Jump to content

Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

The Critical Reviews section is the best compromise possible

This article is a special case. It is very hard to reach a consensus about anything, people have very strong pro and con opinions. Therefore it is only fair that the criticism section quotes every single article written in credible media about the film. It is not practically possible to summarize these quotes in the text because there would never be agreement on what constitutes a fair summary. It has not been possible to even include the words "conspiracy theory" in the main body of the text. These quotes are a true and accurate description of what the media have to say. Fans of the film should not be bothered by them, after all they are supposed to be truth seekers. And for quite some time this set of quotes has stood the test of time, there is no need to reopen an issue that has been much discussed here. As for strict adherence to guidelines, in many senses the whole article does not adhere to guidelines, it is a compromise.Sardath (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. It is practically possible to sum up those quotes. Others have already done it on similar hot topics. Now that this article has been protected, there are far less risks of edit war and actually, this strict behavior I'm currently observing is the only risk I see. WP quality standards have to be met here and invoking a past status-quo is not a valid reason. — Xavier, 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It is possible to sum up the quotes but it is not possible to agree that the summing up has been done right. The Criticism Section as it is is easily defensible against reedits on objective grounds because it is accurate and exhaustive. Anything else would drawn us in a sea of subjectivity. This discussion page has many opinions to the same effect. I do not see the point of your zeal for changing this section. After all, those who think the movie is just another conspiracy theory should be happy to see the mainstream media say so, and those who take the movie seriously should also be happy seeing the mainstream media engage in the conspiracy. Why bother?Sardath (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
And those like me that are of only one side, Wikipedia quality, are not happy with the current state of this section. The point is not to reach exhaustivity by just citing all opinions you can find in mainstream media. This is against WP guidelines and you won't find any good or feature articles that is written this way. Accuracy can be achieved by summerizing too. If you think you can't, then let others try and stop reverting everyone else's edits. Remember, it's not your article, neither are you its guardian. — Xavier, 16:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I consider myself to be on the side of Wikipedia quality too. And the article is not mine, of course, but is not yours either, of course. Receiving threats from you in my discussion page does not improve your credibility, nor hiding your user name from your posts, Xhienne or Xavier. And I do not succumb to threats, for your info.Sardath (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
And, moreover, the quotation rules explicitly say that quotations SHOULD be used when "dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors." This is exactly the case here.Sardath (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Does the "Critical reviews" section need rewrite?

This section does not match many of the WP guidelines concerning quotes. I have extensively explained why above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhienne (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This section falls under the explicit provision of the rules that quotations SHOULD be used when "dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors." So it's perfectly OK given the controversial nature of the subject. I have argued above extensively about the matter, responding to user Xhienne who signs as Xavier. I repeat here that in order to avoid continuous reedits it is better to stick to this list of quotes from, as far as I know, every single reference to the movie in credible media. It is a compromise that is fair, practical and in agreement with the rules. Let's not create an issue out of nothing.Sardath (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I have to repeat once again what I stated above: I do agree with the use of quotes but not in this way (basic enumeration) which is explicitly against the aforementioned guidelines. The number of quotes have to be lessened; the quotes have to be shortened and intermixed with original prose. You are invoking exhaustiveness and nowhere in WP guidelines and policy will you find anything about exhaustively quoting mainstream media about a topic. In fact, the guidelines I'm referring to say exactly the opposite. My opinion is that this section must be rewritten. — Xavier, 14:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Exhaustiveness serves a purpose when there can be disagreement about what is important and what not. This is common sense and there is nothing in WP rules against common sense. The quotes are not that many, everyone of them makes a different point, and the Criticism section is not at all disproportionate in size to the article as a whole. Your problem, I think, is that you do not like what the quoted authors have to say, and you have said so in your discussion page.Sardath (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic of this RFC. My opinion on that movie doesn't matter here and your speculations on my opinion matter even less. I think you made yourself clear enough, as I did. So, now, let's wait for others to express their opinions on the quality of this section, and let's the community decide if it must be rewritten or not. — Xavier, 22:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion.

  • The section is biased. While more reliable sources may have trashed the movie we can't have 8 negative quotes with no positive. I think we need to use lesser known sources that said some nice things or less prominent nice things from reliable sources.
  • We can have in wikipedia's voice disclaimers about some of these facts and prose. The issue on the 1st section of the movie, presenting views from D.M. Murdock has a e-book that acts as a guide to what is true and what is oversimplified in the movie. She is heavily cited by the movie producers themselves (annotated transcript) so she is an RS. She also is an expert in 19th century dutch radical literature. There are hundreds of RS's supporting various claims of the first section, a huge part of the 19th century history of religions. Fringe yes, lies no. Right now the section presents the views as lies not fringe views.
  • I don't know much about 9/11 conspiracy stuff but again there are a large number of RSes in the 9/11 conspiracy world. So most likely the same thing. This is fringe conspiracy stuff and we wouldn't expect it to get a positive review and it didn't. We need reviews from these fringe groups.
  • Finally on the international financial conspiracy, well these views have circulated for centuries and there extremely reliable sources like Lenin.

jbolden1517Talk 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Even if there were a lot of proofs to support Peter Joseph's claims, what matters in this section is what the media say, be they right or wrong. I agree with you to use lesser known sources for the sake of neutrality, as long as it is clearly stated that those sources are from minor media, and that the vast majority of media are dismissive (unless proved otherwise). — Xavier, 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: It could use some condensing, but let’s not overdo it. The section’s length and over-reliance on blockquotes is a good reason to shrink it down, but the absence of positive reviews is not a good reason to throw away negative ones. — NRen2k5(TALK), 07:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We can only source things from reliable sources. At the moment there are blogs and non-reliable web pages and sources (such as the e-book from stellar house publishing above; being on wikipedia doesn't make Dm Murdock's writing a reliable source. All the RS reviews of her work are negative.) being used in addition to reliable material. The problem with balancing is that the reliable sources are almost entirely negative. If that's the case, that's how it should be written up in Wikipedia. WP:Idontlikeit and wp:ILIKEIT are not guides for the inclusion of content, no matter how passionately some people want to believe the film. I'm busy condensing things right now. There are a couple of academic studies that include Zeitgeist. I'm afraid they're not that flattering about it, but all the material I put up will be sourced properly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem

My problem with Zeitgeist is not the nature of the film itself, but rather the fallibility of the backlash and the skeptics. Now, i'm not one for conspiratorial bullshit, and I find the information presented in Zeitgeist dubious at best, made even worse with it's relentless presentation of this information as fact.

However, my problem presented itself when thinking about the number of people that attack the film as Da Vinci Code dross. Everything presented in the film is superbly sourced, backed and serves to explain an event alternatively, no less truthful than what we accept as the truth. In fact, in some cases, such as the idea that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, the Zeitgeist explanation is far more convincing than the official line on the matter. There is no shoehorning in the film, simply assertions backed up with quotes, interviews and straightforward, occam's razor reasoning.

