainment units" in an article about the relativism of truth, along with works of fiction as other examples, does not mean that therefore, that article is not a viable source. As for being part of a diocese, your argument would mean that all religious figures must be disqualified, which is not reasonable, since many scholars trained in areas pertinent to religion may themselves be men of the cloth, and are bound to have reactions to this film that bear mention. Bias, after all, is not specific to such an occupation, any more than objectivity is to secularism, skepticism or atheism. Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is that sources are considered reliable authorities in the area of study in question. It cannot harbor any standard more specific than that, as the criteria you mention are subjective, and left to the individual reader to assess. As for the ISBN, hopefully you or someone else can fix that. Nightscream (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why change the ISBN back? We can use Google books to see that the book with ISBN 9780745640099 contains the segment on Zeitgeist: The Movie that is referenced. link here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustin184 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is problematic. The main issues are the following:

• Forbes claimed in an interview that several assertions in the movie's 1st part are plain lies. However, not only Forbes is a member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, but also the interview was for the "Center of Public Christianity" (CPC). Thus I fail to see how this qualifies as a "scholarly response" rather than just a "media reaction". Not to mention that the strong bias of the responder (Forbes) and the medium (CPC) should be highlighted in the text.
• Furthermore, Forbes' only source was... his own opinion and vague claims about what is considered as scientific (?) census. On the other hand, Murdock has written several books on the subject and her response has been in written form, far more extensive and analytical than Forbes' critique, published in her own website, and her claims backed with references. Thus I cannot see why Forbes' criticism must be presented in such an analytical way in the article while Murdock's response (which is in fact far more analytical and better referenced) is represented only by a paragraph that includes a quote regarding Murdock's expertise on the matter. It seems as if Murdock is trying to hide behind her expertise being unable to respond to Forbes' claims, while this is not the case at all
• Finally, Schermer's response can not be considered scholarly since he is far from being an "authority in the area of study". Shermer's academic background is not relevant to the documentary. The only paragraph in this section that I would qualify as scholarly is the criticism by Jane Chapman, since she is essentially criticizing the presentation style (and is herself apparently an expert on the matter). However, it seems that when one reads "scholarly responses" in an article for a documentary he expects criticism in an academic fashion regarding content.

Concluding, I don't really see any reason for splitting this section to "media" and "scholarly" responses and I don't see any reason for including such an analytical representation of Forbes' criticism. I suggest that Forbes' criticism be reduced to one paragraph and that the separation of the section to media and scholarly be removed.--Elmerfadd (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that retitling or restructuring the subsections on the responses to the film would largely fix this, since "scholarly" is the word that, apart from its meaning, can also be loaded with connotations that different people can perceive differently.

As for the weight of Forbes words versus Murdock, this can be fixed with a moderate rewrite.

As for Shermer, as the founder of the Skeptics Society, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, a Scientific American columnist and author who has written extensively on the topic of scientific skepticism, and how it can be employed to examine various ideas such as pseudoscience, pseudohistory and conspiracy theories (which his publications have examined quite a bit), he is indeed an authority in the area in question. Experts in various different fields can have relevant insight into pseudoscientific or pseudohistorical ideas, so it's not like those trained in religion or history have an exclusive stranglehold on topics like this, any more than nutritionists are the only ones qualified to examine Breatharianism or Christians the only ones qualified to be quoted on creationism. Such ideas straddle multiple areas. Nightscream (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC

I'm basically arguing that Schermer's opinion does not qualify as "scholarly". Characterizing his opinion as such implies that the documentary falls within his areas of expertise: pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and conspiracy theories. But this verdict should be left to the readers without it being suggested within the article. Anyway, I restructured the section separating the critical reactions not according to the source but according to the type of criticism. I think this solves the issue.

I also shortened the part referring to Forbes criticism to make it, more or less, of the same size (and gravity) as the rest of the criticisms. The link for the interview is there and whoever wants to watch it all can freely do so. I didn't understand why it should be so extensively analyzed (compared to the other criticisms) in the article. --Elmerfadd (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The movie's ideas do indeed fall within Shermer's areas of expertise, as pseudoscience, pseudohistory and conspiracy theories are among the areas in which the film asserts ideas, and in which Shermer is an expert. In what way would you refute this?

In any event, good work on the restructuring. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, hope we cooperate again in other articles ;)--Elmerfadd (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Restoring attributive wording on point of contention"?

Resolved

Nightscream: Can you please explain this revert?[2] Your explanation was "Restoring attributive wording on point of contention". I'm not sure I understand. "According to the New York Times" is in-text attribution. Further, the use of the word "claims" is a violation of WP:WTA. Finally, by removing the quote, "moved away from", your revert results in less fidelity with the original NYT article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've change the word to "reported". As for attribution, I was emphasizing the specific reporter who made the assertion, since it's a point of contention. As for "moved away" from, you'll notice that I left that portion of the quote in. Thanks for pointing out WTA's inclusion of "claims" among words to avoid. Much appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thought you removed the "moved away from". My bad. Thanks for the WP:WTA fix. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Initially I did, but after you insisted on putting it back in there, I left it alone, since I didn't think it was that big a deal. All I did subsequent to your re-addition of it was to restore the article date and the author's name. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Aphorisms

I'm looking for aphorisms from the films in english, can anybody help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Бардюк Олег Юрійович (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the English Wikipedia! Just so you konw, new discussions go at the bottom, not the top. As for your request, is it intended to help improve the article? Nightscream (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in "conspiracy theory-based"

There is a problem in the beginning of the article, where it says that the movie asserts "conspiracy theory-based" theories, such as the Christ Myth Theory. On the Christ Myth Theory page, it says "the idea that Jesus... [was] an historical person [that] was mythologized into a supernatural being" This is no conspiracy theory, it's believed by many non-Christian religions, atheists, and historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InverseHypercube (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It has been reverted by someone, though, so I'll see how I can fix it. InverseHypercube (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Part one is clearly a Bible conspiracy theory of the "Jesus conspiracy" or "Christ conspiracy" variety. Commentators have noted that it follows and in fact was cribbed from Acharya S's "The Christ ConspiracyItalic text: The Greatest Story Ever Sold". She even served as a consultant on the film. The [Santa Barbara Independent] for one specifically lists the religious speculations as being a conspiracy theory. It is in the same vein as the The Two Babylons, a similar Bible conspiracy theory. I've made the appropriate edit. Mamalujo (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I wasn't aware that those theories were referred to as conspiracy theories. Btw, the two sources given in Acharya S's article regarding the film are both dead links, just so you know. Nightscream (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I haven't seen the movie, but nonetheless I think there is something wrong with the wording. By saying "conspiracy theory-based ideas, including the Christ myth theory", I think it gives the wrong impression about the Christ myth theory, by implying that all of it is a conspiracy theory. As I understand it, there are more credible and less credible facets to this theory, and referencing it as a conspiracy theory may damage this conception. I can't seem to think of any wording to convey this without making it overly verbose. Any ideas?

Cheers! InverseHypercube (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If a given idea fits the definition of a conspiracy theory, then that's the term that should be used. This has nothing to do with its credibility, since conspiracy theories are not, by definition, theories with low credibility. The execution of the 9/11 attacks by Al Quaeda, which we know to be a credible fact, is a conspiracy. The plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln was a conspiracy, one which we know as a documented credible fact. "Conspiracy theory" doesn't mean "something that's probably not true". Nightscream (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's another definition of conspiracy. Conspiracy is defined as "A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot." by Webster. Conspiracy theory, however, according to Wikipedia, "has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." I agree that claiming that Jesus did not exist is a conspiracy theory. Claiming he wasn't divine, however, is not, and depends largely on religious views. What worries me is that readers might think that the Jesus myth theory is a conspiracy theory as a whole, while it does have parts that are not. I think I'll change the text to read, "asserts conspiracy theory-based ideas, including the theory that Jesus did not exist." Would this be satisfactory? InverseHypercube (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How much of the Christ Myth theory concerns Jesus' divinity? Isn't the bulk of it about how he was based on other mythological figures, making the use of the term accurate? Nightscream (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Jesus myth theory is not considered a conspiracy theory according to the wikipedia article. The fact that it has also been named "the Christ conspiracy" (or similar) does not automatically renders it a conspiracy theory because, as I will now show, the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are far from synonymous (I will refer only to wikipedia definitions since there is a need for internal consistency).

Conspiracy theories are by (wikipedia) definition theories of low credibility. I copy-paste from relevant wikipedia and wiktionary articles:

• A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end. Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis. (Conspiracy theory: Wikipedia article)
• A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. (Conspiracy in wiktionary)
• (dismissive) Hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish. (Conspiracy in wiktionary)

A conspiracy, on the other hand, is understood as the "act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations" (wiktionary definition). Thus, the "low credibility" stamp is absent.

Therefore it is a mistake to include the "Jesus myth theory" under the tag "conspiracy theory" since it is clearly not.--Elmerfadd (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources, because this is circular. Granted, WP:CIRCULAR pertains to use of them as sources in other articles, but I think the principle is still somewhat applicable in discussion like this one. Simiarly other wikis should not be used, as per WP:USERG. It is better to use credible sources like Merriam Webster, which defines conspiracy theories as "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators". It does not include low credibility as a criterion. Neither does the Wikitionary entry contain third definition you attribute to it.

It does contain a definition similar to the second one you list here, but if we assume as a given that that definition is correct, how does the Jesus myth idea not conform to it?

