Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:14, 3 June 2015

Film: Documentary C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of The Zeitgeist Movement was copied or moved into Zeitgeist (film series) with this edit on 2 December 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

If you are a member or affiliate of the Zeitgeist movement, or were called here by one, please read this introduction on how to change the article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Removal of referenced material on grounds of promo and paid events

The information regarding events was removed on grounds of promo and paid events.

The article stated: Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival. Z-Day is an educational forum held in March since 2009 with chapter events worldwide. The inaugural Z-Day in Manhattan had a sold out audience of about 900 and included lectures from Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco.

diff

1. It appears written in a fairly neutral style.

2. Are past paid events not allowed to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages?

Jonpatterns (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.:What do people think? Jonpatterns (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The Burning Man page is a shameless advocacy for the event, and I am not saying the writers should be ashamed. They simply tell it like it is, with a full history of ticket prices, contractual terms of ticket contracts, prices for buses, vehicle passes, dates of the annual events, etc. Go have a read. They are not dodging a weaving like a nun at an orgy. All this careful language and abstemious tea-totaling is reserved for disapproved subjects -- like Zeitgeist. This page is now crippled with negative advocacy, the anti-matter version of WP:POV. Slade Farney (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like characterizing the topic to me. Promoting anything, including an event (whether paid or not), is a POV violation and is not the same as neutrally documenting an event as a characteristic of the topic. There are many paid events documented on wikipedia. If something appears promotional, then we should reword it with greater neutrality rather than remove it. I think we have demonstrated some consensus here. :-) OnlyInYourMind 20:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, MONGO, and Earl King Jr.: Sorry, you've each reverted claiming "promotional": , , and . Can one of you please explain how this is promotional? I would love to be on the same page here, but to me this looks like neutrally characterizing a group's main events. Is there some way we can objectively identify that something is promotional, or are we doomed to disagree 3v3 on the grounds of our own subjectivity? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind 02:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