So, why is this video not treated with reverence and mass public interest? if what it says is true, then surely it should catalyse the biggest change in human thought of the last millennium? I say this because, as above, there is no real evidence to disprove anything stated as fact in Zeitgeist. Can anybody give me a link to a debunking of Zeitgeist or similar, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.52.163 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven’t watched Zeitgeist yet, but…
Check those sources again and see whether Zeitgeist’s interpretations really match up with what they say. The 9/11 stuff, if it follows Loose Change, might be simpler than the official story but would be just plain wrong. As for there not being evidence to disprove anything in it, that's not how it works. When someone puts a new idea forward, it’s on him to prove it, not on everybody else to disprove it. Anyway, I think it's been picked apart by the community over at the JREF already. — NRen2k5(TALK), 01:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
We should really try to keep the discussion on topic but here: Peer review for the nanothermite (case closed). I looked up the topic on the randi forum and the posters seem to agree watching 1-6 min is enough to know the whole movie to be wrong. Funny.. Did you know The Zeitgeist Forum actually has more members than that of James Randi? We are building things this is hard to debunk. What is easy to "debunk" is how the scope of the 2 movies is much to width for the Randi forum to begin comprehending what is going to happen.(something wonderful) user:Cool Hand Luke wrote: "Although several blocks have been issued, an SPA IP continues to edit war here. For a variety of reasons, I think that we can infer a coordinated off-site effort to control this article. See this thread. I think we should think about asking for long-term semi-protection." he wrote this shortly after insisting the Activist group to be a fan site which seems to be the exact opposite. I intentionally/specifically don't care about his motivation, it unquestionably illustrates a train of thought that is very different from the active participants if not exactly the opposite. The media should of course promote the status quo, they have advertisers who are unlikely to pay for their own demise. Wikipedia is essentially a second hand News outlet (for this kind of topics) so the article will of course end up biased against the movie, there is nothing that can or should be done against that. I'm not attempting to defame anyone or thing here, things are the way they are. The spirit of Wikipedia is to collaboratively write a good article. Additional Bias for or against anything is not needed or helpful. Technically the Zeitgeist movement follows the exact same spirit Wikipedia is written in. As to "debunk": "if what it says is true, then surely it should catalyse the biggest change in human thought of the last millennium? "; the Technocracy movement is at least 100 years old. The slow revolution needs you to make it so ;-) 84.104.135.141 (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Joseph's Denouncement of the 9/11 Conspiracy

The article which discusses Part II of Zeitgeist, the Movie states that Peter Joseph has now backed away from the idea that the September 11 attacks were an inside job, orchestrated and backed by the U.S. government. It sites source number 7, an article from the NY Times, as saying that Peter Joseph denounced those claims. I have read the article, twice, and it mentions nothing about Peter Joseph's denouncement of his claims, nor does it mention anything about those claims.

The article primarily talks about a convention and the subjects covered are primarily related to the “monetary vs. resource based economy” argument. I have done some light research to find an article to support the claim and have not found one. This leads me to believe that the statement that Peter Joseph has "moved away from" his claims about 9/11 is a complete fabrication and should be removed.

What do you think? Cozymonk (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The former [film] may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an "inside job" perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population, a point of view that Mr. Joseph said he has recently "moved away from." From the source. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what he meant was that he considers the 9/11 conspiracy stuff to be irrelevant. He was saying that we should understand that no matter who caused 9/11, it is a "product of a sick society", as many have said, and we should focus on curing this society rather than debate events in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.101.113 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses section again

69.114.60.244, the Responses section has already been the subject of a lot of discussion:

The consensus seems to be that the majority of the reviews being negative is not an issue, although the formatting is. So please don’t delete any of them outright – at least not without discussing it first. — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you write section media reviews for a film about medias?

In my honest opinion, as long as there would be the media reviews part, there will be a discussion about it. Also, as I started to be honest, Yes I am a member of the Zeitgeist Movement Slovakia. The film itself is very critical about medias, would you be neutral about someone who is kind of agressive against you? I am not gonna add any other other arguments, cause I ll just look as some kind of fanatic, you can surely think about them. One of the solutions I propose is to add the fact like "Films criticize medias, there s a propability that medias are unobjective, as well as The fact that Zeitgeist films might be wrong" 91.127.87.237 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Pijemcolu

Suggesting the motives behind the quotes would be original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index Wouldnt this result in a logical fallacy or some kind of vicious circle? 91.127.87.237 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Pijemcolu

Banning of Zeitgeist Studivz

Recently Zeitgeist and Venus Project were banned from a social networking site in Germany that is rather large. The reason for the ban are anti-semetic tendencies expressed by TZGM [1] Would it be in the best interests of the article as to fairness to include that in a critical section?

This has something to do with something crazy about reptiles and lizard blood that many of the Zeitgeist people apparently believe that has infected some so called ruling class. Or something like that. Here is another reference to their recent ban Update: Studivz, German Community Site Shuts down Zeitgeist Movement groups., claiming "anti-semitism" is being promoted. - Comments? - skip sievert (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Have any realiable sources commented on it? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No idea really... just looked at information from the Zeitgeist site. I would imagine that would have made news in Germany or somewhere. The service is largely comparable to other social networking sites. Studivz claims to be one of the biggest social networks in Europe, with reportedly about ten million members as of April 2008, Here is the other link I meant to give before [2]. This is apparently from the German social site to the Zeitgeist people The idea of gray eminences, elites or secret societies that control politics from behind the curtain is not new. The ZG movies extend these ideas to the economic system. And here the circle of the history of conspiracy theories closes: latent antisemitism, which shines through many of the formulated theories. Would their site would be a good source? I think the reference to the grey eminences... is the thing about reptile or lizard blood aliens influencing mainstream politics... according to the conspiracy theory. I think. Comments? - skip sievert (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Being german i can tell you that Studivz has been known to close or protect groups with questionable motivation (Spiegel Online covered a large piece where one of the founders kept protecting a stalking group because he was in it). Also there have been scandals with privacy and the misuse of userdata and other unethical business-practices to hinder potentially rivaling communities including but not limited to massive domain-grabbing and plagiarism. Due to those incidents Studivz has earned a lot of mistrust, even though it remains a very popular social community in Germany, in large due to its functionality and the fact that it is already established. There have been repeated apologies and changes in policy.
To sum it up: Even though debatable, Studivz by itself should only very cautiously be taken as a reliable source and personally i lean towards disregarding it as one.
(Sorry for poor grammar and spelling, i've had my share of beer this evening and just came here to gain some perspective on the movie i am currently watching - Zeitgeist. I am too lazy and preoccupied to back my statements made with translations right now and will probably not remember to revisit this discussion. I can assure you however, that Studivz has been the subject of many discussions and articles regarding it's integrity. Should you need more details or actual links, i'd be willing to put more effort into this upon request: msn[at]the-enemy.org)'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.145.168 (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As this is an article about the movie, not the movement, I don't think we need to refer to it. The movement did not make the movie, and we shouldn't be dealing with guilt by association, even if the accusations of anti-semitism are true. On the other hand, it would be nice to have an RS analysing the anti-semitic origins of some of the arguments in the movie, but that doesn't seem to be available. The lizards stuff is David Icke, who has been accused of anti-semitism on similar grounds, although I think that is, as per Jon Ronson's view, unfair. Icke really means shape-shifting lizards, not Jews. Oh the joys of the fringe.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Skipsievert, why do you suggest that negative coverage of the website and movement should be considered for inclusion, when you have consistently opposed any mention of the movement prior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.229.184 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses re-done and retitled

I've redone the responses page, removed the unreliable sources, added a few, renamed it criticism (as that really is all there is in reliable sources). I think it looks better. Any comments?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned the award from Rutger Hauer twice. Aside from that it looks good to me. — NRen2k5(TALK), 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The Rutger Hauer thing is a bit awkward, but it should be in the awards, and it's a reliable source attesting the spread of the film on the internet. I'll remove the Hauer mention at the top - it looks a bit crufty - but keep the "internet sensation" quote in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I never thought that rewriting was an issue, but you did a good job and the references you added are useful. Sardath (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Social myths, social truths...

An IP user changed 'alleged "social myths"' to 'alleged "social truths"' at the top of the article, and it was immediately reverted by Big Bird. However, I think the IP user is right to change the word myth. Myths can't be "alleged". However, at the same time Zeitgeist doesn't deal in "social truths" either (actually I'm not sure what a social truth is). The film makes claims about secrets kept in order to preserve power - i.e. conspiracies.

So, I suggest changing the top sentence to: Zeitgeist, the Movie is a 2007 documentary film about alleged historical and modern conspiracies, including the origins of Christianity, 9/11 and the banking system. Any objections?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the word "alleged" from "alleged myths" can safely be removed while the lead sentence maintains adequate (if not increased) context without it but I don't agree with the word "truth" being used even with the "alleged" pre-qualifier because it's not in the best interest of proper context to use the word "truth" to describe theories presented in this film. A myth can be defined as an unproved or false collective belief that is used to jus tify a social institution which is exactly what this film presents and this can be verified through numerous reliable external sources. Your new sentence, however, seems quite appropriate and I have no objections to making it the new lead sentence. I think it provides proper context and should not be reasonably challenged (not to say that it will avoid a myriad of Zeitgeist proponents changing/removing the word conspiracy under excuse of propitiousness or NPOV). I suggest you be WP:BOLD and change the sentence. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

IPs reverting without discussing

There are a couple of IPs reverting without discussing any of the changes. They appear to be single purpose accounts; I would appreciate it if they talked about it here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably some of their forum members who consider it their job to "maintain certain pages relating to the movement." I'll keep an eye on it. If it escalates again, we might consider asking for semi-protection. Cool Hand Luke 16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

conspiracyscience.com

In the external links section I put up a critcism section with a link to an article at conspiracyscience.com. Someone deleted it for no reason so I put it back up. It is not an unreliable source, in fact it is better researched and sourced then Zeitgeist. The Loose Change page has a similar thing with links to a critical Loose Change guide, and even a "Screw Loose Change" video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandthefttoaster (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the link is OK. According to WP:EXTERNAL, in particular WP:ELMAYBE, the link is probably eligible, as it is actually sourced fairly thoroughly. The criteria for external links are not the same as for [[WP:reliable] sources. The link can't be used as a source in the main text, however, as it's not WP:RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the standards for reliability are lower for links than for content, but that's not the true issue here, to me. We're not talking about a website of questionable reliability, but about a website of no reliability, whose content could never be added to Wikipedia due to its originality, combined with the lack of credentials of the author/publisher. External links shouldn't be used as a proxy to guide users to content we're not allowed to include onsite, on websites we can't use as references. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I see what you mean. This illustrates the problem in dealing with films like Zeitgeist; no one reputable enough will bother with its awful scholarship. Everything on that site is pretty impeccably sourced, but because the film is so packed full of nonsense (and in the first part almost entirely made up) the site is inevitably one-sided and steps outside of what is appropriate on wiki. If it wasn't so much on one side, I think it might qualify under WP:ELMAYBE.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok I agree 100% that it shouldn't be used as a source, but I seriously don't see any reason for it to not be a link to a critical examination of the movie. I already mentioned that Loose Change has similar links, also so does the film 9/11 In Plane Site. And I mean these sort of links are common, I see this all the time on wikipedia. For example if I go to the DOOM article (the video game), there are links to a few fansites. So a link to the OPINION of some anonymous person is ok but a well researched page with hundreds of sources is bad? Oh so the author has "no reliability" well that is just your opinion over mine. I think that most of the "9/11-Truth" websites have no reliability or even crededentials at all, but there are still links to them on the #REDIRECT 9/11 conspiracy theories article. So please explain what makes Zeitgeist different from all these other examples, because I am starting to think that the people who deleted the links to this website are Zeitgeist followers who just want to censor negative information about the film.--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok VsevolodKrolikov so Screw Loose Change isn't one sided? They are linked to on the Loose Change page. What about 911truth.org, they are linked to on the 911 conspiracies page, along with a dozen other one sided webpages on both sides of the issue. What about the many other one sided sites that are linked to in various wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandthefttoaster (talk • contribs) 03:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The solution is to make the Loose Change articles better. Although I obviously share your contempt for Zeitgeist, I have to put that aside (and actually enjoy doing so) as a wikipedia editor.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
But I already think the Loose Change article has a good set of external links. I read WP:EXTERNAL and to me it seems that both conspiracyscience AND Screw Loose Change, ect are good sources to have external links to. My point was to show that many articles have similar links to sites that are both critical and supportive of the subject, this seems to be fine with WP:EXTERNAL. Basically I have heard three reasons not to link to this site:
1. The website is one sided. Well WP:EXTERNAL does not say that links can't have a point of view, it just says that one side should not overwhelm the other. Well now there are links to the Zeitgeist videos and the Zeitgeist website, as well as two sites that are critical. Seems pretty even balanced.
How does a link to the site and video balance out two critical sites? You need two positive and two negative to balance out, the site and video are just there to show people to the film itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.101.113 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
2. The author has no credentials. Well I AGREE with this, and that is why I don't think it should be used as a source. However, I see no reason it can't be a link at the bottom of the page. I think we have to consider the situation: if this was a Michael Moore film released in theaters, then there would likely be many articles written about it by professional magazines ect. However it is a underground video made by an almost anonymous person on the internet, so it is not surprising that the media has not responded much. Basically most of the the response is going to be from anonymous people on the internet. So if one of those almost anonymous people writes a response that is well researched and is popular, (relative to Zeitgeist at least) then I think we should be able to use it as a link to a criticism of the film.
3. Someguy1221 says that the site has "no reliability" but doesn't really say why. I might agree that it is maybe just over the line of what should be allowed, but since he went out of his way to say "no reliability" instead of "questionable reliability" this makes me think that he just doesn't like what the site says. The site has a point of view, yes, but again I don't see any rule against that as long as it is only a link, not a source, and we also have links to the movie's point of view.--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The reliability issue is not whether what he says is valid. It is to do with his status as a qualified or accredited expert on the matter. He is also not a notable figure, and as far as I know is not cited or referred to by any reliable sources. So why link to it at all? We would effectively be promoting the syntheses of someone who we have no reason to trust to do it properly. It's frustrating, because I personally think it's a very good site, but imagine if we bent the rules on this one how much the woo woo people would feel (even more) justified in spamming wikipedia with unverified made up nonsense.
You say that Basically most of the the response is going to be from anonymous people on the internet. So if one of those almost anonymous people writes a response that is well researched and is popular, (relative to Zeitgeist at least) then I think we should be able to use it as a link to a criticism of the film. Wikipedia is not the whole of the internet (Thank Heavens), and there are other places to carry out arguments about the film, but until that debate is documented in a certain domain, we have to be careful about using material that is not (in this technical sense) reliable. Wikipedia is not the only model of encyclopaedia; what we're coming up against here is one of the model's weaknesses - the lack of authority to say or even push readers towards thinking something is crap unless someone else in authority says it is first. Where other encyclopaedias employ experts to write their articles, they don't face this nearly as much. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer a question from Grandthefttoaster, the site is unreliable because it doesn't meet the standard of reliability: ...a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It's essentially a random website written and maintained by a person who, based on his own statements about himself, has no credentials in the areas he is writing about, and if any known reliable sources cite him, there's no evidence of it. I have no particular disagreements with what he writes, but then again, I'm also not a published expert in the relevant areas. And the point about most scholars ignoring this topic is a very important one; the neutral point of view is to accurately present the viewpoint(s) of the reliable sources on the topic. For the same reason we, as editors, wouldn't pick and choose content based on what "we" thought sounded right instead of what was verifiable, I don't think we should link to unquestionably unreliable (by Wikipedia's standard) sources just because our own biases tell us the sources are accurate. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone (aside from me) fact checked the sources on conspiracyscience.com? I suspect many are inadequate. The source on Josephus's knowledge of Jesus points to what appears to be a Christian writing about Josephus. Unacceptable. More damningly, the pages that the author gives in the 9/11 Commission Report as referring to WTC-7 DO NOT MENTION WTC-7 AT ALL! I know because I have a copy of the Report right here, and I checked those pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.181.223 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The person above me thinks that the sources used by conspiracyscience are inadequate. Well I decided to do something that no Zeitgest true-believer would ever do, I checked it out myself, and even contacted the author. It is true that the pages he says mention WTC-7 don't reffer to it in the print version. But the PDF version he cites lists the title page and contents as pages, like all PDFs. So when I search for 7 WTC it shows results on pages 301, 310, 319, and 322, exactly what the author said. Interesting. Also the person above me mentions "what appears to be a Christian writing about Josephus". I think that they mean Eusebius' The Church History quoting Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum from The Antiquities of the Jews. All of the surviving manuscripts of The Antiquities of the Jews are from after Eusebius' time so using Eusebius' version of the Testimonium Flavianum isn't unacceptable. The author of conspiracyscience says that the Testimonium Flavianum may have been altered by Christians, which is the same view held by most historians. You can learn more about the Testimonium Flavianum on the Josephus on Jesus page.--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to check their research because they are not a reliable source and do not pass WP:EL. Same old problem that we've confronted again and again: Zeitgeist is so kooky that mainstream commentators won't touch it. Cool Hand Luke 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is what the WP:EL page says: "Links to be considered: 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." See, links are not the same thing as sources. Conspiracyscience.com fails to meet criteria for reliable sources, yet still contain information about Zeitgeist from knowledgeable sources (such as the 9/11 Commission Report). I have read the WP:EL multiple times, and I can't find where it states that the link has to be written by a person with credentials, or can't be one sided, or has to qualify as a reliable source- in fact it pretty much says the opposite. Remember we are talking about LINKS not SOURCES!--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been on this project for five years. You don't have to tell me the difference between links and sources. Partisan links are not generally acceptable, nor are personal websites, which this clearly is. Cool Hand Luke 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll get onto inserting the new reliable source material (see section below) this week. It deals with Josephus perfectly well.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Good, I thought the part where Dr. Forbes pointed out that the movie dosen't cite any ancient evidence to support it's claims, was especially important.--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source on criticism of the first part now available

Just a heads up. user:CPX has linked to an interview with Chris Forbes, an established scholar of ancient history, about Zeitgeist. See his page at Macquarie University here. (Cambridge visiting scholar, occasional lecturer at University of Sydney etc.) Now we can tackle the first part in a more scholarly manner.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DoneVsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A little background for those who wish to remove the criticism

This article was created and deleted numerous times in the past, because there were not any reliable sources establishing notability. It was only when reliable sources began to appear that many of the editors who opposed the existence of this article relented. The fact that the reliable sources are overwhelmingly critical is perhaps unfortunate for supporters of the film, but they are what establishes notability. The removal of those sources makes the article once again vulnerable to the AfD process. So like it or not, the existence of this article on wikipedia depends on that criticism. - Crockspot (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good summary of the article, its possible future, and the critical thinking about it. skip sievert (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
On a point of principle I disagree that the criticism is what makes the film notable. There is reliable evidence out there regarding the notably high number of views it has had on google video, on Zeitgeist movie showings etc. However, crockspot is right in saying that the supporters of the film have to deal with the fact that notable critiques have all been negative to various degrees.
I note that the detailed criticism of part one has been a particular target for those wishing to suppress criticism. I wrote the section in that amount of detail based on the principle that simply stating the fact that the source was critical of part one was unhelpful to the point of being weaselly vague. I gave some of the details so that people understand the nature of the criticism. It would also be unbalanced for claims stated in the synopsis to go unchallenged where challenge has been made in RS sources.
I suggest that those who wish to remove parts or all of the criticism section actually try to discuss matters here first.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that if advocates of the film don't like the fact that the criticism section is filled with negative reviews that they find some notable positive reviews and add them. With proper citations of course. Either that or accept the possibility that the film is not what they think it is. I haven't seen the film myself, only heard secondhand accounts and read reviews, but they also have been entirely negative in terms of questioning its accuracy. From what I understand this film is basically the Freddy Got Fingered of conspiracy movies: passionate and ambitious but catastrophically flawed. But hey, FGF made a profit too. Lando242 (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tag

Any objections to removing the NPOV tag?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Since no one's objected, I've removed the tag. For the months that the tag has been in place, no substantial claims of POV were made, aside from the perennial claim that there is too much criticism (despite the fact that the negative reviews are the only reviews from reliable sources). Someguy1221 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

The article is now temporarily semi-protected due to a series of anons inserting the following unsourced statement and attacking editors who remove it:

In October 2009, Zeitgeist, The Movie received the prestigious Aaron Grando FIHNS Award of Excellency in Philadelphia, USA.

This statement can be added to the article if any user provides a source or link or any sort of substantiation for this. Gamaliel (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism or Mistake... in the article?

There is a paragraph that says:

"The planet Earth rotates in reverse direction, i.e. towards the west. It is not clear if this is a mistake or an intention."

It's irrelevant...

MayaZero 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Economics

Economics - Thus far, all criticism has been focused on the 9/11 issue. I intend to construct some economic criticism which is totally lacking and an important element of the movie's thesis. If anyone want to contribute, I will develop it on my talk page until it is developed enough to put into the article. 99.227.188.160 (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, thought I was logged in. Friedonc (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Any attempt made to criticise or even validate an article topic is considered original research unless it has been published in a reliable source. Even if the information you are adding seems true, unless the sources actually discuss Zeitgeist specifically, it is still original synthesis. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Someguy - not one of my points is original. My comments are econ and corporate finance 101, gathered from a variety reliable sources. Most is background information such as the details regarding M1, M2, M3. The only line you 'might' suggest is original is the comment that the movie is critical of borrowing from the fed. As such, I will remove that one sentence and leave the other comments intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedonc (talk • contribs) 12:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Friedonc, you labeled the section "Economic Criticism" If it's not criticism, it's irrelevant (Catch 22, eh?). This article is about Zeitgeist; it is not about economics. Information on the latter belongs on other articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Now you argue it is irrelevant. I thought the problem was original research? One of the main thesis of the movie is that the Fed charges interest and banks must borrow from the fed and the money supply is all wrong. These are totally relevant and the film maker gets this totally wrong. It belongs. Friedonc (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You choose the point of the section. Either you are describing the economics for the sake of proving the movie wrong (original research), or you are describing it for the sake of describing it (irrelevant), either way, the content doesn't belong. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I added commentary from another source that calls the economics wrong and you still revert the economic criticism. I added non-original research 'and' made it relevant. What part are you sticking to? Is there no one else familiar with economics watching this page that cares to make a comment? Friedonc (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The on-topic source you added, http://www.conspiracyscience.com/site/about/ has been repeatedly removed from this article as it doesn't meet the standard for a reliable source (not even for a semi-reliable self-published source). It fails RS mostly because it is self-published, and any possible reliability is removed by the fact that the site is written by a software engineer. Self-published sources are allowed on articles about amateur theories only if written by an established expert in the field. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC
  • Hi Friedonc. Reading over the present criticism section, I don't think any reader will come away from reading this article concluding that the movie makes economic sense. Also, you wrote "The movie is so flawed in terms of the economic concepts that no credible economist will bother making any commentary in writing; it is almost like I have to prove that 2+2=4."[3] If economist do not think that the movie deserves treatment in economic reliable sources, then there is no reason that Wikipedia should. Wikipedia's article content policies are set up to make Wikipedia nothing more than a reliable source summarizer rather than an originator. -- Suntag ☼ 00:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. Your reliable sources need to mention Zeitgeist otherwise it's Original Research. If no reliable sources are criticizing the film than there's no need to mention it in an encyclopedia because it's not notable enough. Pdelongchamp (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Fun fact: Mathematicians have gone to the trouble of proving 1 + 1 = 2. See the Principia Mathematica, which "is an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic." Education is important to a lot of people, so sources may eventually come on this, if only to educate people on the mainstream of Economical thought. Unfortunately, none of the stuff presented in the movie is new, and most of the material debunking it refers to Zeitgeist's sources, not the movie itself. --Phirazo (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I like your style, Phirazo - exactly. Perhaps mainstream economics has no viable way of addressing the economic realities (or unrealities) of the current world. Not everything that's happening around us is subject to rational analysis - and even if it were, we still need an ontological basis for mathematics and economics. It's a good thing that films like Zeitgeist occur to stir the mud a little - if the economists don't care to clean it up for us in a way that's reasonable and timely, that's a public relations issue for economists. Interestingly, in other fields, like math or geology or anthropology or sociology, undergraduates are able to competently edit wikipedia articles that are filled with gross errors in those fields. If there's not a single reputable economist who has even seen the movie, then people who are undergrads in econ should ask their profs to watch the film, write about the film, and then use that as a source. Someone, somewhere, must have pointed out the obvious and egregious errors in this film if they are so easily seen - in print. If not, I find that in itself very interesting. Makes the phenomena of the film (and its distribution) far more interesting.--DrJarr (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the conspiracy?