Even if we did use other Wikipedia articles, the Wikipedia article on conspiracy theory does not mention that phrase or that criterion at all. The closest that article comes to the issue of credibility is when its Lead section says that "conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism", which is sourced. Nightscream (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying the Christ Myth Theory is a conspiracy theory is ridiculous. You might as well make an argument that comparative mythology is a conspiracy theory field even though it very much isn't. Majoritively speaking, the Christ Myth Theory generally focus' on comparing the archetypal similarities between Jesus and other pre-Christian deities. Whether it is wrong or not is irrelevant to it being categorized as a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory has to include some colluded effort by others to hide the truth about what is going in order to fool one or more people. That is why it is called a conspiracy theory and not a baseless theory. There two difference. The only part in the film in which people try to harp in can be found at the ending where the narrator states that "the reality is, Jesus was the solar deity of the Gnostic Christian sect, and like all other Pagan gods, he was a mythical figure. It was the political establishment that sought to historicize the Jesus figure for social control. In 325 A.D. in Rome, Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. It was during this meeting that the politically motivated Christian doctrines were established and thus began a long history of religious bloodshed and spiritual fraud." Now this part might seem like a conspiracy theory where people seem to think that this might be referring to the Christian scriptures however, the difference is that Scripture is not the same Doctrine. There is no basis for stating that the Christ Myth Theory or the first part of the film can be asserted to be a conspiracy theory. It is only the bias of others who wish it to be in order for them to be able to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my post above. Reliable sources identify part one as being based on a conspiracy theory. Much of it comes form Acharya S's work. Her first book is even called "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold". Mamalujo (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And unless you can demonstrate where in the book she posits a conspiracy based on no evidence or very little fact then your engaging in the Genetic Fallacy. Just because a title is labeled Conspiracy does mean that is the content of the book itself. In fact, why don't you read Cancer Stage of Capitalism and see if the title actually tells you what the content of the book is because it doesn't. The title was chosen as a means to provide attention and sales for the book.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, I have to agree wit Voiceofreason467 - book titles are often chosen by the publisher and can sometimes exaggerate or misrepresent the content of the book. I think it's somewhat POV to lump Christ Myth Theory into the category of conspiracy theory. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Mockumentary ?

Right now it's listed as a documentary, but I think mockumentary more adequately describes this movie. The wiki article on mockumentary defines it as "a type of film or television show in which fictitious events are presented in documentary format." Given the critical and scholarly response to Zeitgeist, I think it's reasonable to infer that most of the information is fictitious, so using Wikipedia's own definition, this movie is a mockumentary. Dr.T.Geisel (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A mockumentary is a work whose contents are intended as fictional, such as This is Spinal Tap. A mockumentary is not a documentary whose factual accuracy or quality has been denounced, nor is it used as a value judgment toward films that are criticized as propaganda or agitprop. Nightscream (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you on 2 grounds.

(1) I can find no definition of mockumentary that has the intention requirement.

(2) For this point I'll assume that intention is required for a mockumentary. In the legal system, willful blindness is an acceptable substitute for intent, and Peter Joseph either knows that what he's saying is fictitious, or is willfully blind to that fact. Consider his claim that Pliny the Younger was a historian who lived around the time of Jesus Christ and did not mention him in his writings. If Peter Joseph had read Pliny, 3 things would be apparent: Pliny was not a historian, Pliny was not a contemporary of Christ, and Pliny did mention Christ in his writings. Either Peter Joseph read Pliny and knows these things, or chose not to make further inquiry into Pliny the Younger on Christ, because he wanted to remain blind to it. Either way, if the criminal law standard is applied, we find that Peter Joseph had the mens rea to make fictitious claims in Zeitgeist, and the movie is therefore a mockumentary. Dr.T.Geisel (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The definitions one comes across for the word mockumentary, such as those at Dictionary.com or Wikipedia's own article on it, indicate that a mockumentary is a fictitious or satirical work presented in the form of a documentary. In order for a work to be a work of fiction or satire, it must be intended as such, because intent is implicitly built into those concepts. It is perverse to argue that it is not, simply because the word "intent" doesn't appear in reference works that define those things. No one would argue that Joseph Goebbels, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter are creators of "fiction" in the same literal sense as Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, just because the work of the former group is either of poor scholarship, or worse, outright deceptive.

Your argument seems to be that because Peter Joseph's work is false, either because of deliberate falsification (fraud, libel, slander, deceit, propaganda, etc.) or just plain incompetence (poor scholarship, willful blindness, etc.), that therefore, it is fiction or satire. This is a non-sequitur. Fiction and satire are not words that are used in reference to works presented as factually true or accurate, but whose quality in that regard is judged to be poor or mendacious. Fiction and satire are those works that are deliberately presented by their authors as imaginary, non-real or humorous, and are not default designations for works intended as documentaries that fail to meet good standards of accuracy, journalism or scholarship. There is a big difference between deliberately presenting false ideas as true (either through outright lying, incompetence, cognitive dissonance, gullibility to false ideas or ways in which thinking goes wrong), and presenting a non-real story as fiction for the purposes of entertainment or allegory. To argue that the works of Peter Joseph falls into the same category as the works of Rob Reiner or Christopher Guest because Joseph is either lying or willfully blind is to ignore how these words are commonly used.

As far as the criminal standard being applied, two points need to be noted: First, we're not applying criminal standards. We're applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which require all material to be supported by reliable, verifiable published sources, particularly for potentially contentious, controversial or critical material, and without engaging in original research or synthesis. This means that unless the film has been regarded as a mockumentary by critics, calling it such would be inappropriate. I myself did not add the words "propaganda" or "agitprop" to the article until I found such sources referring to it as such. Because of the potentially contentious nature of calling it a mockumentary, doing so without such a source may give the appearance of violating another site policy, which is neutrality.

Second, even if we did apply criminal standards, we do not know what Peter Joseph's intent was, so we cannot conclude that he had the mens rea to do anything ethically or legally questionable. People often believe false ideas or draw irrational conclusions do so because of what Michael Shermer calls Ways in Which Thinking Goes Wrong, or Problems in Thinking, which are often not conscious, but unconscious processes, like cognitive dissonance, gullibility, or if you prefer, outright stupidity. You assume, for example, that Joseph could only have included material on Pliny by reading Pliny. It apparently does not occur to you that he could've repeated false information about Pliny that he heard from other sources that were themselves false, which is yet another way in which false ideas are accepted as true. (Think of how creationists constantly repeat the same fallacies and lies about natural selection, and Darwin, or how or 9/11 "truthers" do with 9/11 conspiracy ideas, even after these falsehoods are debunked, and how these ideas can spread among the uninitiated accept these ideas as true, either because they do not seek out dissenting arguments that debunk them, or who reject them when they come across them.) Thus, you cannot gauge intent simply by arguing that the film's assertions are false, or that his work on it was poor or ill-informed, much less that it is therefore a work of "fiction", "satire", or a mockumentary, at least not within the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines. Nightscream (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A mockumentary is understood as fiction by the intended audience. Nothing suggests that these filmmakers were winking at the audience; they seem unfortunately sincere, as are their fans. Cool Hand Luke 21:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, I am not aware of any reliable sources that describe it as a mockumentary. Such a label would therefore be original research. Cool Hand Luke 21:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, you big baby, it'll remain a "documentary." That movie still sucks though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.T.Geisel (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack or insult other editors, Geisel. Doing so is a violation of the site's policies on civility, which includes personal attacks upon other editors. Both my responses and Cool Hand Luke's were quite polite, and not indicative of childishness, so your response is uncalled for. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point a few errors in what your saying here. Number one, is that he brought them up because these are constant sources that are brought into relationship to prove that Jesus is an historical figure, he is described as an historian by those who bring him up. I have ready many books who engage in this form of argument when in reality I know very well this is the case. Secondly, stating one lives around the time of Jesus does not make him/her a contemporary. You are making a linguistic assumption. The other issue that you describe him mentioning Jesus, he doesn't mention Jesus as a person, he mentions him as a form of center of the adoration of belief in regards to Christians. In other words, he describing the beliefs of Christians and the central figure in their beliefs and what they believe about him. As for your assumption of the ideas being fictitious and knowingly so is that you will have to find information about the person or know of evidence of his intent. So far, from what I understand from the Who Is Peter Joseph biography is that it started off as an art project and became a documentary. It was not intended to be what it was, but it certainly evolved into that. However, he does not describe it as a mockumentary. Whether you believe the information is false (in which case I myself do not agree but that is irrelevant), is essentially irrelevant to whether or not it falls into that category. You are allowing your bias to show as clear as day in regards to whether or not this documentary should be shown as a "mockumentary." Please keep your bias to yourself or show it in an online forum, this is not the place to discuss such things in an opinionated manner. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New posts go at the bottom of the thread. Please keep them in chronological order. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's no good reason to call it a mockumentary, but I think Geisel has inadvertently raised a good point. The article is "Zeitgeist: the Movie," so what's our source for calling it a documentary? DenningLJ (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need a source to merely describe something. Saying we need a source to define a film that clearly falls under the definition of documentary is like saying we need a source to define a sunflower as yellow. Joseph clearly intends the film to document some aspect of reality. He does not clearly intend it to be fiction or parody. It is for this reason why calling it a documentary is reasonable, whereas calling a mockumentary violates the site's policies. Nightscream (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We would need a source for any fact that may be controversial. However, in this case many of the cited sources call it a documentary, even some that are quite critical of it. Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Its classification as a documentary is not controversial. "Documentary" is simply a description of its genre. Not a value judgment as to the accuracy of its content. Nightscream (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could compromise and put documentary in quotation marks. The first sentence would thus be:

Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 "documentary" film by Peter Joseph. DenningLJ (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because that would give the appearance of a POV on the part of Wikipedia or the editors. Unless reliable sources establish that its status as a documentary has been questioned, it is not appropriate to imply otherwise. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't really disagree, but I have to say that its status as a documentary is not controversial because third-party sources categorize it as such. If there were actually no sources on the subject, such label would be original research. Of course, the original research policy is regularly ignored in synopsis sections, but that doesn't undermine the fact that it is our policy.