At least one other person reverted that also besides the ones you listed. Misplaced Pages is not obligated to make a list of events for an organization. It becomes promo then. We mention already the main Zeitgeist Day. That is more than enough. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This article suffers from multiple personality disorder. Why are we describing a yearly event in an article about a film series? Why do we have a separate section for the movement at all? --NeilN 03:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. If you want to drop the Movement aspect probably it would be an improvement. The article is too long now. Maybe include some basic information about the movement or what the owner of the Zeitgeist company calls a movement, and put some of that information in the second? Addendum movie where the movement was announced at the end of that film, it would probably be an improvement. There may be an internet Movement and maybe it was written about in reputable sources but there is virtually nothing on it besides their self published stuff. It could also be that it was kind of an 'Angry Birds' like phenomena that has since almost dissapeared but for a while got a bunch of curious clicks on Google Movies and Youtube. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If the movie triggered the movement then a paragraph should be added to Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Reception and that's all. --NeilN 03:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. Feel free to do it. Maybe in the Addendum section Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I would also agree, but with one caveat: The Zeitgeist Movement topic is notable enough for its own article, and indeed used to have its own article, but past disagreements and an RfC decided to merge the movement and 3 film articles into a single article. If we separate the movement article from the film series, the same complaints may reemerge. OnlyInYourMind 20:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The merge was wrong and this is not promo. It's like a political party convention. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Only In Your Mind I would say that you are editing the article tendentiously and that you are a single purpose editor most likely called here by Facebook or one of the other Zeitgeist sites and your edits on the article reflect non neutral presentation and promotion You are claiming consensus now for your pov when there was none. Looking at your edit history your first edit was Zeitgeist related and you have a new account, so it is assumed you are one of the people called here. It is o.k. to be a single purpose account but you have to be neutral. The ground you are trying to cover now is not going to be traversed. Editing tendentiously is a problem for everyone if you continue doing that. It was overwhelming consensus that put the movement article into the film series. Please read the page history of the movement article and the history of disccusion on related articles. Now we are probably going to put the separate section of the Zeitgeist movement into the rest of the article because the consensus among the neutral editors is that it is fitting to do so. Non of the editors here is against Zeitgeist in particular. They do get annoyed though when people try to insert a pov and edit tendentiously. Sorry to focus on you instead of the material which is usually the talk page way but better to say this now as you are agressively insisting against consensus for changes that are basically pro Zeitgeist. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Some facts will be "pro" by nature, some "con," but facts are more important than whether the material is pro or con. My review of OnlyInYourMind editing history satisfies me that he/she has multiple interests, understands neutral POV, and intends quality of article above all. I do not see great virtue in preaching the anti-conspiracy/anti-pseudoscience/anti-woo-woo dogma at every turn of the page. Misplaced Pages is not in danger of producing a population of idiots by failing to inoculate the readers with anti-woo-woo vaccine. A good read of Huston Smith and Will Durant shows that the best compendiums and surveys are composed of sympathetic rather than scathing text. The "Facebook" remarks are uncalled for. And appending an apology after a personal attack does not make a personal attack permissible. Slade Farney (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Took the Zeitgeist movement separate section and modified it because there was too much information and consensus is to shorten it. I removed the Info. box which is not needed. Moved that material into the Addendum movie section. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a legitimate reason to blank this section. It is against policy WP:PRESERVE. And it also removes the context of this ongoing dispute at DRN. I am restoring the content. OnlyInYourMindT 23:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not a good idea as you have no consensus for that action but are doing it anyway. The content was not blanked so that is a false edit summary and is also a problem. The consensus is, was, that that information is not now needed because it needed paring down because the information from the stand alone article was put in the film article. There is no need for an information box on the movement for instance. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You are again claiming consensus where there was no consensus. Perhaps we should discuss the word "consensus" before we go further. What do you think it means? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy is to WP:PRESERVE. How does removing this content reflect wikipedia's goals and policies? What policy is trumping WP:PRESERVE? OnlyInYourMindT 01:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You have apparently not read arguments of why the information is pared down. Do not re-add against consensus. The movement is only marginally notable and advertising them on Misplaced Pages is not a good idea. preserving what is referred to as advert promo has no place here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: I want to be clear that there are 3 blocks of content in question here:

1. The details explaining the group's annual events (currently disputed as promotional at DRN)
2. The block of content describing the group (the context of the annual events).
3. And the block of critical response to the group.

You appear to now be saying that blocks 2 and 3 are also "advert promo". Am I understanding you correctly? OnlyInYourMindT 05:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You will not remove anything while the moderation is on-going. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

More calls from the Zeitgeist folks to come edit

Just another heads up of the sites out there from the Zeitgeist fans that have mounted an aggressive editing campaign on the article

I think this one is already posted somewhere on the talk page also There are several others. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment, you realize that the first link is five months old and the second is over a year old? Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

They are old. Still, those links (and this one) do confirm that TZMers actively recruit each other for concentrated attempts to whitewash the article in their favor. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, nearly every fringe group I've ever encountered does. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I just happened on it though so thought it might be informative. Just a comment, you realize that the first link is five months old and the second is over a year old? It sort of gives a backdrop of how to spot meats and socks so in that sense I hope it helps. I remember that particular time frame. A bunch of people were permanently blocked from editing then and others restricted for long periods. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, nearly EVERY group (not just fringies) attempts to control relevant Wiki pages including the Skeptics, the DNC, RNC, Roman Catholic Church, Zionist groups, Hollywood studios, personality cults, colleges, sports teams, ... We won't ask why Earl hangs around here, reverting edits and deleting information. Just a quality guy, I expect. Slade Farney (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