I make this question because in the header of the article it is stated that the film is about "the Jesus myth, the attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank as well as a number of conspiracy theories related to those three main topics" are discussed in the film. I don't see a conspiracy theory in basing facts on documented conversations, released documents and historical records. That's making a historical work. Conspiracy theories are myths, and the films exactly tries to dismount myths. A conspiracy is what we were told of the 9/11, that 19 people kidnapped planes and crashed them against key buildings. We all know here that the term conspiracy theory has a taste to fantasy and invention that cannot be attributed to this film. What is told in the film is historical TRUTH because it can be scientifically contrasted, therefore I think that it shouldn't be stated that conspiracy theories are the topic of this film. It's just telling history in a different but ACCURATE way. What do everyone else think? --150.244.125.116 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Javier Hermosa

I agree that the film focuses on the foundation (Human behavior) which initiate Conspiracies, more than conspiracies themselves. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The message of the movie is that The Pope, The Government, and The International Bankers are conspiring to create a One World Government and implant a microchip in everyone to control mankind forever. How is that not a conspiracy theory? --Phirazo (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You are a retard. 128.210.12.38 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"conspiracy theory" is a blanket label used by gatekeepers of the status quo to suppress all dangerously critical discussion.
Surely, Wikipedia should not fall into that trap (although dogmatic enforcement of the "no original research" guideline makes it difficult to avoid). Janosabel (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is not supposed to be a debate. Any conclusions we reach would likely be original research anyway. Instead, we should focus on how the movie is actually described by reliable sources. The movie is clearly described as a conspiracy movie. The Village Voice mentioned it in passing as "conspiracy crap," the New Orleans Times-Picayune called it "conspiracy-minded" in friendly capsule summary, and a columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald described it as "The world's greatest conspiracies in a one-and-a-half-hour movie only online," in a short friendly plug. It was mentioned on an MSNBC blog as "a comical collection of conspiracy theories that ties together Christianity, the attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank." A tech columnist for Globe and Mail said, the "film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular." This seems reasonable given what the film actually depicts. So, according to verifiable sources, the label is apt. Cool Hand Luke 05:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...we should focus on how the movie is actually described by reliable sources...
"reliable sources"??
Is this an objective proposal or an apology for total denial of fundamental problems with the status quo? Janosabel (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I was starting to think the world was a bit crazy before I read Cool Hand Luke's comment that the majority of reputable sources treated this movie as a bit crazy. Thanks Cool Hand Luke. Might I say that I support "focusing on how the movie is described by reliable sources" and not the status quo of this page.--Kiyarrlls-talk 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Almost User:Dwarf Kirlston, what you are trying to say is that the status quo is the reliable source. And you mean to imply that the status quo will always refer to this kind of material as conspiracy theory. Which Javier should understand as: Wikipedia allows everyone to freely combine quotations from the status quo/news/reliable sources into articles. To prove the point, here you can see the keywords stuffed into articles reviewing other movies. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've only watched the film one time, recently. It seems to me to be a narrated montage, a kind of blog with pictures. If there is a coherent theory behind the film, I didn't see it. What we have, instead, is a group of internet-based writers, saying things about the film, which then constitute "sources" about the film. It's just a film. Has anyone found any sources explaining the film's apparent popularity among college students?--DrJarr (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence

For those of you who think anecdotal evidence is insufficient, I'd like to point out that most court systems rely, oftentimes solely, on witness testimonies, i.e. anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, additional evidence of the matters discussed in the film is unavailable since no investigation into the witnesses' claims was ever made.

Social events are not entirely subject to scientific method since the events cannot be re-created. Therefore, most evidence of social events is anecdotal, since in the end one must simply take someone's word for it. The question is, then, Who has something to gain by lying? I'll take multiple civilian testimonies over "official" views any day.

--- (Jesus was killed and so were his disciples far before the council of nicea. Jesus teachings still are very destructive to any form of opression-so to claim that they are somehow a source of opression merely shows a lack of understanding of the teachings of Jesus and of history itself. See "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel to see part of the mountain of evidence zeitgiest doesn't want you to hear.) ---May 17, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.224.84 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Also in court lying is a punishable offense. Making a movie that has false evidence is not. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of The Movie Section -- Needed

Many documentaries, books, etc, that have articles in Wikipedia, include also textual criticism of the work (if we are on the topic of conspiracy theories, Loose Change (film). I have tried to insert this on two occasions, but Someguy1221 has removed both attempts. The latest undo (of version 01:44, 18 February 2009): (rv, new criticism is a combination of original research and content from unreliable, self-published sources). Even if a lot of the sources on wikipedia are self-published anyway, I will leave that comment aside, and still state that a criticism section should be added. This is given that criticism sections exist, in general, for literary and film works all throughout Wikipedia. And I am not talking about criticism from film reviewers. I direct all to, for example, an entire wikipedia page on criticism of the content of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

That said, I started sectioning off the criticism for Zeitgeist, as in the Fahrenheit 911 page. Due to the nature of the film release (not yet in wide release), we are not going to have "fully published" sources of criticism immediately. Maybe they exist already, but have not been found. I still don't think this negates the need for a criticism section though. Instead of outright deletion, let's rework it then to meet the standards. I have re-instated the changes with some modification, and look forward to constructive comments. Greco italiano (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that most of the sources given for criticism of Fahrenheit 9/11 are, actually, reliable sources. And no, it is not "a given" that criticism should be included. Wikipedia is supposed to present articles in the neutral point of view, which is the collection of views that can be ascribed to reliable sources. A critical veiwpoint that has never been expressed by a reliable source is one that is insignificant and should never appear on Wikipedia. And so there is actually no possibility of "rework[ing] it...to meet the standards" as no amount of rewriting will get around the absence of reliable sources. Zeitgeist garnered only a handful of reviews from reliable sources, and these are disappointingly insubstantive. It's unfortunate, but some articles will just never be more than a bare description and a link to the offical website, as nothing else is verifiable. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221, you say the UK LP "blog" cannot be considered an RS, yet some person designated with the label journalist can be accounted for-- why does this work for some random reporter having an opinion versus an actual political leader? Where are the reasons for reinstating either the CBC Radio or the Village Voice criticisms?Psychspy (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't support the inclusion of the opinion of "some person designated with the label journalist." I support the inclusion of content from an article that has somehow satisfied the editorial review provided by a reputable news source (note, I did not restore either the CBC Radio or Village Voice criticisms). Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, and turning a criticisms/commentary section into list of every opinion that's ever been uttered by anyone would create exactly that. Instead, as with any neutral attempt at writing an article, we confine ourselves to commentary that's been provided by reliable sources. Individuals are not reliable sources for what a significant viewpoint is, only for what their own is. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
All right, thank you; I understand. I will remove the CBC Radio and Village Voice criticisms-- the criticism from the CBC Radio one is inaccurate and does not "summarize," while the Village Voice one is simply in passing and is hardly notable let alone substantive. Psychspy (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Just because you don't like the criticism, doesn't mean it should be removed. We already have too few sources on this subject.--Sloane (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of analysis and careful debunking of zeitgeist claims here http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/the-myth-of-jesus-a-refutation-of-the-zeitgeist/ ```17 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.224.84 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The site just mentioned above (the debunking Zeitgeist site) is hogwash. It's an anti-atheist, pro-Christian zealot's site. Of course he can debunk all of it. Pitting mythologies against each other is a silly task - and the article on Zeitgeist is not the place to do that. Most articles on books and movies don't have extensive sections on "criticisms of" the particular piece. I hated Gangs of New York. So did a bunch of critics. I loved War and Peace, but I can find people who disliked it and wrote that down somewhere. Why is this particular film so special? If the article can explain why the movie deserves a special criticism section (it reads as if some people are frightened by the contents of the movie, that while they assert that the movie is basically about as factual as the Blair Witch project, they're devoting way more time to debunking this film than to Blair Witch). That, in and of itself, is a sociological phenomenon. I'm pretty interested in that aspect of the film, which is why I'm here today reading this page. However, I don't know of anyone in sociology who has published an article on the sociological impact of Zeitgeist - if I ever get time, I'll look that up.--DrJarr (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Blair Witch isn't presented as a serious documentary of real events (even if it was shot to appear that way). Gangs of New York and War and Peace are historical fiction. Zeitgeist however presents itself as a documentary of real historical facts. Any film that does is fair game for scrutiny and criticism of accuracy. -Jordgette (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Media criticism of Zeitgeist movie unbalanced

Media criticism of Zeitgeist movie is unbalanced being mainly negative and abusive with the film critics abandoning film criticism for ideological correctness.

For balance I recommend referencing the 27 Customers Reviews in Amazon.com which cover the spectrum of opinion more justly than the current Wikipedia article on Zeitgeist. (March 10, 2009) http://www.amazon.com/Zeitgeist-Movie-Peter-Joseph/dp/0930852591/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1236707213&sr=8-9 Can this be done? I am a tyro.208.103.131.152 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Customer reviews are not reliable sources, so they can't be used. We have to keep in mind the neutral point of view. Making the criticism "neutral" means sticking to what reliable sources say. If the body of reliable sources happens to be unbalanced, then so will the criticism section. Balancing it with insignificant information is beyond the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not meant to slant some articles completely in favor of one point of view, but it's merely a fact that for some topics, there is only a single widely held viewpoint amongst reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The only way here would be to become a "reliable source" yourself and then produce a different kind of criticism. What makes one a reliable source then? Since wikipedia serves the people even "insignificant" soruces should be heard when in large volume and overwhelmingly topping the "reliable" sources. That only seems fair to me. But if the case is such in this particular situation I cannot say. --193.77.254.198 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC) - forgot to sign up --Neikius (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What makes one a reliable source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is conformation to WP:RS. One of the main criteria from RS that can not be met by customer reviews is that anonymous Amazon.com customers are not considered "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". "Insignificant" sources, such as above mentioned customer reviews proclaiming "this movie is awesome", don't neccessarily contribute anything that would expand the reader's understanding of the subject at hand. Popular opinions and user ratings are not usually encyclopedic material and are best left for IMDb's user ratings section. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Using customer reviews? I guess i know where i need to troll now... TO AMAZON! 72.199.100.223 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of criticism

The criticism section should remain because it is filled with significant viewpoints from reliable sources. And while this section may be negative, it is not biased. For an article to be neutral on Wikipedia it must honestly report the major viewpoints of reliable sources, and it so happens that all reliable sources to review the movie took a negative viewpoint. Removing on the basis that criticism or reviews don't belong is also inappropriate, since these negative reviews are what make Zeitgeist notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit to the article conflicted with your revert of the fellow who removed all of them. I agree that some criticism does indeed belong here, but we should try to keep the criticism section in proportion to the rest of the article.. I removed a few of them and attempted to avoid a US bias in the ones I left, I'm not attached to my selection though - if you think that one of the others was better, feel free to swap. --Versageek 00:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, it should definitely stay. Without it, the article wouldn't amount to much. This is simply a controversial movie, which is bound to get heaps of criticism.--Sloane (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Christianity is recycled animism/paganism is hardly new, and has lots of supporters. Shall we cite those as in favor of the first section of the movie?--DrJarr (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Beddru

The film claims that "Beddru" was a God in Japan, yet that name makes no phonetic sense in the Japanese language and a simple Google search will show that no such "god" has ever existed. Cyslmwah (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the movie made up a lot of things.68.51.140.3 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.100.223 (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How many people have watched Zeitgeist?

Google video has no view counter, nor does te zeitgeist movie website. There is lot's of snippets in youtube, but no estimation has yet to be made for this phenomenon. So, what do you think? --Procrastinating@talk2me 10:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a college teacher. I have a sample size of about 300 students this semester. Approximately 10% of them have seen Zeitgeist. Of the freshmen, only about 1% have seen Zeitgeist, of the seniors, about 17% had seen Zeitgeist. Among my colleagues (there are about 20 of them), I am the only one who has seen Zeitgeist. That's a bit of independent research, unpublished, but it points to Zeitgeist being a college student-based/transmitted phenomenon. I've also looked at several blogs and hit counters on blogs about Zeitgeist, and emailed a few of the people who left comments with emails. Only a handful have responded (7). Only one of them is a college student, the remaining 6 are college graduates who collected degrees in the years 2005-2009. So, the zeitgeist of Zeitgeist, the Movie, is a youthful one. Most reviews I read of the movie in professional literature (on editorial pages, I see no actual articles on the movie) are not as hard on the movie as what is quoted in the article here. People take the view that in these confusing, post-modern times, where many people have individually experienced some form of disinformation or collusion on the part of corporations (Enron and California, as one example), movies like Zeitgest do embody the zeitgeist, which, I would think, is the point of the movie (not whether it's true or not). It's one person's extended viewpoint on life on Earth at this point in time. That fact that this one viewpoint resonates with quite a few other people - certainly hundreds of thousands, is interesting. Anyway, my bet would be that about 10% of college educated/college attending people aged 18-28 in the United States have seen Zeitgeist, the movie, at a minimum. Not that this matters to the article, but perhaps someone will be inspired to publish data on this someday.--DrJarr (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