Bottom line: reliable sources say it is, so it is, end of story. Cool Hand Luke 14:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I apologise if I am not posting using the correct protocol, while I often use wikipedia this is my first contribution. I recently saw this film and decided to do some research to test the veracity of claims this movie makes, especially in response to mythology and astronomy. When I first checked it a couple of weeks ago there was an entire section refuting a number of the movies claims, namely the virgin births of deities (Horus and Buddha most notably), as well as the spurious claims about the alignment of the stars of Orions belt with Sirius on Dec 23, and the sun being within the asterism of the Southern Cross on that date (completely false!). There was also mention of the calendar and how Dec 25 hasnt always been on the same day due to changes in the calender. There was other solid evidence posted with citations that I just cant recall right now. Interestingly (and somewhat disconcertingly!) when i returned to this article yesterday I saw that the rebuttals have been deleted! and no mention of any discussion about itr on this page! What can be done to resubmit this important information?? Thanks - Sean 124.171.235.253 (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Part I of that movie is all lies. To anyone who knows anything about the subject (I have a degree in religious studies) it's plainly obvious that the guy who wrote Zeitgeist decided he wanted to make a movie that argues there's no evidence for a historical Christ, but after he did some research he realized he can't convincingly do that, and instead of giving up at that point, he decided to lie for 45 minutes of video. So I think it's very important that the rebuttals are out there. However, the critical responses section on this article has become way too detailed. It's certainly worth mentioning that experts in ancient history and religion disagree with the claims made in Zeitgeist, but multiple-paragraph summaries of Chris Forbes et al.'s responses don't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. I think this article should simply mention that many university professors have published harsh criticisms of Zeitgeist and link to those criticisms, nothing more. DenningLJ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

I recently edited (mostly restructured) the criticism part of this article. In fact, the criticism of "part I" was much longer and I made it shorter. But I don't think that your claim that "many professors have published harsh criticism of Zeitgeist" is representative of reality. In the respective section there are only 2 professors cited (Callahan and Forbes) criticizing the "religion" part of the movie. Furthermore, one of the movie's scientific consultants (Murdock) has publicly answered to both criticisms. This story is shortly presented in this section and there are links to all relevant material. Thus, the reader has all the material he/she needs to decide who is right and who is wrong. If you can provide links where other professors or experts also criticize the documentary, please edit the article accordingly. --Elmerfadd (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I have a huge hate-on for this movie and I let that get in the way. My point is we don't need a detailed discussion of all the critical positions. I don't have a problem with the current version. 96.49.107.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

Hypothetical question: if Forbes makes a rebuttal to Acharya's rebuttal, do we have to reference that? What if Acharya then rebuts Forbes' rebuttal to the original rebuttal? Where do you draw the line? 96.49.107.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Any such back-and-forth should be summarized for salience, much as any other set of information is summarized in articles. Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that this film is simply a bad documentary. It does not seem to have been intended as parody, so we must conclude that it is just incredibly shoddy. Why it should deserve a Wikipedia article I don't know, but of course quality does not equal notability, so I suppose the least harm is done by just keeping this article around on equal footing with The Burning Times and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

But I do not think it is acceptable that there are five separate articles

1. Zeitgeist: The Movie
2. Zeitgeist: Addendum
3. Zeitgeist: Moving Forward
4. Peter Joseph
5. The Zeitgeist Movement

This completely overblows the notability of the topic, by a whopping 500% at least. It would be no problem to merge this stuff into a single page to discourage agenda-driven page sprawl. Just merge it into The Zeitgeist Movement and let it be. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're over-reacting a little. There is a good argument for combining the Zeitgeist movies, and for putting Peter Joseph into one or the other articles. But combining Zeitgeist movement and Zeitgeist the movie would be unwieldy and unjustified. The film may be ridiculous, but then equally so is World Wrestling Entertainment, and we have several categories for that, not just several pages.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign Independent review added, but is it RS?

Is the Sovereign Independent a reliable source? It has articles like this, and it doesn't appear to be well-known judging by google hits. VsevolodKrolikov 08:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I was similarly suspicious, so I started a discussion at RSN. Nightscream (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: Final Edition

There's little mention in the article of the 2010 re-release of this film, Zeitgeist: Final Edition, aside from one sentence in the OP: "Joseph also produced an updated 2010 version of the original film in order to address dated material and improve its overall accuracy." I've read many of the comments above and I think that the issues have been severely obfuscated by some contributors. Most notably, nobody is trying to re-write history here, just trying to complete an encyclopic overview by mentioning recent developments. The film has been re-released - that is a fact - and the differences between it and the original deserve to be mentioned. I've attempted to write a section which I would like others to review, expand upon, then insert into the article between Synopsis and Awards. Here is the text:

2010 Update

In 2010 Zeitgeist: The Movie was updated and re-released as Zeitgeist: Final Edition. Certain sections that were in the original film were altered in order to address dated material and improve its overall accuracy, as the official website explains:

The core changes occurred in Part 3. Part 2 was mostly expanded with new developments and Part 1 is the same, apart from subtle rephrasing in the narration for the sake of better continuity/clarity. Regarding Part 3, the largest alteration was the removal/change of the end section regarding Trading Agreements and the nature of the growing global corporate governance. Since this issue was more cleanly expressed in Zeitgeist: Addendum, little was lost. This was also done to avoid the film being "dated", while allowing for more expansion in content in other sections - keeping the work under 2 hours. Many other temporal points were altered so the work would be more general and non-time specific. Otherwise, corrections were made with regard to poorly sourced quotes and the like and a good deal of new content was added in the "War" section.

..If there's a copyright issue with using the above paragraph verbatim then perhaps it could be paraphrased. Any suggestions for improvements would be greatly appreciated. Somebody once said that if Wikipedia isn't in the top 10 results of a Google search then we aren't doing our job properly. In short, 'zeigeist final edition' should bring users to this page and the reason for that should be made clear. At the moment it looks like Google has just given the result for 'zeitgeist' and the article doesn't mention anything about 'final edition'. Thanks. nagualdesign (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. However, you have not credited a reliable source. I would say that facts about the changes might be included, but the quality of the edits "... with new developments", "better continuity/clarity", "growing global corporate governance", and the rest of the paragraph is solely opinion. Opinion should only be credit to independent reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd certainly agree with you on those points if it weren't for the fact that the whole of the indented paragraph is itself a quote from the cited reference. Whether or not what he says is disputable, we must capitulate to the fact that he did indeed say those things. And as the maker of the film perhaps a primary source is appropriate. It explains the motivations behind why the changes were made - something a secondary source could not do. Also, if somebody took the 2 versions and noted down exactly what changes were made, blow-by-blow, one could argue that it's Original Research, which can have no referenceable source, and it would make for a very dull read. The lead-in, "..altered in order to address dated material and improve its overall accuracy", I took from the article's opening paragraph. nagualdesign (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This section has been up for nearly 2 weeks now and has received little attention. Given how vocal some of the commentors are above who wished to speak out against the movie I'm a little surprised, but I'm going to assume now that you all understand that the change to the article that I wish to make is neutral and unbiased. If nobody has a good reason not to I'm going to add this section in the next 24 hours. Once I do that please do not undo the edit without discussing first! Thank you. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's still not a valid source, except for the opinions of the creators. You have not provided a credible argument for inclusion, except as an attributed quote, and it would still probably violate copyright. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Arthur. To take your questions in reverse order, the block quote does not violate copyright. It is block quoted in accordance with recommendations and is correctly attributed specifically to avoid presenting controversial information as though it were fact. The argument for inclusion, as I have already stated, is that there really was a 're-release' called Zeitgeist: Final Edition which differs from the original film, and those differences, not to mention the very existence and the name of the new film, ought to be included in an encyclopedic article about the original. I thought that you understood that. I'm not sure how I could express this more clearly, unless perhaps you first explain why this argument is not credible.

I also cannot understand why you don't consider the official website to be a valid source. It's the proverbial horse's mouth (see Attribution). As I have already said, it explains the motivations behind the changes and should therefore not be considered as either opinion or as fact at all. When asked, "Why did you do those things?", provided that we believe your answer to be honest wouldn't we also consider it incontrovertible? No secondary source could ever substantiate your answer as fact or otherwise. Perhaps you are being a little too subjective here because you disagree with the thrust of the film. Let's try to be impartial, eh.