He is a quality guy: you don't find him adding promotional material or casting aspersions on those who remove promotional material. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Promotional material" is in the eye of the beholder. Burning Man has no problem with listing all the ticket prices, event dates, bus costs, parking fees, etc. No one is sitting on that page deleting everything a person might want to know. Thus, Burning Man is an informational page for those who are interested. Zeitgeist should also be an informational page for those who are interested. It does no good to sprinkle it with pejoratives (conspiracy theory, cult, crap, bogus, etc.) -- that is just POV at work. If people do not like the film, movement, or whatever, let them move off to something they can take pleasure in. Listing the dates of events is not promotion, else all the quality guys would be rushing over to censor the Burning Man page. Can you see the inconsistency? Slade Farney (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I do not see it. If that is true on the Burning man page then it has lacked oversight also, Burning Man has no problem with listing all the ticket prices, event dates, bus costs, parking fees, etc. That does not seem right policy wise and sounds like an advertising site. It sounds like that page Burning man needs a clean up.

Also it is not an information page for those that are interested because its purpose is to document what it is with a neutral stance or to go where the citations take us. It is not an arm for information per se it is an overview of a subject that should not be a promo or banner of their own information. If people want that they can explore their web pages. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A Wiki editor convinced of that position would want to be over there helping to clean it up. And such editor might also want to look look at San Diego Comic-Con International, listing the date of the next Convention in July 2015 -- just like a promotion. But I would not advise such editing. The practice on those pages seems to be more the Wiki standard than what is being enforced here. They are not promoting, they are just serving the interested reader. Slade Farney (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Just thought I'd let you guys know that I noticed this talk page was getting a bit long so I've set up automatic archiving of threads that have gone 7 days without a response. If anyone disagrees or feels that the page shouldn't be automatically archived feel free to revert, or discuss it here first to get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 02:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving is a good idea but 7 days seems like too little; we don't want people to come here and make redundant points or arguments. — Jeraphine Gryphon  10:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but do you really expect people to read through this entire talk page before making an argument, just to see if it hasn't been made before? Don't forget that you can always just point someone to an archived thread if they've made an argument that's already been made. 30 days seems a little long, what would you think of say, 10? Pishcal — ♣ 12:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't expect anyone to read through this stuff, the conversations should just be visible here, to show that plenty has been discussed and that it (the content) may still be relevant. This page doesn't have to be short, it's okay if it's long. Comparing to some other articles, this one is more prone to attracting new and opinionated editors. 10 days is too few, in my opinion. — Jeraphine Gryphon  12:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to disable auto-archiving and manually archive discussions as they are resolved? I think that would be best. If not, can an unresolved discussion that was auto-archived be manually unarchived for continued discussion? OnlyInYourMind 01:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

OnlyInYourMind, As a single purpose or nearly single purpose account most likely called here to edit for your group, its a good that you examine things and not let other people have to try and follow such a convoluted approach like you are talking about. There are basic guidelines. You can read them. As a single purpose editor whose first and last edits revolve around Zeitgeist material you have to be really cautious to not show bias and keep the pov down to neutral 05:16, 28 April 2015 Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) ‎ (→‎Discussion on 'Documentary style': adding my 2 cents, your first edit to Misplaced Pages There is nothing wrong with being a 'single purpose' editor but as remarked its a fine line from advocacy to being here to build an encyclopedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving could help focus discussion, but I think 28 days would be more suitable.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We could just remove the bot code from the top of this page so the bot would not come here. The oldest discussions have now been archived, so the hard work is done. I don't know, I don't have an opinion. As for unarchiving, I think it's allowed but you should always consider just linking to that thread in the archive and make a fresh thread instead. — Jeraphine Gryphon  09:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how long discussions tend to last around here, but it's not unreasonable to expect that if a discussion hasn't had any comment added to it for 14 days, the discussion has either ended and there's nothing left to say or a fresh discussion should be started. 2 weeks is a long time to reply to something, and really the point of archiving is to focus editors into active discussions. Leaving too many resolved or stale topics around clutters up a talk page and doesn't make it clear which issues are still being discussed. Manual archiving is used on some pages, but more often than not auto-archiving is used on talk pages and WP pages. Pishcal — ♣ 16:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

14 days would be fine. 7 days a shade too short, and the frequency of comments isn't that great.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it would also be helpful to use the talkpage version of Template FAQ - noting the outcomes of debates that are likely to re-occur.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DR

Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29.23Removal_of_referenced_material_on_grounds_of_promo_and_paid_events -- apparently there's a discussion going on there about this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon  18:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You can add your name to the discussion if you like. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring while there is discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard is disruptive. Stop edit-warring and discuss at WP:DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Film Synopses "too long"?