More discussion of December 25th

I suggest more discussion about the first "factual" assertions in the movie claim the birth of several "god" figures on born December 25th. This content is rather strange because there was no modern December 25th in any Calendar in the B.C., and the references in the movie are clearly references to the modern December 25th. These "god" figures were all from different civilizations with different calendars, all of which preceded the modern Calendar which has the modern December 25th. The explanation of this being shortly after the shortest day of the year is a weak statement. Historically the shortest day of the year changes in various Calendars depending on exactly how long the particular Calendar defines a year to be. Also the claim that December 25th is special in some way for this reason is suspect because the movement of the Sun from North to South and back over the course of a year is similar to that of movement around a circle or in other words is close to sinusoidal. The rate of movement is at the minimum near the shortest day and the longest day of the year. This means that the noticing that the day is getting longer is less likely during these parts of the year. In three days during this part of the year, the day would lengthen about one part in a thousand. Remembering that one would have to check the end of the day against of the beginning of the day in order to notice this, one part in a thousand is about 40 seconds over a 12 hour period. Another major flaw in the movie's statement about December 25th and its relationship to the shortest day of the year, that is only in the Northern hemisphere. In the Southern hemisphere, December 25th is the longest day of the year, so are ALL these "god" figures from the Northern side of the Earth? I have not written this up and put it into the article, but clearly it should be there. Such glaring factual flaws in the movie should be noted. Feel free to write something up and put it in using any of the facts I discussed here. If nobody does this, I will refine my facts to be more accurate as well as referencing them, whenever I finally get a chance to do so...which may not be soon HonestGent (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the first part is bizarre (since when was Krishna, with seven older brothers, born to a virgin?), although I think my favourite is the claim that the words Horizon and sunset come from the ancient Egyptians (it's what really set alarm bells ringing, as well as the Japanese God that not only doesn't exist but defies the rules of Japanese pronunciation). That said, I don't know of any reliable source that makes these points, and it's not the job of wikipedia to analyse the film in that way (WP:NOR), only to report on others who have. Like you, I am surprised that not more has been made of problems with the first part. Too many are mesmerised by the modern day conspiracies. Good luck in finding scholarly analyses.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I suspect you're right about all of this, but we're constrained by WP:NOR, like VsevolodKrolikov says. No respectable source has produced a comprehensive rebuttal, so we're confined to the few criticisms that have be published. Cool Hand Luke 15:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to answer part of your question -yes, the resurrection stories and sun god stories are both mainly northern hemisphere kinds of stories. Did Sub-Saharan Africa and the rainforests of South America once have such festivals but lost them in most places? I do not. Some people of the Southern Hemisphere have winter festivals- but not nearly so much as in the North. You can look at any world map and see why (or read Guns, Germs and Steel for a discussion of ideas/people moving southward in both hemispheres in ancient times...)--LeValley 05:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
And, Wikipedia does mention that some Krsna followers believe he was born without sexual union. Here's a quote from Krishna's Wikiarticle:
"According to Bhagavata Purana it is believed that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki. Hindus believe that in that time, this type of union was possible for achieved beings.[36][43][44]
The footnotes of course refer to references on Krishna's page. A lot of the comments on this discussion forum would be improved by reading Wikipedia's own pages on the topics - and then checking those sources. That's the value of an article like this one. Want to prove him wrong? Find the citations - if it's so easy to do, the citations will be here on Wikipedia - somewhere, and if they aren't, they should be.--LeValley 05:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Born of Virgins

In the reception part of the article:

"Forbes claims there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins."

It would appear then that Forbes is in direct dispute with Wikipedia itself, as if you go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna#Birth

You find this: "According to Bhagavata Purana it is believed that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki."

and if you go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Birth

You find this: "Dionysus had a strange birth that evokes the difficulty in fitting him into the Olympian pantheon. His mother was a mortal woman, Semele, the daughter of king Cadmus of Thebes, and his father was Zeus, the king of the gods."

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis#Origins_and_mythos

You find:

"Pausanias was told that the daemon Agdistis initially bore both male and female attributes. But the Olympian gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ and cast it away. There grew up from it an almond-tree, and when its fruit was ripe, Nana who was a daughter of the river-god Sangarius picked an almond and laid it in her bosom. The almond disappeared, and she became pregnant. Nana abandoned the baby (Attis)."

So I agree, Horus was not born of a virgin however it seems as if Forbes is unfairly attempting to split hairs with the rest. "Having sex" with a god is not generally recognised as a way of losing your virginity, neither is "mental transmission" or placing an almond on your bosom. Each of these people, according to their respective legends, was born without a human father involved, which I and I think most people would agree, is the crux of the argument in Zeitgeist.

For consistency either this article should be ammended or the other relevent ones should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.254.221 (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Forbes splitting hairs? I think it's you that is. Because ONE of eight children that Krishna's mother had wasn't sexual, THE OTHER SEVEN WEREN'T. That's why she's not a virgin. And it already said Semele was pregnant. Look, Zeitgiest was just cherry picking for most of the information here. Go ahead and beleive it, but if your going to post things about what is and isn't true, at least read a bit more into the same links you present. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

None of it matters, in any event. When something is a matter of interpreation, we go with what the reliable sources say, and not with what we conclude. Neither this talk page nor the article is the place to argue (for or against) the veracity of Zeitgeist's claims. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Someguy is right. See also WP:SYN. Cool Hand Luke 15:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, user talk 88.96 - I was wondering the same thing. As for what's allowed on the discussion page - well, I'd think any information about what's actually in the article could be discussed right here. Allowing a fairly unknown scholar to say that Dionysius, Krishna, etc. were never associated with virgin births is silly. Someone needs to go to JSTOR and research religious mythologies, I guess. But the Wikiarticles cited by 88.96 are correct. Furthermore, the word "Virgin" doesn't have a universally agreed upon meaning - especially in theology. You all apparently think that there's been no PIV sex - right? "Being born without sexual intercourse occurring" is indeed, a belief in a virgin birth. Does everybody really think that Mary and Joseph weren't getting it on? And yet, the *story* is that it's a virgin birth. Get it? And the same story sprung up around countless other gods - many in North American Indian lore as well. I can't really figure out how this theme fits in Zeitgeist's overall viewpoint, but that's because I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about Zeitgeist. But the virgin story (and calling it that whether or not the woman still had an intact hymen) when "not ordinary sex" is really what is implied - is typical. Look up the meaning of the word in Greek - it was their word, we've borrowed it, but the meaning has changed. For that project, all you'll need is a basic Greek lexicon.--LeValley 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Literary References to Jesus

The following early non-Biblical texts indicate that Jesus was a historical figure: Suetonius wrote about Christ (Annals 15.44). Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus in his Antiquities. Julian Africanus quoted Thallus discussing Christ in Extant Writings, 18. Pliny the Younger wrote about Christ in Letters 10:96. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) talks about Jesus. Lucian of Samosata wrote about Jesus in the second century A.D. Mara-Bar Serapion wrote about Jesus. The Gnostic writings all mention Jesus. Eliezar wrote of Jesus' return. Jesus and the Gospel are mentioned in the Qur'an. Tacitus mentioned Christians in the first century A.D. All from http://gotquestions.org/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.136.176 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting "reliable" source you found there. The same site, in frequently asked questions about the Bible[4], says, "The Bible is a reflection of its Author. All books are. The Bible was written by God Himself." Regarding Noah's Ark: "Whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare."[5]
I'm afraid you'll have to do slightly better than that. -Jordgette (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you're proposing, that the Qur'an doesn't exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.126 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Zeitgeist Movie sites should not be allowed in the external links section