When the Dalai Lama was asked what surprised him most he said, "Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present, the result being that he does not live in the present or the future. He lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived." No reliable secondary sources could be found to corroborate his assertions, which may be considered simply biased opinions, and yet what he said was indisputable; Man surprised him the most. N'est-ce pas? Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, you stated above (on April 29th) that, "Opinion should only be credit to independent reliable sources." This is incorrect. In fact the diametric opposite is true; Opinion should be attributed to original sources. This is the gospel according to Saint Wiki. Sorry for not being clear about that earlier. nagualdesign (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See my recent edit for the minimal attribution required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks okay, but as the words "was intended to" are being used I think that naming the filmmaker in this context could easily be construed as expressions of doubt. And that still doesn't address the issues I raised. I hope you don't think that adding an inline attribution negates the need to mention the name of the new film and the differences between it and the original. nagualdesign (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The source is fine for the quote, and it's even attributed in-text to the official website. As for the use of the quote itself, it seems ok to me but a bit long; if you could trim it down somehow that might help matters. The biggest problem I see is that your proposed section is one-sided. Critical reaction (positive and negative) from third-party sources would help flesh it out so the section is not just what the creator thinks of it. Anomie⚔ 14:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that, Anomie. And I agree with you about fleshing out the section with critical reaction. Unfortunately, because the filmmakers decided to virtually replace the old film with the new film it's difficult to properly separate the two. Ideally they should be treated in 2 different articles, but I don't know if they're different enough to warrant that. As I understand it the original version got quite a slating, so changes were made to address those criticisms, resulting in the new film. Perhaps if a review can be found it could be added to the critical reaction section (as subsection 3.4) as it (the new film) was a subsequent reaction by Peter Joseph to criticism. nagualdesign (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the section in as is, and will work on it from there. I'm struggling to find a reference that explains how or why the new film came about, or what the reception to the new film has been. I think it's widely regarded as a direct response to criticism of the original film and, depending on who you listen to, that's either a positive thing or an admission that the first film was a proverbial crock. If anyone can help to find references specific to the new version that would be appreciated. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also now copy edited the whole article, but could somebody please tidy up the final paragraph of this section. I'm having trouble with the refs, and the whole paragraph doesn't read very well, IMO. Thanks. nagualdesign (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. In addition to copyediting the opening two sentences, I removed the incoherent gibberish that was added two days ago by User:173.20.243.213, as it made no mention of the film or its contents. Nightscream (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nightscream. :) I couldn't make head nor tails of it myself, but I didn't understand the ref/cite markup. Glad to hear that I wasn't just being lazy and stupid! The whole article is much more 'Wikipedic' now, if a little on the critical side, but to be fair the film has had a lot of vocal critics. The main objective here is to maintain NPOV. Quoting Skeptic magazine as having said, "Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids", for example, is entirely inappropriate. Regarding the date format, I changed them as per WP guidelines. Both are fine but more articles seem to use DMY rather than MD,Y. The fact that it's an American film (and indeed an American website) is irrelevant, but I see no problem there. The attribution in the OP, "..which, according to Peter Joseph, was intended to.." is, as have already stated, easily construed as an expression of doubt. Peter Joseph was the person who intended to.., so adding the caveat "according to Peter Joseph" implies some sort of doubt as to his professed intent. Subtle, I know, but it's an important distiction so I have changed it back. The Onesource tag does seem appropriate, however your edit summary, Arthur, I do not appreciate: "you admit that your only source is the film's web site" First of all I never denied anything, so the word 'admit' is a little bit inappropriate, then you say "YOUR only source" (emphasis added). WP is a collaborative effort. It is our only source. Do you see how your tone may sound combative? This is precisely the reason why phrases such as "according to Peter Joseph" are inappropriate. If you can't see these subtle distictions, or you are in fact feeling combative, perhaps you should stick to editing articles which you can be more objective about. That said, everyone's good faith efforts are appreciated. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, please explain your recent edit, as well as the summary, "No. It's an expression of doubt that there is a potential source for the statement without the disclaimer. . ([[WP:TW|...)". It seems to me that you have misunderstood the guidelines. And in future perhaps you will be kind enough to take the hint and discuss any contentious edits before making changes to the article, as I have done. nagualdesign (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) No, I don't have much doubt about his intent, but we have no reliable source. If you prefer, we could say "the director/publisher states that the intent was ....", but Wikipedia rules require that, if he is the only source, then it cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Without further caveats, a good article would require reliable source stating that the intent was or was not met, but I'm not demanding that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Arthur but you have indeed misunderstood the guidelines. The only reliable source for a person's professed intent is one which delineates that intent, preferably the primary source. The in-line reference links to the official website where that intent is expressed by the filmmaker himself. Put simply, if a person of impeccable reputation stated, "yes, that is indeed why he made those changes", we would be none the wiser. The phrase "was intended to" is obviously not the voice of Wikipedia as only the primary source could know their own intent. A good article would not require a reliable source stating that the intent was or was not met. Intent is never met, in and of itself. If I intended to do X and ended up doing Y for whatever reason, my intent did not change retrospectively. And the fact that you have used the word "disclaimer" in your edit summary is itself an expression of doubt. Such expressions are to be avoided (in articles) in favour of NPOV. Please read the guidelines which I linked to. I'm not going to change the sentence back immediately only because I have no wish to get into an edit war with somebody who appears (to me) to have an agenda. Perhaps a third-party will be kind enough to add to this debate one way or the other. ..Oh, and I'm sorry but I don't know what (ec) means or what ([[WP:TW|...) was supposed to link to. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong about the guidelines. As for the tags (ec) is "edit conflict"; I was in the process of explaining my revert when you commented. ... was supposed to be [[WP:TW|Twinkle]], but the Twinkle script doesn't keep track of the length of the Edit summary field. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining those. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it about the guidelines, though. Plus I've just noticed 2 other edits which you made which I have to disagree with. Re. "These changes were an attempt to improve the overall accuracy of the film, as the official website explains: [..] corrections were made with regard to poorly sourced quotes and the like" How exactly is this deemed to be original research or "improper synthesis"? Also your "citation needed" tag at the end of the OP seems to be ignoring the in-line reference to the pdf. Which bit do you suppose requires additional citation? To be frank, you seem intent on undermining the validity of this film in any way you can, and I haven't got the inclination to rebut each and every attempt you make. I don't wish to fight for the film, but I will defend Wikipedia. If you persist I will simply request an official RfC. I can't say fairer than that. Stop being silly, Arthur! Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "An updated version of the original film was produced in 2010, which, according to Peter Joseph, was intended to address dated material and improve its overall accuracy."

For anyone worried about an unsourced statement of intent, it seems you shouldn't be fighting to keep "according to Peter Joseph" in, but to remove the whole statement of intent. For a film that was produced and directed by one person, if we say it was intended in some way, no one else could've intended it; "According to Peter Joseph" is therefore extraneous. Adding it doesn't do anything to address the possibility that the claim of intent is improperly sourced.

The only reason I can see to add the phrase ("according...") would be if there's some counter viewpoint that his intentions were actually different than what he stated (an ulterior motive); which could be valid rationale, as long as a source describes this counterpoint and we detail that in the article.

If we agree the statement of intent belongs in the article, and no counterpoint on his intent exists, there's no policy-based need for the additional (and redundant, I think) attribution. It becomes more of a writing issue. The redundant attribution doesn't add nor fix anything policy-wise, so which way makes the article read better? I'd say it makes more sense to say, "Joseph released an updated version of the original film in 2010, intended to address dated material and improve its accuracy," because the other way ("An updated version was released") makes it sound like perhaps the updated version was released by someone other than the original filmmaker. This way seems clearer.

As far as whether the statement of intent belongs (which should be the real question, if sources for intent are at issue), a person is always a reliable source for their own intentions, right? Who better? See WP:ABOUTSELF -- People's thoughts on a subject are sourced using their self-published methods fairly often here (Twitter, blog, open letters, newsletter, personal websites, etc), and don't require a secondary source. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor note: Joseph is his middle name, so we either have to call him Peter Joseph or just Peter (which is a bit too informal). I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the 2 tags which Arthur added to the article. I'd be even more interested to hear Arthur's reply to my questions. But I'm going to take a little time out instead. Cheers for that, Equazcion. nagualdesign (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

He calls himself Peter Joseph, and we usually adhere to what people call themselves rather than to the "pedantically" correct version. I don't think there's anything wrong with using Joseph as shorthand since it seems he intends it to be used as a last name. Minor stuff though.

A synthesis tag was added to "These changes were an attempt to improve the overall accuracy of the film". I don't see any particular reason to call it synthesis, although it also doesn't seem especially in-line with the quote, where the accuracy concern is actually downplayed. Clarity, expansion, and avoidance of becoming "dated" appear to be the primary concerns he states.

"Citation needed" was added to "The film has a 220-page long 'companion source guide'...in which detailed scholarly, academic, or media sources and texts are cited for the claims and information provided in the film." The primary source (the official website) is enough to say the guide exists. I'm assuming maybe the citation request was triggered by the implication that the sources used are reliable? We could just say "...in which sourcing for the movie's content is detailed", so that we don't inadvertently make any implication as to their veracity. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive comments, Equazcion. I've made a few changes to the article which I hope will adequately address Arthur's concerns, using the suggestions you made. As Authur hasn't responded to my questions I've tended to simply remove contentious material. One thing I perhaps ought to explain is the removal of the One source tag. The tag read, "This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Discussion about the problems with the sole source used may be found on the talk page." As the only part of that section which requires a secondary source already has a Citation needed tag I think a large piece of boilerplate is overkill. Having said that, that section ought to be expanded with audience response/critical reception to the updated movie. Perhaps another template is in order. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless secondary sources appear for Zeitgeist: Final Edition, that section should be removed. Otherwise we're just repeating promotional material from the website. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom, Thanks for the input. Please read through the above discussion for details on why this section was added and why a secondary source is not required. Personally, I don't think that the blockquote reads like promotional material, it's just an explanation of the new film. Also, I had already remedied the text as per Equazcion's suggestion. Swapping "sources are provided for the claims cited in the film" for "sourcing for the movie's content is detailed" changes very little, but suggests that you haven't been following the edits/discussion very closely. However, your point of view on the matters discussed would be appreciated. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

..I might also point out that the original film received much criticism, which is quoted in great detail in the article. The updated version is essentially Peter Joseph's response to the criticism and, as such, his personal explanation of the changes that he made for the re-release (in response to the criticisms) wouldn't be out of place even if it was overtly promotional material. The length of the blockquote, though a little verbose, is actually comparable to the quotes from the critics. In the interests of balance and NPOV I'd ask you to consider those points. I am not a proponent of the film. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Source does not exist

Ref. [15], used in Part II of the synopsis, does not exist. The broken reference is as follows: NEW YORK TIMES REVIEW: 9/11 MISQUOTE

I hope a replacement source can be found. If a replacement source cannot be found, the following text should be removed from Part II of the synopsis: "but a later clarification on the Zeitgeist Movement website clarified that Joseph was shifting his focus, not retracting his views."

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations from The Marker

The following is the material I used in support of the paragraph I added to the article today. The supporting material is an English translation of two paragraphs contained in the original Hebrew piece in TheMarker. In the sequel, I'm presenting the (translation of the) two paragraphs, but I'm also presenting all the (translation of the) contiguous text nearest to the two paragraphs, in order to present the proper context. (This is not the (translation of the) entire TheMarker piece; it is only a (translation of the) relevant section of the TheMarker piece that contains the two paragraphs I cited from:

"According to the film, the economy and modern society were enslaved, since the early 20th century, to an international group of bankers, that led the U.S. to World War I and II and the wars in Vietnam and Iraq to increase the bankers' economic power.

"To do so, said Joseph, they created the Federal Reserve bank, which forced the U.S. into the wars so that the US would borrow money from the bank, and engineered events such as the sinking of the British ship Lusitania - that contributed to the U.S. entry into the First World War - and the attack on Pearl Harbor that led the U.S. to enter World War II.

"The September 11 attacks, Joseph claims in the film, were the result of a government conspiracy designed to sow fear among the public, and to allow the regime to limit democracy and freedom of expression and strengthen the control of the financiers and politicians on the public. Their goal, he claimed in the film, is to unite the U.S., Canada and Mexico into one state, on the road to the final goal - a single government ruling the world.

"The evidence presented by Joseph in the movie was, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity. Nevertheless, Joseph received severe criticism: criticism in the "Irish Times" called the movie "absolute nonsense" and accused Joseph that his surrealistic claims stain real struggles against real problems.

"However, despite the criticism, the film was a huge success. The film successfully captured the spirit of the times, and addressed a generation raised on conspiracy films and a reality which tries with all its might to prove how much these films were right. The correctness of his claims was not critical: the skeptical tone of things was what attracted many, who knew that reality is not as it seems.

"Today, with two sequels behind him, and while he is busy creating a fourth film in the series, Peter Joseph is more relaxed. He is now a full-time activist, and spends most of his time promoting global economic and social change. The success of the first film and the second film "Zeitgeist: Addendum", which he released in 2008, were used to establish the Zeitgeist Movement, which seeks to change the economic and social system and holds, he says, more than 1,000 branches operating in 70 countries around the world.

(Photo caption: a poster for 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward', the third movie in the Zeitgeist series.)

"The members of the movement are mainly engaged in raising awareness on the issues discussed in the films regarding the inherent unsustainability and the structural corruption of the current socio-economic system. They endeavor to raise consciousness through, among other things, 'ZDay', the yearly Zeitgeist Day, that the movement holds every year from 2009 to date, and which will take place this year on March 10th.

"Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film - an updated version of the film, released in 2010, dropped the claim on the unification of the U.S., Canada and Mexico - and argues that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because they are designed to create a dramatic effect. "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do. "

"Even if you do not agree with everything Joseph says - and large portions of the claims and conclusions of the members of the Zeitgeist movement may sound far-reaching even to particularly radical readers - it is impossible to ignore the underground currents that the movement represented. The Zeitgeist Movement symbolizes the atmosphere of suspicion and doubt in all the government agencies and large businesses with which an entire generation came of age, a generation which witnessed in recent years how reality aligns itself even with the most delusional conspiracies - as the doings of "international bankers", to use the Zeitgeist term, delivered a major blow to the global economy.

"Zeitgeist found a following among the tens of millions of people, because ...."

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

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche Movement?

There was a post that this film related to Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche. This is very odd. Having read the 220 page companion guide, there is nothing, other than a passive sample from LaRouche in the film as point of documentary that makes this so. To state this is baseless. Eustace Mullins is also not sourced anywhere.Flowersforparis (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Having read your blanked talk page, you have been warned that your editing privileges would be taken if you removed any more cited information like you have done again. It also brings up a sock puppet issue regarding related articles. The information you removed is cited and can be found in multiple sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

New lead

An editor changed the first paragraph of the lead to:

Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary film by Peter Joseph. The film has a strong anti-mainstream, perhaps even anarchist narrative, concentrating on the 9/11 attacks, the history of the United States Federal Reserve, and the Biblical account of Jesus Christ. The film has generated substantial controversy.

The second sentence has no basis in the body of the article, or in reliable sources, so I reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a salmon that jumps on the hook for you. See below. Xabian40409 (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A. Rubin called for the conspiracy aspect to be backed up. This backs it up [3]. Is it inflammatory? No. It is information. It is a reliable source. Her being Jewish or it being a Jewish newspaper does not matter. We can't sort through citations and find ones that seem to us good or bad according to one editors subjective opinion. There is no doubt that the citation backs up the conspiracy theory issue. The editor that is complaining is going to have a hard time finding glowing reviews or positive comments about the Zeitgeist movie. Mostly it is recognized for what it is, a poorly done mocumentary tossed up on the internet, that takes a bunch of conspiracy gibberish and stirs the water and paws the ground. That is the opinion of the majority mainstream commenters on the movie. The critical thinking aspect of the movie is close to zero according to reliable sources. The current presentation of the article just reflects that. The job of editors here is to reflect what the reliable sources say in a neutral manner. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

General cleanup and rewrite (formerly POV dispute)

After a small edit war with User:The Devil's Advocate and encountering the stubborn malversations of administrator User:Arthur Rubin I conclude this article lacks neutrality. I propose a thorough revision, particularly of the introduction, so that the article reflects a more balanced i.e. neutral perspective. After a brief look at this talk page I noticed this issue was raised in the past; I am not surprised. It is imperative this article be cleaned up. Here is a small breakdown of issues hitherto encountered:

• Upon changing the wording of the opening sentences (specifically, removing "conspiracy-theory based") I was reminded by aforementioned parties that Zeitgeist (according to whom?) is characterised by being conspiracy-theory based and that this information MUST remain in the opening sentences. Rubin's rationale was the inclusion of the phrase in the opening sentences reflects the content of the article generally. That in itself is a problem, but Rubin went further to suggest that there is some kind of invisible consensus amongst impartial observers that Zeitgeist is about conspiracy theories, and that the only people who thought otherwise were the film's makers. This is patently garbage, but Rubin does seem to defer to layperson's accounts of Zeitgeist's content, suggesting they are valid.
• In no uncertain terms I asked Rubin to provide a summary of who, exactly, constitutes a "verifiable source" in this case, but he simply directed me to a policy page.
• The Devil's Advocate, hopefully not playing Devil's advocate, took it upon himself to undo my edits, providing little rationale. His input has been disruptive and he should receive a warning; however, I was issued with a 3RR warning (by Rubin) while he was not.

It is important that these issues are addressed. To this end, I propose to undertake the following:

• Complete top-down revamp of the article
• Inclusion of a broad spectrum of film critic's responses, and citation thereof, in the final product
• Rewording for neutrality, if and where necessary
• Arrangement of content in a coherent, comprehensive way which lends credence to both perspectives, as this film is clearly divisive (it even says so on the talk page)

To this end I shall require the efforts of other users and administrators. Thank You. Xabian40409 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

All of the main ideas put forward by the film are conspiracy theories. Not a single reliable source I have seen suggests the film is anything but a conspiracist film promoting conspiracy theories. It is why the film is notable, which is why it is one of the first things mentioned in the article. Sorry, but that is just how it goes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There are articles that attract members of groups and those members sometimes think it unfair to give other than the p.o.v. of an organization such as Zeitgeist movement. This article is written fairly and neutrally currently reflecting cited information, and has been redone for clarity pretty recently. Zeitgeist movie was about conspiracy theories, the original movie was all about conspiracy like 911 being an inside job etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'm more interested in hearing from editors who will be happy to contribute to the revamp, which I am undertaking without your blessing. Xabian40409 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Blessings are optional, consensus is not. There's no point trying to force in your preferred version of an article against an established consensus. The way to make changes that stick is to present on the talk page a reasoned argument based on reliable secondary sources, and convince people your proposed changes are an improvement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to do precisely that. In the meantime, I am dismayed by the lack of reliable sources altogether, and the lack of neutrality. You wait and see. Xabian40409 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Xabian40409 I reverted your tagging of the article with misc. things, since it appears that you are not listening to the talk page, and that you are the only one currently that thinks the article is not neutral, so I would say that is resolved. It was pointed out that maybe it is best now at this point that you make suggestions on the talk page and try to muster support. You have not done that. Even supposing you are a member or sympathetic to Zeitgeist ideas the article would be worthless unless an overview of the subject is given. It may seem like other editors support a New world Order to you but really that is not the case. We just want it to read like information giving and not from a special interest group. Suggestion. Stop focusing on editors and focus on cited information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Devils Advocate seems to have a good handle on this issue. It seems to me that he is right in that this is notable because of the conspiracy theories and thus that CT must remain in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You are all beginning to sound ridiculous.

My opinions about Zeitgeist are no-one's concern; it's opinions per se I'm trying to iron out. Rubbish to Earl King Jr. for his juvenile insinuation I consider other editors part of a conspiracy merely because I want to obviate "conspiracy theory" and they do not. Ad hominem claptrap.

Again Earl King Jr, your vagaries are stacking up against you. I'm not convinced 12-18 hours of POV at the article's header is sufficient to gain the attention of people who would agree with me and be willing to help out, so if it was you who removed it, you have done something unreasonable and impartial and have a duty to make amends. As for suggesting I am the only one who considers the article Not NPOV, you are wrong (see further up the talk page).

As for Capitalismojo and The Devil's Advocate, you have made no significant contributions whatsoever. Xabian40409 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the POV template is considered unacceptable, and what I propose to undertake (see above) is actually a cleanup, I will use that template instead. Also, since we're after reliable sources (scant in the article in its present state) I will use that template as well. Please give me some time to work on this; the onus is clearly on me to provide verifiable sources, which are often talked about but on the whole are missing. Xabian40409 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I should note that I was not suggesting the article itself is in good shape or neutral. Having looked over it now, I think it could use work as is the case with most articles covering this sort of topic, but the well-sourced reality is that it is a conspiracist work, its main ideas reference conspiracy theories, and this is the most notable and defining aspect of the work. Some in a section above objected because the Christ myth theory is not inherently a conspiracy theory, but the specific variant presented in Zeitgeist most definitely is a conspiracy theory.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted edits by Earl King Jr., which were clearly not made in good faith, suggesting the film was anti-Semitic...in the introductory paragraph. I am proposing a serious revamp of the article and this nuisance continues to interject in perpetuity. I have made it abundantly clear I am trying to attenuate the pre-existing problem with this page, that being the article reads like a critic's review, not an encyclopedia article. This user is doing his best to disrupt what I expect will be a lengthy process we need maturity and impartiality to address. Xabian40409 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

On that note I thank you, sincerely, Devil's Advocate, because you have, so far, emerged the sole voice of reason in this arena (apart from my own). It is much more than I can say for the other two who now seem to be trolling. Xabian40409 (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For all the high rhetoric on the talk page, so far the article isn't much changed, and no new reliable secondary sources have been presented. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rome wasn't built in one day. We all have other things to do. However, there is some progress being made on the talk page, in both directions. On the positive side, Devil's Advocate agrees the article isn't very neutral. I have had to rescind the notion the article isn't well referenced and that's fine, I stand corrected. Hence, the template now describes the problem (which I outlined as a problem from the start) more accurately: Unbalanced. I would prefer POV, which is potentially more accurate, but that's stirred too much controversy. In the other direction, we have Earl King Jr. who for some reason or another believes a Jewish columnist's opinion the film is "steeped in...covert anti-Semitism" deserves mention in the introduction. This is the very thing I am trying to avoid. Formerly, that quote was elsewhere in the article body, where it belongs (under the subheading "Reaction"). This resulted in me calling him a troll which is a sentiment I do not revoke. In summary a) gathering more sources from both sides is going to take time and b) in the interim, in-fighting and covert trolling is getting in the way. Xabian40409 (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate Tagging

This article is heavily sourced. The sources are classic RS. They include the NY Times, Huffington Post, Globe and Mail, Irish Times, etc...Putting tags that say RS are lacking is in my opinion very, very inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the only part that would be debatable is the claim of the article being biased. The rest has no real validity.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that I think xe has a point, but we need to be sure that we have specific sources for "conspiracy theories" and/or "conspiritist", even if obvious. I haven't checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Capitalismojo, but you are wrong. My suggesting this article needs a cleanup to reflect a balanced encyclopedic viewpoint is entirely in good faith, and has a rational basis. I am sorry if I offended you by suggesting your remarks were inconsequential, but it was the truth at the time. As of now, your suggestion my tags were an act of vandalism is the only outrageous thing I've so far witnessed. In fact it's a non sequitur. If you want to clean up your own reputation, I advise you desist from jumping to stupendously asinine conclusions and rubbishing my efforts, and instead actually make an effort to improve the article. On that note, calling the film anti-Semitic in the opening paragraph, as Earl Jr. has done, does not count as an improvement. Xabian40409 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with user Capitalismojo that user Xabian40409 is acting as a vandal and would add mostly has been flame attacking other editors since his or her appearance. His recent visit to my talk page is not appreciated [4], calling other editors trolls on en.Wikipedia? Not a good idea. Ever. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You should all stop it. Xabian, you, and mojo, are all making things far too personal here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for anything that may have made things personal. I note that I spoke only of the edit tagging and have never spoken personally about any editor. In an effort to lower the temperature, I have changed my section heading here. I will reiterate that this tagging is wrong. I would think it obvious but I will lay out the resaons. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is one of the most heavily referenced movie articles I have seen on Wikipedia.
• Many of those references speak directly to the CT point.
• These refs are largely the classic Reliable Source (NYT, etc.)
• It also has more content than any WP movie article I have read.

Therefore the tags seem put there inappropriately. Perhaps it is not vandalism, but it is certainly not helpful to the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you haven't looked at enough movie articles if the above is true, but I do agree those parts of the tag did not match up. Seems the claims about citations and content are really tied up with concerns about neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually I have been looking at the film articles at wikipedia, specifically documentary films. There is in fact a List of documentary films. If one were to go to that list one would find that (for example) of the first forty films the average references is 4.5 refs. The most common ref is IMDB. Twenty of the the ref lists have zero or one ref. The largest ref list in those 40 articles is 29. So that is why I suggest that this is a heavily referenced article compared to other film articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it is better referenced than most articles on documentaries, which goes for just about any type of referenced article as we have a large number of unreferenced or poorly referenced articles. Just saying that this article is not something exceptional as there are much better articles on films than this one, documentary films included.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This process is going to take some time. Thank you DA and Capitalismojo for making an effort. I agree that the article is, by some definition or another, well referenced. Unfortunately, the balance of those references tend to be highly subjective, even pejorative, ones. Someone mentioned IMDB; if you check the critic reviews there, you will notice quite a few positive reviews which do not make an appearance here (yet). At the same time, I stand by my assertation Earl King Jr. is trolling and frankly I am not sensitive to whether that wording is a good idea or not. He continues, now, despite my reverts, to edit "anti-Semitic" into the introduction, which is not only fallacious but very semantically-loaded. The source is a Jewish newspaper columnist who believes the film advances "covert anti-Semitism." Her view is not the norm and I will not tolerate its inclusion in the intro. Xabian40409 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that stuff such as that shouldn't be added to the lede. We have references of two people making this comparison and it is just too inflammatory to include so prominently in the article on such a basis.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I apologise to Earl King Jr; it appears he only edited the anti-Semitic remark into the intro once, (which was still unacceptable). Upon viewing the page history I notice it only made a second appearance due to Capitalismojo reverting my edit on semi-reasonable grounds. Xabian40409 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Its probably just a question of time before you are blocked from editing en.wikipedia for disruptive editing Xabian40409. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary you are being pernicious; not only are your edits opposite to the ethos of improving the article's neutrality, but you are putting me in the invidious position of having to revert those edits. Earlier you made the jejune suggestion I felt myself "conspired against," and indeed now it seems you are carefully trying to engineer me into a position that looks "disruptive." Unfortunately for you, the content you are editing in (see below) is so blithely unacceptable that your craft is not well concealed: you are the disruptive one. If you are trying to oust me by making me angry, which I suspect, you will not succeed. You are being very immature and should go bug someone else. Xabian40409 (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I reverted the Tablet Magazine information back into the article because it is RS and went through RSN on this issue in 2012, I don't believe it should be in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ms. Goldberg's views Re: "far-right, anti-Semitic"

Please note the following is related to the topics above. Michelle Goldberg of the Jewish Tablet Magazine (see http://www.tabletmag.com/author/mgoldberg) contends Zeitgeist: The Movie is steeped in "far right...covert anti-Semiticism." She is entitled to that view, which is incidentally not widely held (in fact, the film is probably very far-left), but it does not deserve to be in the introduction. Earl King Jr. has been warned about this but continues to edit with abandon. I move that his input be censured so that we can go about improving this article for neutrality. It is my view this user has an agenda (from the talk page it is clear he has been involved in past disputes), and I consider his actions an act of provocation and trolling. Xabian40409 (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you feel there is a serious problem you may take it to WP:ANI. I would really suggest before you do that you please read WP:NPA & WP:AGF and seriously consider the policies. Accusations of trolling would seem to violate both. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I will use the avenues available. I will point out it's ironic that "anti-Semitic" and "trolling" are both swearwords in their own right, but really, Earl King Jr. is trolling, by definition, whereas Zeitgeist is not at all far-right, anti-Semitic, nor has it anything do do with Eustace Mullins. One can be considered trolling if their actions are designed to be provocative. I posted that the page, especially the intro, needs cleanup for neutrality. I stand by that view. Shortly therafter, Earl King Jr, whose comments on the talk page were nothing short of unhelpful, did exactly the opposite of what had been proposed - that is, he inserted a highly polemical criticism of the film into the introduction. The criticism, from Michelle Goldberg, does not in this context promote neutrality at all, in fact it subverts it. Either Earl King Jr is acting in a deliberately subversive, provocative, pernicious manner (i.e. trolling) or he is non compos mentis. Surely you can see that? Xabian40409 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

For anyone interested, User:Earl King Jr. has been reported to ANI. Xabian40409 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ordinarily one would discuss issues with the editor on their talk pages before going to ANI. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I learnt the hard way. I've never dealt with ANI before. Sorry. Note I did reprimand him on his talk page yesterday. Xabian40409 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine addition

While I don't feel that this should be in the lede, it is from a RS. This bit has gone through RSN and been found reliable source. During that discussion academic sources were found and linked that mirror this Tablet Magazine info. The information thus shouldn't be scrubbed from the article, just moved. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Xabian40409 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I recall seeing that discussion and looking at it again, I see that only one academic source actually claimed anything about antisemitism, but it was not saying anything to the effect of what is being added to the lede. More importantly it is just one source, on top of one opinion piece, and a single article. We already mention the accusations of antisemitism in the article body and should afford them exactly the amount of weight it deserves in the lede: none.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, and a compromise edit was given to water it down a little by another editor. Zeitgeist is based on conspiracy ideas from the past [5]. It pretty much is the entire body of the movie, conspiracy ideas. 911 and inside job by the White-House etc. It can be featured in that sense in the lead. Its possible to add multiple citations beyond this one [6] showing that, but this one is a proven reliable source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You are conflating two separate issues here. The film is based on conspiracy theories, but you are specifically trying to insert, again and again, claims that it specifically goes after Jews. This is not evident in any part of the film itself and only seriously asserted by a select few opinionated commentators such as Goldberg and Berlet. Goldberg has also accused Glenn Beck of antisemitism based solely on the fact that George Soros is Jewish, while actual antisemitism among some in the Occupy movement is trivialized by her. Here are some of Goldberg's other pieces: [7] [8] [9]. These are people who exploit antisemitism for a desired political effect. Such individuals are no more reliable on whether something is antisemitic than are the ADL. Regurgitating their views in the editorial voice is not a compromise of anything but our content policies.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well said, DA. I regret to inform everyone I am taking a break for a few days while I work on an English essay. Earl King, I revoked my ANI complaint about you, partially because of WP:BOOMERANG but also because I think I acted prematurely, and I need some time to cool off. I hope when I return we can see face to face. DA, keep up the good work. Xabian40409 (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned several times the Goldberg piece has gone through the grinder and has been o'k.'d on a board that looks at reliable sources on Wikipedia. We are not talking about Glen Beck or Soros here either. Critiquing Goldberg's motivations is not the job of editors here and her paper is well known. She is a working journalist. So flaming these issues is pointless These are people who exploit antisemitism for a desired political effect. Such individuals are no more reliable on whether something is antisemitic than are the ADL. Regurgitating their views in the editorial voice is not a compromise of anything but our content policies. end quote User:The Devil's Advocate. That is your opinion and opinions are not facts. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Goldberg piece is not even remotely reliable on this point. Looking at the article more closely it is, like her other pieces, presented in the context of opinionated political posturing. It was written within a month of the Tucson shooting and she specifically notes Loughner in the piece, directing to an earlier article that tried to paint his actions as being motivated by antisemitism and right-wring Tea Party rhetoric. It is her opinion about the film, and hers is not a very common one. Presenting this material in the first paragraph of the lede, in the editorial voice, is giving her opinions an incredibly undue amount of weight.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. It is from a RS. This bit has gone through RSN and been found a reliable source. During that discussion academic sources were found and linked that mirror this Tablet Magazine info. Your opinion is different but that does not count here. Your opinion is that she is some kind of a political stooge. She is a respected journalist writing in many places including The Guardian. You may disagree with her but she is a notable journalist and that is the criteria here. Far from her views being a minority most critical thinkers agree with her and that is the reason the Zeitgeist Movie has been called many things like a internet cult based on traditional conspiracy theory ideas. No doubt some of the members of the group in question would disagree, but an overview of the information has to be given and you may notice that the article is very balanced in the body with Peter Joseph denying all charges of that kind. The dominant thing about the movie though is its charges of the Fed, banking families such as the Rothschilds, The intelligence services being involved in 911, a sort of secret cabal of players running things behind the scenes etc. That is what the movie is about. Joseph did use Alex Jones, etc... type of persons to make his presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

After checking the RSN archives, it was determined that the source was reliable for the statement that the movement is accused of being anti-semetic, but notability and weight were questioned. There is no claim that it was found reliable for the claim that it is anti-semetic; as the makers of the film are living, saying the film is "anti-semitic" requires BLP-reliable sources. In other words, it's reliable, but it's a clear WP:NPOV violation to include it. Even in the unlikely event that it is not an NPOV violation to include it at all, it is certainly undue weight to include it in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

O.k. It can be in the body of the article. No shortage of citations about that issue [10] How about this one? Your opinion on that as a reliable source? Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is correct. As to your other ref, I do not believe Socialistunity.com is a RS, except for their own opinion. Their own opinion isn't likely notable. 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I should note that I think the ref is accurate in its description of Zeitgeist, its just a partisan website not a Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to discuss whether a source is reliable. It's another to say named individuals exploit antisemitism for political effect. WP:BLP applies on the talk page as well as in articles, and it does not allow us to impugn named individuals like that. I ask that no more remarks like this be made. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Otherwise the talk page turns blog like for opinions, like a forum. It seems like the article page is getting better organized right now, so that is good. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

For someone crowing about WP:BLP, you sure were quick to label this film antisemitic and by extension label the living people who produced it as Jew-haters based off a negligible fraction of opinionated sources. Saying on a talk page that someone exploits antisemitism because that person seems to invoke it regularly in her work to cast aspersions on political opponents, while vigorously denying or minimizing its existence in her own camp, does not even compare to what you did.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa man. Flip the script. We were all just advised not to denigrate people. No one is even arguing that point now, just trying to use available information to shape up the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't "flipping the script" as my comment was quite reasonable given the sources I provided, while his edit gave undue weight to highly-charged partisan vitriol and yet he presumes to lecture me on the article talk page. Glass houses as they say.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Peter Joseph Responds to "The Marker"

The following has appeared on the Official Zeitgeist The Movie Website, which reaction to the points expressed by The Marker. Is this response worth posting? It seems fair in the context of balance.

---IN A 2011 INTERVIEW WITH THE MARKER, THE TRANSLATION MAKES MANY DEFAMING CLAIMS ABOUT PETER'S INTENT WITH THE FIRST FILM AND MOVEMENT. WHAT IS PETER'S RESPONSE? From Peter Joseph: "Having read a posted translation of the interview via Wikipedia, the interviewer took extreme liberty with my words. At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style. It's a clear distortion and sad to see this kind of twisting in the media. Perhaps it was a translation issue since english is not Asher Schechter first language and during the cell phone interview with a bad international connection, I felt like he wasn't even hearing half of the conversation, projecting bias in the conversation itself."---

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/qa.html JamesB17 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not obligated to present the view or opinion, primary source, from the subject itself of the article. Maybe some second party or third party interview that gets some information about Peter Josephs complaints about the media might be better. It is not 'neutral presentation' enhancing just because the author of these movies has an opinion about one thing or another. Better to find information outside of the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the subject of the article is a film, and not the guy who made it, excluding the fact the subject of an interview that is cited in the article has publicly explained that statements attributed to him in that interview are false is inappropriate. User:Arthur Rubin is attempting to argue that excluding this clarification is required by WP:BLP, and that not doing so is a "violation" of BLP, which is inane. The only elaboration he offers on this is that Joseph's comments "would be allowed under WP:SPS, except it makes statements about the interviewer making it a WP:BLP violation." Merely making statements about the interview does not violate BLP, in and of itself, but even if this is the case, removing the entire passage, including Joseph's statements that the things printed in the interview are wrong, is inappropriate. We can easily relate Joseph's statements that the things attributed to him are inaccurate, without including any material about the interviewer, as I have done. We don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Nightscream (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The present version only violates WP:SELFPUB as being unduly self-serving, but it's no longer a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not "self-serving", unduly or otherwise, when someone points out that words attributed to them are false. Biographical subjects have a right to clarify when such material is promulgated about them. Nightscream (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is self-serving when someone states that words attributed to them are false. It shouldn't be noted in Wikipedia's voice unless some reliable source comments about the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If he named names, and we quoted that, it would clearly be a violation of WP:BLP, as he would be accusing the interviewer (presumably a living person) of lying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Actually, it is self-serving when someone states that words attributed to them are false." It is clear that you do not understand what the phrase "self-serving" even means, and that you are using it arbitrarily and blindly, much as you implemented your recent reverts of my edits. From Dictionary.com:

self-serv·ing [self-sur-ving] adjective 1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests.

If someone libels or slanders you by claiming that you stated thing that you did not, then setting the record straight is merely just, and not "selfish", nor indicative of a disregard for the truth, interests or well-being of others.

"It shouldn't be noted in Wikipedia's voice" It isn't. It's attributed explicitly to Peter Joseph in the text. Should we add "in Wikipedia's voice" to the list of policies, words and phrases whose meaning you aren't familiar with? Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(No Nightscream. Its not a format for Peter Joseph. It is sourced to itself, primary, He can 'say' anything but Wikipedia is not obligated to report it.Undid revision 564518718 by Nightscream for that reason. It was not neutral presentation to have Peter Joseph attack who ever interviewed him and claim after the fact, this and that Maybe you can dig out a real interview on the subject and not official Zeitgeist information? Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean forum, not "format", and that isn't the point. The material should be included because it's relevant, not because the article is a forum for Joseph. Wikipedia is indeed obligated to include all relevant information, and that includes all salient viewpoints, as per the Neutrality Policy. The alternative is to print details of an interview, including words attributed to a subject that the subject says he never said, which is obviously inappropriate.

There was no "attack", and even if there was, this is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article, since the most recent version of it prior to your inane content deletion only included Joseph's clarification that the interview did not accurately convey his words, and not any "attack" or any comments at all about the interviewer. Perhaps you should've actually read the passage?

Your statement that he said this "after the fact" is irrelevant, since when he made the statement has no bearing on whether it is valid to include it, nor is there any policy or guideline, much less any principle of good scholarship, journalism or encyclopedia writing that indicates that clarifications about an interview cited in an encyclopedia article that were published after the interview was published are inappropriate for inclusion. If it did, then this would mean that Wikipedia articles could not mention cases of libel or slander (including the Wikipedia article on libel or slander), since those involve persons stating that words attributed to them in a published source were never actually said. To argue that we can't include statements made after a source cited in the article is beyond ridiculous.

Your argument that the material is supported by a primary source is also irrelevant (to say nothing of your inept use of the word "itsef"--which would mean that it's sourced by the film), since it is not prohibited to use primary sources on Wikipedia. Most material in an article should be supported by secondary sources, in particular that which establishes the subject's notability. But that does not mean that some primary sources cannot be used. If you familiarized yourself with WP:PSTS, you'd know:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia....A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

Your arguments, your knowledge policy, and even your vocabulary skills, need improvement, and I suggest you brush up on all three.

Joseph has clarified that an interview cited in this article indicated that he said things that he did not. To cite that interview, without also mentioning Joseph's statement that he did not make the statements published in it, is obviously and self-evidently inappropriate to anyone with half a brain, and there is nothing about the fact that it's self-published or from a primary source that precludes mentioning it. Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a bizarre interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I have never before seen the fact that the subject of an interview reporting on his own web site that he was misquoted being other than unduly self-serving, even when it might conceivably be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have an understanding of NPOV and RS. The only one indicating a "bizarre interpretation" of them, along with the phrase "unduly self-serving", in light of the definition I provided above, is you. But if you can falsify my arguments, then do so. Explain how publicly stating that words attributed to you were not stated by you conforms to the definition I cited above, or cite some other definition from a reliable reference source, and explain how it conforms to that. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for your edit. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nor do you. I, on the other hand, have valid arguments for the material's inclusion, which are based on both policy and common sense reasoning, and I have the ability to falsify my opponents on that basis. If you can produce either, then do so. Nightscream (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a bizarre interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The fact that the subject of an interview reporting on his own web site that he was misquoted being other than unduly self-serving, even when it might conceivably be relevant. Get some second or third party source for this. Not a self serving interview by the person in question. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I do not have an "interpretation" of NPOV or RS. Rather, it is you who are not only ignorant of them, but seem to be deliberately ignoring what I've pointed out about those policies, as well as the definition of "self-serving" that I have provided here:

• Do you deny that WP:PSTS states that primary sources can be used on Wikipedia? And what precisely does the phrase "too primary" mean? This phrase is innsensical. A source is either a primary one or it is not. It cannot be determined as a matter of degree.

• Do you deny that WP:SELFPUB actually provides criteria by which self-published sources may indeed be used?

• You say the material is "self-serving" (which WP:SELFPUB state is one criterion for exclusion). Do you deny the definition of the phrase "self-serving" that I provided above from Dictionary.com (which is in line with the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster's and The American Heritage Dictionary)? In what way does pointing out or protesting when you've been misquoted constitute "disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others"? Can you answer this question? Every time someone successfully sues someone for libel or slander in a court of law, on the basis that that party was wronged by the actions of the defendant, no one states that the plaintiff was being "self-serving". You two seem to be confusing self-interest with self-serving. While Joseph is certainly addressing his own interests in pointing out that he was misquoted, that's not the same thing as being self-serving. In what way is pointing out that a statement being made is false solely a question of his interests? If the statement attributed to him is false, then he has a legitimate grievance for addressing it, and transcendent from that interest on his part is a greater one for truth in general. To argue that he is disregarding the interests or well-being of others by doing this is inane.

Can you two address these three points? If so, then please do so. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not become a platform for the Zeitgeist people to present their views. We need to reference the page to good secondary sources, and use a few primary sources when they are supported by secondary sources and when they help the reader. It would be easier to note that Peter Joseph says he was misquoted if a secondary source wrote that "Peter Joseph says he was misquoted". In any case, tendentious language that has Joseph "pointing out or protesting" takes a side based on something that's only in a primary source, and it's hard to see how approaching the talk page with this in mind is likely to promote consensus or improve the article. As a matter of editorial judgement, I'd leave the quote out until/unless it's picked up by a secondary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. To leave the claims from The Marker in place, while saying the subject of the interview can only have his objection to the claims included if some other source picks it up is plainly a BLP problem. Either we remove what the Marker says about him, or we add Joseph's objection. I would prefer the latter myself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

To say any more than "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words" is clearly unduly self-serving. I'm not sure even that isn't unduly self-serving; any details are clearly inappropriate. That may qualify as being inappropriate to add to the article is being obvious; I have no doubt that, if an interview with me were to be translated into another language, my words would not be accurately translated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it unduly self-serving to note that the subject of an interview took issue with the way his statements were paraphrased or quoted? Joseph is saying that the interview did not accurately reflect what he said and we are essentially repeating that wording here, while refusing to note his objection. To note his response is not "unduly self-serving" as it is a matter of insuring people are not given misleading or false information about a living person.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur and Earl, your arguments are based entirely on characterizing one thing as a completely different thing, and are completely inane.

"This page should not become a platform for the Zeitgeist people to present their views." One more time: Clarifying a falsehood about a quote misattributed to you is not a "view". You're making an equivalency between the content of the film that serves as the article's subject and a quote attributed to its creator in an published interview cited in the article that he says is false. Including mention that a biographical subject has stated that he did not say what a source cited in the article says he said did does not turn the article into a "platform" for his views. To say that it does shows that you and Earl King do not know how to form coherent reasoning, and the fact that you continue to repeat this notion without responding to my response to it shows that you are either not reading my messages, or are just ignoring them because you don't want to admit that this idea of yours is ridiculous on its face.

"We need to reference the page to good secondary sources, and use a few primary sources when they are supported by secondary sources and when they help the reader. It would be easier to note that Peter Joseph says he was misquoted if a secondary source wrote that "Peter Joseph says he was misquoted"." Easier, but not necessary. One more time: WP:PSTS says that primary sources can be used. Do you do you not deny this? I pointed this out repeatedly above, yet you keep refusing to respond to it. Why is this? Why do you keep stonewalling? Can you please indicate what your response is to that point?

"In any case, tendentious language that has Joseph "pointing out or protesting...." You're saying the passage "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words, saying, "At no time did I say anything about 'distancing myself' from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style." is tendentious???? How? Can you elaborate on this? What if we compromised by writing the passage "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words, and that he had not distanced himself from his opinion that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by the U.S. government." How is that?

"...takes a side based on something that's only in a primary source..." No it does not. One more time: When material properly attributes an idea to its source, it does NOT constitute the article "taking a side" or promoting the idea "in Wikipedia's voice". Again, I pointed this out above, and instead of responding to me by explaining why you disagree with this, you simply repeat the canard ad nauseum. Again, why is this? Why do you go on and on about "promoting consensus" when you refuse to respond directly to the counterarguments of those who disagree with you? When the articles on Scientology, flat earth theory, creationism or chaos magic describe those ideas, are they presenting them in Wikipedia's voice? Are they "taking a side"? Are those articles being used as "platforms" or "forums" for the people who subscribe to those ideas?

Can you please answer these questions directly? Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, you write "One more time: Clarifying a falsehood about a quote misattributed to you..." Is it then a falsehood? How do you know that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this. I perused this discussion and have a couple of responses. Yes, the comment in question is self-serving -- and yes, it should be included. We don't leave relevant comments out just because the person who made them was seeking to serve his or herself; most people who comment on their own work are seeking to do just that, and reporting that they've done so is common, because it does not lend Wikipedia's voice to its credibility or lack thereof. The description of this as "clarifying a falsehood" might be a little confusing: We as editors don't seek to clarify anything. We do seek to simply report that Peter sought to clarify it, leaving the validity of his claim up to the reader. The fact that he made the claim is relevant and verifiable, whether or not the claim itself is justified. As for use of a primary source, this is questionable only when an interpretation is involved, but for information about what a person said, there's really no better source than a page written by the person who said it. Primary sources can and are used in plain statements of fact, the fact in this case being that Peter made this particular statement (not that what he said has validity). Equazcion ^(talk) 01:36, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Tom Harrison: "Is it then a falsehood? How do you know that?"

I don't need to. Joseph says they are. Since he is saying he was misquoted in an interview cited as a source in the Wikipedia article, not including it is inappropriate. The question of whether he in fact was misquoted is something we may never know, unless the interview makes public the raw, unedited audio or video footage of the interview. The point is not that I know it's a falsehood. It's that Joesph is saying it is. In any he said/she said conflict related in a WP article, we need to include both what "he" said and what "she" said. Objecting when one is included and the other isn't does not constitute knowledge on the part of the person objecting that they know who is right. Wikipedia must include the positions of both (or all) sides when relating controversial material. It doesn't need to "know" which is right or which is wrong, as since that is not within the site's purview.

If you don't know it's false, and it doesn't matter to your argument, then don't say it. That way you avoid impugning the reporter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Equazcion: "Yes, the comment in question is self-serving". How so? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that you understand that it needs to be included, but what definition of self-serving does it fall under, and how?

Equazcion: "We as editors don't seek to clarify anything. We do seek to simply report that Peter sought to clarify it, leaving the validity of his claim up to the reader." Agreed. That was my point, and I never said otherwise. Sorry if my wording wasn't clear. (Guess I needed you to clarify me. :)) Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement is self-serving by the simple fact that its author sought to serve his own interests in making it. I can understand feeling compelled to exclude it on those grounds. Tom and Arthur's stance, as I'm reading it, comes down to relevance: They feel the question of whether to include a statement by Joseph should come down to evidence in the form of an existing secondary source that has deemed it relevant enough to comment on. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's current policies make no such distinction: Primary vs. Secondary can answer questions about verifiability, but do not themselves test relevance. If we include the conflict this statement was meant to address (and I'm pretty sure we should), we do need to also include Joseph's response, as without it we would be excluding relevant information, whether or not it's been picked up by secondary sources. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:19, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I too was asked to comment. I feel that opinions expressed by The Marker should be included, but not their interpretation of Joseph's opinion (i.e., the "quotes"). It's too far removed from the source, given the translation, the interviewer's apparent POV, and the fact that Joseph says the quotations are not accurate. If they are included, Joseph in reply should be quoted directly; but I'd prefer avoiding the "he said, he said" business altogether. It's not becoming of the encyclopedia. -Jordgette [talk] 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I as well was asked to comment on this and I must throw my support in with Nightscream, The Devils Advocate, Equazcion and Jordgette after reviewing the articles in question being linked and considering the questions being proposed, I am convinced that if the Marker is being used as a source then the idea of leaving out Joseph's clarification would be a disservice to us as reporting in an objective manner. While I do not agree with that it is "unduly self-serving" as no one has yet to give an indication of how it is based on Wiki policies and until someone does I am not exactly convinced but that is irrelevant to the issue of the relevancy of Joseph's mention until someone can point to me why it is relevant for exclusion. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Having been asked to comment, I would also say that the opinions expressed by The Marker should be included. If somebody has been quoted as saying something, and later that person claims that they were misquoted, it's surely in the interest of neutrality to include all parties' comments. Moreover, using a secondary source (if one exists) in order to quote Peter Joseph (ie, quoting them quoting him) adds nothing in terms of verifiability. He claims that he was misquoted, and whether or not that is true is irrelevant, the comment should be included. Withholding the comment on the basis that it wasn't published by a reliable secondary source is illogical. nagualdesign (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that sock puppets for Mr. Zeitgeist have now made an appearance here. It would be a mistake to use Joseph as a source. He is obviously a biased observer of himself and his group. There are already enough connectors to the Zeitgeist web pages in the article. Better if some news story gave information on this, than Joseph himself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be a problem if we were using him as a source for the article's interpretation of events, ie. if we were to say Peter Joseph was misquoted [source: Peter Joseph], that would definitely be a problem. But we're not. We're using him as a source to quote his response, and nothing more. People's responses to conflicts are generally biased, and yet we do need to report them all the same. Doing so doesn't imbalance an article. As for your sockpuppet claim, I'm not sure if you're talking about this discussion, but all the people who've responded to this discussion thus far are more prominent Wikipedia figures than yourself (aside from the OP). I see no reason to claim sockpuppeting. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:26, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to Equazcion for diplomacy. To Earl King Jr, I'd like to invite you to browse through my contributions and those of the other editors here trying to reach a consensus, and consider the likelihood that we're all actually Peter Joseph, before casting aspersions. Otherwise, I suggest you simply assume good faith and get the point. nagualdesign (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Meat puppet maybe more appropriate then [11] Why didn't the person looking for editorial 'back up' not do a "request for comment" instead of contacting people they know to come and wave a flag for their opinion? The point here is that the page in question is not a platform for Peter Joseph. Earl King Jr. (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

They contacted people who have edited this page, not people they know; which is common and accepted practice. The page describes an exchange, and in that case, both sides of that exchange then need to be represented. This does not make the page a "platform" for anyone. If anything, excluding one side of the exchange could be considered making the page a platform for those supporting the other side. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:36, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate action to take here is very clear: remove the phrases containing claims TheMarker makes about what Peter Joseph said in his interview with them. WP:BLP clearly says, in bold letters no less, that contentious material should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.

Misquoting someone is one of the most grievous offenses you can make against them. TheMarker has not provided a recording of the interview so their claims about what Peter Joseph said fall in the category of "unreliable source" and "gossip". If someone explicitly says they did not say something, then a phrase saying they did is contentious and therefore should be removed. We SHOULD NOT just add another line saying they said they didn't say it; that leaves the contentious material.

I have immediately removed these phrases, in accordance with Wikipedia's BLP:

"TheMarker further wrote that Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film,"

and this part:

"TheMarker additionally wrote that Joseph said that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect"

If Arthur or Earl take it upon themselves to restore those phrases, they are risking being blocked from future editing, in accordance with WP:BLP's clear warning that "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Dustin184 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)