@Earl King Jr. and Tom harrison: You've both claimed "too long" when you removed the {{expand section}} tags from the synopsis sections of the 2nd and 3rd films. I quoted WP guidelines in my edit summary: Documentaries follow the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Current synopses are close to 100 words. Can you explain why we should not follow these wikipedia guidelines? Seeing as you removed the tags to expand, I assume you would also revert any actual work toward expanding these synopses. Is this correct? And if so, why? OnlyInYourMind 20:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that. Misplaced Pages is not obligated to go into the minutia of poorly sourced movie and paw the ground to get up every nuance of dust and then hash out the views of fringe groups. A synopsis of the basic story line is there. Going further becomes an exercise for Zeitgeist supporters to educate potential converts to the Faq's presentation of Peter Joseph and crew. People that 'work' for Zeitgeist have formed a block on the article and now are a special interest group here editing. The article is very long now. The article has been improved dramatically with the merge of the Zeitgeist information. I suggest we also merge Peter Joseph into the film series as we merged the Zeitgeist movement. I hope the Zeitgeist people understand that the more attention they draw to themselves here the more its possible for things to boomerang. It is probably only because of the onslaught of meat and socks that the article has attracted more neutral editors. Perhaps another section is in order now to merge the Peter Joseph article into the film series. Inadvertently for the supporters of Zeitgeist who consider the article atrocious now the actual information is honed down and better in general for curious people on the subject. Mr. Joseph is not notable except for these films and there is really no reason that a paragraph or two in the original movie section is not sufficient to explain to our readers who he is and give cursory background information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Earl, you're acting as if the Zeitgeist Movement is some kind of Communist, anti-Christian plot and you're out to crush it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

News flash: There is no Zeitgeist conspiracy and there are no Zeitgeist people. Editors here are required to respect each other and presume good faith. All this "meats" and "socks" name-calling is completely out of line. Threats to shrink the subject and thereby damage the Encyclopedia are inappropriate. Anyone who cannot behave collegiality toward his fellow editors should not be participate in the work of this Encyclopedia. Slade Farney (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Threats to shrink the subject and thereby damage the Encyclopedia are inappropriate. Anyone who cannot behave collegiality toward his fellow editors should not be participate in the work of this Encyclopedia. end quote Sfarney. Let not lie about threats. It is not a threat to differ. There has been an ongoing discussion to put Peter in a revamped approach that dates back to before the film articles were condensed. Also damage the encylcopedia is totally off the mark. Putting all that information together saves people time and energy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution (restatement)

Moderated discussion is again in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It would be useful not to discuss the article here, because such discussions may be ignored, being centralized at the noticeboard. If you are not one of the parties to the discussion and wish to be listed, you may be listed. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Update

Any editors at this article who are not currently participating in dispute resolution are invited to participate. I would like to get any new ideas. At this point, it appears that there is little likelihood of compromise, so that the most likely way forward is a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

And the request for comment would say what? Normal procedure is telling us the community has spoken about that already and the subjects are not stand alone but rather related for marginal notability as a package of information. One request for comment would be whether to merge the Peter Joseph article with the film series articles as we did for the movement. I would think placing that information here would be of benefit to all. I support that request for comment. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, Robert's question was addressed to a) editors not currently involved, and about b) creating a Zeitgeist Movement page separate from the Zeitgeist File page. ;-) Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

My statement is, among other things, an invitation to editors not currently involved. The issue is whether to create a Zeitgeist Movement page separate from the film series page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Warring