Anti-Zeitgeist Movie sites should not be allowed in the external links section. This is a film in and of itself and Wikipedia is not a place to voice the biased opinions of those who dislikes the content. All links should be related to the main work itself. Otherwise, there will be 100s of attack sites listed. Wikipedia isn't here for debate. Wikipedia in this sense is also being used for promotion of biased sites which seek revenue via the popularity of the film itself. This is not a place for advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon2112 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, advertising is the not the position of Wikipedia and 3rd party sites that discuss the film from the position of opinion are obviously not objective and should not be allowed here. This is to maintain neutrality of this article. --Falcon2112 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical links are commonplace on wikipedia and are acceptable. Certainly links defending the movie (assuming the possibility that it could be defensible) would likewise be appropriate. Mamalujo (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article will be in dispute if any person with a problem with the film is allowed to post their website. The link should be objective- otherwise 100s of links would likely be added which are biased and hate filled. --208.120.242.125 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a valid objection. It is commonplace on wikipedia for critical sites to be included under external links. Hundreds of links have not been added nor are they likely to be. If a link is hate filled, then we can deal with that. Mamalujo (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I think at the very least, these three links should be included because they are articles and interviews by scholars who are cited in the article:
Sounds great to me. PorkHeart (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree with me and I'd like to see what others have to say. But is there anyway to keep this asshat Falcon2112 from changing the article without discussing it? This person keeps ranting that any criticism will "opens the door for 100s of blogs and personal perspectives that have no notoriety" As I've explained, Chris Forbes and Tim Callahan are scholars who are already listed in the article. The only Wikipedia articles that Falcoln2112 has ever edited are Zeitgeist related, so it's not hard to see where he/she came here from.Grandthefttoaster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

If Link against the work are to be posted so should links definding it. The 220 Page source Guide PDf was added. This is Official and needs to stay. Skyperiod (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If criticism from supposed authorities are to be added to this page in this section, then, logically, supporting documents and counter arguments can be addded to: FYI. --Skyperiod (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux's video blog is not a reliable source for wikipedia

I've reverted for the second time the insertion of material sourced to a youtube post by Stefan Molyneux. This source is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia. If one looks at the guidelines for reliable sourcing it is clear that the youtube video comes under self-published sourcing. Reading from the relevant section, it is clear that because Molyneux's expertise in the field has not been credited by reliable third party sources, that his views, no matter how incisive or objective they may seem, do not qualify as a source on Wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jane Chapman Is wrong about the Madrid Footage

Note: The 2007 and 2010 update both had, on screen, the text saying it was the Madrid Bombing. Chapman implies is was deceitful as it was not labeled. This is incorrect. This has been removed Skyperiod (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Chapman reference in the article misrepresents what Chapman said, and who called it a lie (she cites someone approvingly doing so). I think her critique stays in. It's clear that there was a later addition of a subtitle.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A "versions" sub section should be created

If there is a dispute over the versions of the film and which should be included in this Wiki, then we should simply have a versions section. Again, in 10 years, no will know anything but the current version which is the only officially distributed version. The argument being put forth here by some is that the prior version is, for some reason, more important than the current one. This has no basis in logic - but for the meantime, we can have both. Agreed? Otherwise, there will be a long and hard war on this article as more people become aware of the dispute, I can assure you.Skyperiod (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Skyperiod, you are violating all kinds of wikipedia policies. First of all, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we don't edit with regard to editors' guesses about the future. Changes in wikipedia come after, not before, changes in the real world. Secondly, it is clear you are editing against consensus. Thirdly, you appear to be threatening to get other Zeitgeist supporters involved in an edit war. A "versions" subsection detailing revision would be a good idea, if it can be properly sourced. However, I must say that you appear to be very close to the Zeitgeist movement, and I am concerned that you are editing wikipedia for the wrong reasons.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


I am threatening nothing. I am making an observation. Also your statement is riddled with non-objective bias. What is a "Zeitgeist Supporter"? Are you a "non-supporter"? I'm being objective and logical. What-You can't handle that?Skyperiod (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Also- What consensus?! There are only two of us here?!Skyperiod (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are three editors opposing your suggestion that all references to previous versions are taken out. That's good enough for consensus, especially considering that you are an single purpose account with an apparent POV. Removal of well-sourced material that is relevant to the topic because you don't like what it says is against wikipedia policy. If you can find reliably sourced material that is more flattering of the film, go ahead and include it - in fact, please include it, as it would improve the article. The issue is, it seems reliable sources have been almost entirely negative about the film, and this is what wikipedia should reflect. Not what you or I happen to think. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I would also point you to the editor who commented earlier on your user talk page. -Jordgette (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Universal classification of the film being a "conspiracy" film?

The Universal classification of the film being a "conspiracy" film is biased and should not be included included in the intro., overall statement of the film. The film is a documentary, very simply. It content can only be considered "conspiratorial" in total via opinion. Such an overarching statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon2112 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If only this very question had been discussed at some point on this page above...maybe we could have reached some kind of, I don't know, consensus? -Jordgette (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If the goal is to be objective, then such a qualifier holds no ground. It is more honest to say it is a "documentary film", for there is an extensive precedent for such a notion. There is, however, no precedent for a "conspiracy film" as it has no active definition. Anything could be call such a thing. The first part of the work, for example, is not describing conspiracy in any way until the final lines when discussing the Counsel of Nicea. Everything else is showing the alleged relationship of modern religions to pagan ones. It is academic. So, to use such an overarching notion is biased and incorrect when the whole film is taken into account. --Falcon2112 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I applaud you for being bold. However, being bold does not mean disregarding a long history of discussions and going ahead and doing whatever you want to do, as if you were the first person to revise the article. This is particularly problematic if you're using your account for one purpose and one purpose only. Like I said, an admin will take care of it one way or another. -Jordgette (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I put the term "conspiracy" in the proper place- 9/11 section. This is more objective and contextually correct. --Falcon2112 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good points. This film is not to be reduced to a "conspiracy flick" it is full of concrete dats for sure. Too bad people are so judegmental sometimes. Redisco27 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Horus Birth "however" and the Source it links to

In the article: "According to egyptologists, however, Horus' birth was on the second Epagomenal day (early august).", which links to this site: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Calendar.html However, if you dig around the site a little bit, you can find the section about Horus: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/NetjeruH.html#Horus Notably, the birth date: "25th December - 10th Mechir - Birth of Heru (Horus), the child of Aset (Isis), Day of elevating the Great Netjret (goddess) in all her names and manifestations." The bit in the article may be referencing this: "15th of July, the 2nd Epagomenal Days, is the Birthday of Heru(Horus)" (also from the same page on Horus). Seems a bit ambiguous, perhaps remove or expand? It isn't clear what the "egyptologists" believe from the article linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.232.67 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. Actually, I've removed the sentence - it shouldn't have been in that section, and the sourcing was not up to wikipedia standards. There appears to be a lot of factual errors in part 1. The problem for wikipedia is that effectively we can only point them out if a reliable source points them out in direct relation to Zeitgeist.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Factual Errors"? Can you support those supposed errors with proof? Skyperiod (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As a talkpage statement, I don't particularly have to back it up. But as you're interested, and as an illustration of how Wikipedia works, there is this site here. I haven't been through all the sources the writer uses, but many of them appear to be pretty solid. So why aren't they in the article? Because the writer is not a notable expert with a reputation (such as an academic), nor can the website be treated as a reliable source, such as an academic journal, or a book from a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking, or a high-quality newspaper. If we were to cut out the website and go straight to the reliable sources and use them to critique the film, we would be performing original research, which is not allowed. Even where there is material that I'm convinced is wrong (such as the existence of a Japanese god called Beddou, for which I searched in both English and Japanese without success) I cannot add that to Wikipedia, unless there is a reliable source that says so. Changes to the article need to be made in accordance with what the (balance of) reliable sources say, not what you or I think is the truth.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Interesting. I found on the web the "source guiide" which I asusme should be referneced here? It has everything. Redisco27 (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


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[6] 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:

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?[7] 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.[1]


..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[2] 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[3] (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."[2]"

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

  1. ^ Joseph, Peter. Project Q & A, zeitgeistmovie.com, accessed March 21, 2011.
  2. ^ a b Quotations and citations in this Wikipedia article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English of The Filmmaker Who Helped Recruit Millions for the Global Protests of the Bottom 99%, original Hebrew article by Asher Schechter, TheMarker (Israel), January 19, 2012.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Irish was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeitgeist:_The_Movie/Archive_4&oldid=1142783856"