Please do not slow-motion edit-war this article. If you have issues about content, it would be best to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and discuss them, and second best to discuss them here rather than slow-motion edit-warring them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Could you give an example of slow motion edit warring on the article that you are talking about if this is recent because I don't see it. I hope you are not talking about the recent i.p. single purpose account with three edits under their belt that re-listed a non notable Zeitgeist self published book that has been removed already countless times by multiple editors. I assume the the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is about over. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There was a rewrite of the lede, not by a single-purpose IP account, but by a registered new account. There is no way to know whether an editor with three edits is a single-purpose account. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion is not over. It will not be over at least until two RFCs are published, one over the split, and one over the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

Survey

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

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

Split - WP:COATRACK complaints currently prevent content expansion. Expanded content exists here, here, and here. The zeitgeist movement topic meets all the notability requirements of WP:GNG. This notability is verified by an AFD discussion in 2011. To further the goals of the encyclopedia, restricting appropriate content cannot be allowed. OnlyInYourMindT 08:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Split - Additional press mentions of the Zeitgeist Movement:

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

Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Threaded Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft

• Draft:The Zeitgeist Movement group

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

RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

• D - A, B and C appeared either too negative or too positive, so I have added a fourth one.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• D - Seems to be the least objectionable of the bunch. If the movement is not split, it should also be mentioned in the lede. OnlyInYourMindT 19:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• D Also agree that if the movement isn't split, it should be mentioned in the lede. "The movement is not the movie". The film hardly mentions the movement. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• B is my choice, though it could be improved. My choice is guided by the recurring theme of "conspiracy theory" in all the other definitions. After you get past the neutral lede, the Misplaced Pages page on conspiracy theory is a lengthy speculation on the causes for the "conspiracy theory" disease among humans. Thus, if the Encyclopedia is consistent (and the link will be direct, of course), we would be defining the Zeitgeist film as a litany of pathological ideas. The language is not a credit to an encyclopedia with WP:NPOV; and Misplaced Pages becomes more and more like a catechism of the Establishment: "This you are required to believe, that you are forbidden to believe." To an independent thinker, the language is offensive and unnecessary -- adults make up their own minds about that kind of thing. (Also, "conspiracy theory idea" is an ungrammatical redundancy. Not every noun can be adjectiv-ised, and "theory" is one that cannot.) Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• A Which seems to be the current lead on the article. It is closest to the sources we have. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• A, although I have little objection to changing "documentary-style" to "documentary" if reliable sources are found. That may be a matter of definition, but the other choices clearly do not reflect reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Thread one

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thread two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Alan Feuer (March 17, 2009). "They've Seen the Future and Dislike the Present". The New York Times. Retrieved March 17, 2009.
2. "The view from Venus". Orlando Weekly.
3. Stamets, Bill. "Art-house films: 'Marwencol,' 'Zeitgeist'". Retrieved 28 May 2015.
4. Goldberg, Michelle (February 2, 2011). "Brave New World". Tablet. Retrieved April 15, 2015.

References

1. Andrejevic, Mark (2013). Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know. Routledge. p. 111. ISBN 9781135119522.
2. Gane-McCalla, Casey (January 12, 2011). "AZ Shooter Was Fan Of Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Movies". Newsone.com. Retrieved April 19, 2015.
3. ^ "About". Gentle Machine Productions LLC. Retrieved 12 May 2015.
4. Goldberg, Michelle (February 2, 2011). "Brave New World". Tablet. Retrieved April 15, 2015.
5. "Information on corporation owned by Zeitgeist creator". Justia.com. Retrieved April 17, 2015.
6. Andrejevic, Mark (2013). Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know. Routledge. p. 111. ISBN 9781135119522.
7. Gane-McCalla, Casey (January 12, 2011). "AZ Shooter Was Fan Of Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Movies". Newsone.com. Retrieved April 19, 2015.
8. Goldberg, Michelle (February 2, 2011). "Brave New World". Tablet. Retrieved April 15, 2015.
9. "Information on corporation owned by Zeitgeist creator". Justia.com. Retrieved April 17, 2015.

• C-Class film articles
• C-Class Documentary films articles
• Documentary films task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment