Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:54, 22 July 2013 editNagualdesign (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users8,756 edits →Peter Joseph Responds to "The Marker": Comment.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:22, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,679,484 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(560 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{Skip to talk}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=
	{{Talk header\|search=yes\|italic title=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Film }}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
			{{WikiProject United States}}
	{{WikiProject Film\|American-task-force=yes\|class=C\|B-Class-1=no\|B-Class-2=yes\|B-Class-3=yes\|B-Class-4=no\|B-Class-5=yes}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Media\|class=start\|importance=low~~}}		{{WikiProject Alternative views}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism}}
	{{WikiProject United States\|class=start\|importance=low\|911=yes\|911-importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Alternative Views\|class=start\|importance=low}}
	}}		}}
			{{Old XfD multi
	{{multidel
			\| date = 9 July 2007
	\|list=
			\| result = '''Delete'''
	*'''Delete''', 9 July 2007, ]
			\| link = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeitgeist_the_Movie
	*'''Speedy endorse''' 17 August 2007, ]
			\| date2 = 17 August 2007
	*'''Deletion endorsed''', 7 September 2007, ]
			\| result2 = '''Speedy endorse'''
	* '''Deletion endorsed''', 3 November 2007, ]
			\| link2 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_17
	* '''Recreate and relist''', 8 November 2007, ]
			\| date3 = 7 September 2007
	*'''Keep''', 13 November 2007, ]
			\| result3 = '''Deletion endorsed'''
	:''See also: ] for deletion discussions of merged content''
			\| link3 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_7
	\|collapse=yes
			\| date4 = 3 November 2007
			\| result4 = '''Deletion endorsed'''
			\| link4 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_3
			\| date5 = 8 November 2007
			\| result5 = '''Recreate and relist'''
			\| link5 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_8
			\| date6 = 13 November 2007
			\| result6 = '''Keep'''
			\| link6 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeitgeist_the_Movie_(second_nomination)
			\| collapse = yes

	}}		}}
	{{controversial}}		{{controversial}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = Talk:Zeitgeist: the Movie/Archive %(counter)d
	\|counter = 5
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 6
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|archive = Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie/Archive %(counter)d
	\|minthreadsleft = 5
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}
	{{Archives \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=90 }}

	== 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Does Zeitgeist Addendum meet enough of the criteria in our ] to survive a ]? --]] 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. --] (]) 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" ? ] (]) 22:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

	There actually was a separate article for Zeitgeist: Addendum. . – ] (]) 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
	:This is a really bizarre case, in which a previously released film has been "replaced." The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. -] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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--] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] and not act unilaterally). -] (]) 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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 ].] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. -] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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? ] (]) 01:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

	:See VsevolodKrolikov's note below on ]. -] (]) 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.] (]) 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

	OH- i see now. Yes, I agree that this ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. You cant just erase your mistakes from history.] (]) 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?] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ;( ] (]) 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. -] (]) 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
	:: I've removed the external link to Acharya S. as it clearly fails ]. 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 ] ] and not tolerated. These attempts are ironic, given the accusations the film makes of secretive conspiracies.] (]) 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 ] 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.] (]) 03:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::Thank you VsevolodKrolikov -- you've done an awful lot of legwork here. -] (]) 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::: No problem!] (]) 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.] (]) 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. -] (]) 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.] (]) 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
	:::] (]) 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. -] (]) 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.] (]) 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. -] (]) 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.] (]) 05:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
	::::Looks good. -] (]) 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.] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 '']'' 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?] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages article. I'm not sure what Ehdrive's problem is, s/he continues to remove information without discussing it.] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	: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 ]. ] (]) 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. -] (]) 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 ] 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	An editor's assertion that material is relevant only if that assertion can be illustrated with reference to some Misplaced Pages 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 ]'s assertion of irrelevance was based on some personal aesthetic or bias, rather than a reasoned analysis involving Misplaced Pages 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 ], 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 ]), 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 <nowiki>(~~~~)</nowiki> at the end of them. Thanks. :-) ] (]) 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 ] violation? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages except perhaps to sanitize the article of criticisms that may now be embarrassing to the producer and his fans. -] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages cannot make this judgment itself, as that would violate ] and ].

	:::In articles on controversial topics, Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages cannot express that. It can only summarize what others in regards to those topics. ] (]) 05:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

	::::Does ] 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 Misplaced Pages is doing more than "refer to what the different sides say in published sources". The source presented 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 ]; "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. ] (]) 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. -] (]) 20:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

	*The part about the "pun" was first added by (I didn't even know that was possible, or under what circumstances this was done).
	*It was removed by .
	*'''Jordgette''' then restored it, albeit as a reference to the point as .
	*For '''my part''', I did a related to sourcing and wording, though I did not alter that particular passage.

	Instead of focusing on the intent of any particular editor (unless you can name a particular editor, and present evidence and reasoning for an inappropriate intent that excludes other, less nefarious possible ones), we should ]. 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 ], might help us see what you have in mind. ] (]) 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. -] (]) 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. :-) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. -] (]) 22:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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

	::::This "Horus isn't a Sun god" comment might be confusing. Read an article on ] "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 ]. ] (]) 20:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

	::::: The film outright states that ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	It turns out that the ] 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 ] is a misguided and tendentious grouping of valid economic criticism and cranky conspiracy theories. Misplaced Pages probably shouldn't carry such a problematic category. --] <small>]</small> 10:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

	on further inspection it turns out what the Zeitgeist movement advocates is ], 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 ] and then devotes itself to hedonism exclusively. --] <small>]</small> 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 '''Horiz'''on 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.] (]) 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 . --] <small>]</small> 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.] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages's threshold for inclusion is that sources are considered ] 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. ] (]) 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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	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.--] (]) 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 ] 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 ] or Christians the only ones qualified to be quoted on ]. Such ideas straddle multiple areas. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. :-) ] (]) 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

	== "Restoring attributive wording on point of contention"? ==
	{{Resolved}}
	Nightscream: Can you please explain this revert? 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 ]. Finally, by removing the quote, "''moved away from''", your revert results in less fidelity with the original NYT article. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

	::OK, I thought you removed the "''moved away from''". My bad. Thanks for the ] fix. ] (]) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

	:::, 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 . Happy Holidays. :-) ] (]) 23:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

	== Aphorisms ==
	I'm looking for aphorisms from the films in english, can anybody help me? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Welcome to the English Misplaced Pages! 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? ] (]) 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... an historical person was mythologized into a supernatural being" This is no conspiracy theory, it's believed by many non-Christian religions, atheists, and historians. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Fixed. Thanks. ] (]) 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
	Thank you. It has been reverted by someone, though, so I'll see how I can fix it. ] (]) 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
	::Part one is clearly a ] of the "Jesus conspiracy" or "Christ conspiracy" variety. Commentators have noted that it follows and in fact was cribbed from ]'s "The Christ '''Conspiracy'''''Italic text'': The Greatest Story Ever Sold". She even served as a consultant on the film. The ] for one specifically lists the religious speculations as being a conspiracy theory. It is in the same vein as the ], a similar Bible conspiracy theory. I've made the appropriate edit. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, ''"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? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 18:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

	The Jesus myth theory is not considered a conspiracy theory according to the ]. 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. (])
	* 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. ()
	* (dismissive) Hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish. ()
	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" (). 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.--] (]) 14:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

	:Other Misplaced Pages articles should not be used as sources, because this is circular. Granted, ] 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 ]. It is better to use credible sources like , 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 Misplaced Pages articles, the Misplaced Pages article on ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] is not the same ]. 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.] (]) 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 ]'s work. Her first book is even called "The Christ ''Conspiracy'': The Greatest Story Ever Sold". ] (]) 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 ]. 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.] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages's own definition, this movie is a mockumentary. ] (]) 22:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
	:A mockumentary is a work whose contents are ''intended'' as fictional, such as '']''. 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. ] (]) 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 ] either knows that what he's saying is fictitious, or is willfully blind to that fact. Consider his claim that ] was a historian who lived around the time of ] and did not mention him in his writings. If ] 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 ], 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. ] (]) 18:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

	:::The definitions one comes across for the word ''mockumentary'', such as those at or ], 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 ] or ] 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, which require all material to be supported by ], ] ], particularly for potentially contentious, controversial or critical material, and without engaging in ] or ]. 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 ].

	:::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 ] calls Ways in Which Thinking Goes Wrong, or Problems in Thinking, which are often not conscious, but unconscious processes, like ], 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 Misplaced Pages's guidelines. ] (]) 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. ] '']'' 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 ]. ] '']'' 21:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

	Fine, you big baby, it'll remain a "documentary." That movie still sucks though... <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:Please do not attack or insult other editors, Geisel. Doing so is a violation of the site's policies on ], which includes ]. Both my responses and Cool Hand Luke's were quite polite, and not indicative of childishness, so your response is uncalled for. Thank you. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

	:::New posts go at the bottom of the thread. Please keep them in chronological order. Thanks. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] '']'' 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

	::No, because that would give the appearance of a POV on the part of Misplaced Pages or the editors. Unless reliable sources establish that its status as a documentary has been questioned, it is not appropriate to imply otherwise. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] '']'' 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 ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. I think this article should simply mention that many university professors have published harsh criticisms of Zeitgeist and link to those criticisms, nothing more. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 20:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 19:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::::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? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 06:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	Any such back-and-forth should be ''summarized'' for salience, much as any other set of information is summarized in articles. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] and ].

	But I do not think it is acceptable that there are ''five'' separate articles
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	#]
	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 ] and let it be. --] <small>]</small> 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 ], and we have several categories for that, not just several pages.] (]) 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 , and it doesn't appear to be well-known judging by google hits. ] 08:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

	:I was similarly suspicious, so I started . ] (]) 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 ] and ]. 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:
	<blockquote>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.<ref>Joseph, Peter. , zeitgeistmovie.com, accessed March 21, 2011.</ref></blockquote>

	<!-- End of the proposed new section -->

	..If there's a copyright issue with using the above paragraph verbatim then perhaps it could be paraphrased. Any suggestions for improvements would be greatly appreciated. Somebody once said that if Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. — ] ] 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. ] (]) 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, ] (]) 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. — ] ] 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 ] and is correctly ] 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, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::See my recent edit for the minimal attribution required. — ] ] 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 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, ] (]) 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 ]. I'm having trouble with the refs, and the whole paragraph doesn't read very well, IMO. Thanks. ] (]) 21:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

	::Done. In addition to copyediting the opening two sentences, I removed the incoherent gibberish that was , as it made no mention of the film or its contents. ] (]) 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 ]. 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 ]. 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, ] (]) 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. . (] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages rules require that, if he is the only source, then it cannot be stated in Misplaced Pages'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. — ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ''(] (]) 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 <nowiki>]</nowiki>, but the Twinkle script doesn't keep track of the length of the Edit summary field. — ] ] 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages. If you persist I will simply request an official RfC. I can't say fairer than that. Stop being silly, Arthur! Regards, ] (]) 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 ] -- 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. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 09:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)</font>

	: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. ] (]) 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. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 11:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)</font>

	:::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, ] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

	:Hi Tom, Thanks for the input. Please read through the ] 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, ] (]) 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, ] (]) 21:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Source does not exist ==

	Ref. , used in ], does not exist. The broken reference is as follows:

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

	] (]) 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: "]<ref name="TheMarker20120119">Quotations and citations in this Misplaced Pages article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English of , original Hebrew article by Asher Schechter, ] (Israel), January 19, 2012.</ref> characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. ] also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." ] wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by the Irish Times<ref name="Irish"/> (see above). ] 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. ] additionally wrote that Joseph argues that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because, according to ], Joseph said that the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect. ] 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."<ref name="TheMarker20120119"/>"

	] (]) 19:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

	== Lyndon LaRouche Movement? ==

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

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

	== New lead ==

	An editor changed the first paragraph of the lead to:

	<blockquote> '''''Zeitgeist: The Movie''''' is a 2007 documentary film by ]. The film has a strong anti-mainstream, perhaps even ] narrative, concentrating on the ] attacks, the history of the ], and the Biblical account of ]. The film has generated substantial controversy. </blockquote>

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

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

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

	== General cleanup and rewrite (formerly POV dispute) ==

	After a small edit war with ] and encountering the stubborn malversations of administrator ] I conclude this article lacks neutrality. I propose a thorough revision, particularly of the introduction, so that the article reflects a more balanced i.e. neutral perspective. After a brief look at this talk page I noticed this issue was raised in the past; I am not surprised. It is imperative this article be cleaned up. Here is a small breakdown of issues hitherto encountered:
	* Upon changing the wording of the opening sentences (specifically, removing "conspiracy-theory based") I was reminded by aforementioned parties that Zeitgeist (according to whom?) is characterised by being conspiracy-theory based and that '''this information MUST remain in the opening sentences'''. Rubin's rationale was the inclusion of the phrase in the opening sentences reflects the content of the article generally. That in itself is a problem, but Rubin went further to suggest that there is some kind of invisible consensus amongst impartial observers that Zeitgeist is about conspiracy theories, and that the only people who thought otherwise were the film's makers. This is patently garbage, but Rubin does seem to defer to layperson's accounts of Zeitgeist's content, suggesting they are valid.
	* In no uncertain terms I asked Rubin to provide a summary of who, exactly, constitutes a "verifiable source" in this case, but he simply directed me to a policy page.
	* The Devil's Advocate, hopefully not playing Devil's advocate, took it upon himself to undo my edits, providing little rationale. His input has been disruptive and he should receive a warning; however, I was issued with a 3RR warning (by Rubin) while he was not.

	It is important that these issues are addressed. To this end, I propose to undertake the following:
	* Complete top-down revamp of the article
	* Inclusion of a broad spectrum of film critic's responses, and citation thereof, in the final product
	* Rewording for neutrality, if and where necessary
	* Arrangement of content in a coherent, comprehensive way which lends credence to both perspectives, as this film is clearly divisive (it even says so on the talk page)

	To this end I shall require the efforts of other users and administrators.
	Thank You. ] (]) 05:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
	:All of the main ideas put forward by the film are conspiracy theories. Not a single reliable source I have seen suggests the film is anything but a conspiracist film promoting conspiracy theories. It is why the film is notable, which is why it is one of the first things mentioned in the article. Sorry, but that is just how it goes.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

	::::Blessings are optional, consensus is not. There's no point trying to force in your preferred version of an article against an established consensus. The way to make changes that stick is to present on the talk page a reasoned argument based on reliable secondary sources, and convince people your proposed changes are an improvement. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} I am going to do precisely that. In the meantime, I am dismayed by the lack of reliable sources altogether, ''and'' the lack of neutrality. You wait and see. ] (]) 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

	:::::Xabian40409 I reverted your tagging of the article with misc. things, since it appears that you are not listening to the talk page, and that you are the only one currently that thinks the article is not neutral, so I would say that is resolved. It was pointed out that maybe it is best now at this point that you make suggestions on the talk page and try to muster support. You have not done that. Even supposing you are a member or sympathetic to Zeitgeist ideas the article would be worthless unless an overview of the subject is given. It may seem like other editors support a New world Order to you but really that is not the case. We just want it to read like information giving and not from a special interest group. Suggestion. Stop focusing on editors and focus on cited information. ] (]) 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}} The Devils Advocate seems to have a good handle on this issue. It seems to me that he is right in that this is notable because of the conspiracy theories and thus that CT must remain in the lede. ] (]) 22:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

	::Since the POV template is considered unacceptable, and what I propose to undertake (see above) is actually a cleanup, I will use that template instead. Also, since we're after reliable sources (scant in the article in its present state) I will use that template as well. Please give me some time to work on this; the onus is clearly on me to provide verifiable sources, which are often talked about but on the whole are missing. ] (]) 00:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::I should note that I was not suggesting the article itself is in good shape or neutral. Having looked over it now, I think it could use work as is the case with most articles covering this sort of topic, but the well-sourced reality is that it is a conspiracist work, its main ideas reference conspiracy theories, and this is the most notable and defining aspect of the work. Some in a section above objected because the Christ myth theory is not inherently a conspiracy theory, but the specific variant presented in Zeitgeist most definitely is a conspiracy theory.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

	== Inappropriate Tagging ==

	This article is heavily sourced. The sources are classic RS. They include the NY Times, Huffington Post, Globe and Mail, Irish Times, etc...Putting tags that say RS are lacking is in my opinion very, very inappropriate. ] (]) 02:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I think the only part that would be debatable is the claim of the article being biased. The rest has no real validity.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 03:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	::Not that I think xe has a point, but we need to be sure that we have specific sources for "conspiracy theories" and/or "conspiritist", even if obvious. I haven't checked. — ] ] 03:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	::: Thank you, ], but you are wrong. My suggesting this article needs a cleanup to reflect a balanced encyclopedic viewpoint is entirely in good faith, and has a rational basis. I am sorry if I offended you by suggesting your remarks were inconsequential, but it was the truth at the time. As of now, your suggestion my tags were an act of vandalism is the only '''outrageous''' thing I've so far witnessed. In fact it's a non sequitur. If you want to clean up your own reputation, I advise you desist from jumping to stupendously asinine conclusions and rubbishing my efforts, and instead actually make an effort to '''improve the article.''' On that note, calling the film anti-Semitic in the opening paragraph, as Earl Jr. has done, does not count as an improvement. ] (]) 08:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

	I agree with user Capitalismojo that user Xabian40409 is acting as a vandal and would add mostly has been ''flame'' attacking other editors since his or her appearance. His recent visit to my talk page is not appreciated , calling other editors ''trolls'' on en.Misplaced Pages? Not a good idea. Ever. ] (]) 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	:You should all stop it. Xabian, you, and mojo, are all making things far too personal here.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 16:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	::I apologize for anything that may have made things personal. I note that I spoke only of the edit tagging and have never spoken personally about any editor. In an effort to lower the temperature, I have changed my section heading here. I will reiterate that this tagging is wrong. I would think it obvious but I will lay out the resaons. ] (]) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	::*This is one of the most heavily referenced movie articles I have seen on Misplaced Pages.
	::*Many of those references speak directly to the CT point.
	::*These refs are largely the classic Reliable Source (NYT, etc.)
	::*It also has more content than any WP movie article I have read.
	:: Therefore the tags seem put there inappropriately. Perhaps it is not vandalism, but it is certainly not helpful to the article. ] (]) 16:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::Well, I think you haven't looked at enough movie articles if the above is true, but I do agree those parts of the tag did not match up. Seems the claims about citations and content are really tied up with concerns about neutrality.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::Well, actually I ''have'' been looking at the film articles at wikipedia, specifically documentary films. There is in fact a ]. If one were to go to that list one would find that (for example) of the first forty films the average references is 4.5 refs. The most common ref is IMDB. Twenty of the the ref lists have zero or one ref. The largest ref list in those 40 articles is 29. So that is why I suggest that this is a heavily referenced article compared to other film articles. ] (]) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Certainly it is better referenced than most articles on documentaries, which goes for just about any type of referenced article as we have a large number of unreferenced or poorly referenced articles. Just saying that this article is not something exceptional as there are much better articles on films than this one, documentary films included.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

	This process is going to take some time. Thank you DA and Capitalismojo for making an effort. I agree that the article is, by some definition or another, well referenced. Unfortunately, the balance of those references tend to be highly subjective, even pejorative, ones. Someone mentioned IMDB; if you check the critic reviews ''there'', you will notice quite a few positive reviews which do not make an appearance here (yet). At the same time, I stand by my assertation Earl King Jr. is '''trolling''' and frankly I am not sensitive to whether that wording is a good idea or not. He continues, now, despite my reverts, to edit "anti-Semitic" into the introduction, which is not only fallacious but very semantically-loaded. The source is a Jewish newspaper columnist who believes the film advances "covert anti-Semitism." Her view is not the norm and I will not tolerate its inclusion in the intro. ] (]) 23:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I agree that stuff such as that shouldn't be added to the lede. We have references of two people making this comparison and it is just too inflammatory to include so prominently in the article on such a basis.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	:: Thank you. Also, I apologise to Earl King Jr; it appears he only edited the anti-Semitic remark into the intro '''once,''' (which was still unacceptable). Upon viewing the page history I notice it only made a second appearance due to Capitalismojo reverting my edit on semi-reasonable grounds. ] (]) 23:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

	==Ms. Goldberg's views Re: "far-right, anti-Semitic"==
	Please note the following is related to the topics above. Michelle Goldberg of the Jewish Tablet Magazine (see http://www.tabletmag.com/author/mgoldberg) contends Zeitgeist: The Movie is steeped in "far right...covert anti-Semiticism." She is entitled to that view, which is incidentally not widely held (in fact, the film is probably very far-left), but it does not deserve to be in the introduction. ] has been warned about this but continues to edit with abandon. I move that his input be censured so that we can go about improving this article for neutrality. It is my view this user has an agenda (from the talk page it is clear he has been involved in past disputes), and I consider his actions an act of provocation and '''trolling.''' ] (]) 00:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	:If you feel there is a serious problem you may take it to ]. I would really suggest before you do that you please read ] & ] and seriously consider the policies. Accusations of trolling would seem to violate both. ] (]) 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	:: Fine, I will use the avenues available. I will point out it's ironic that "anti-Semitic" and "trolling" are both swearwords in their own right, but really, ] '''is''' trolling, by definition, whereas Zeitgeist is not at all far-right, anti-Semitic, nor has it anything do do with Eustace Mullins. One can be considered trolling if their actions are designed to be provocative. I posted that the page, especially the intro, needs cleanup for neutrality. I stand by that view. Shortly therafter, Earl King Jr, whose comments on the talk page were nothing short of unhelpful, ''did exactly the opposite of what had been proposed'' - that is, he inserted a highly polemical criticism of the film into the introduction. The criticism, from Michelle Goldberg, does not in this context promote neutrality '''at all,''' in fact it subverts it. Either Earl King Jr is acting in a deliberately subversive, provocative, pernicious manner (i.e. '''trolling''') or he is '''non compos mentis.''' Surely you can see that? ] (]) 01:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	:: For anyone interested, ] has been reported to ANI. ] (]) 01:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::Ordinarily one would discuss issues with the editor on their talk pages before going to ANI. ] (]) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::I guess I learnt the hard way. I've never dealt with ANI before. Sorry. Note I did reprimand him on his talk page yesterday. ] (]) 01:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

	== Tablet Magazine addition ==

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

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

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

	::I disagree, and a compromise edit was given to water it down a little by another editor. Zeitgeist is based on conspiracy ideas from the past . It pretty much is the entire body of the movie, conspiracy ideas. 911 and inside job by the White-House etc. It can be featured in that sense in the lead. Its possible to add multiple citations beyond this one showing that, but this one is a proven reliable source. ] (]) 06:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::You are conflating two separate issues here. The film is based on conspiracy theories, but you are specifically trying to insert, again and again, claims that it specifically goes after Jews. This is not evident in any part of the film itself and only seriously asserted by a select few opinionated commentators such as Goldberg and Berlet. Goldberg has also based solely on the fact that George Soros is Jewish, while actual antisemitism among some in the Occupy movement is by her. Here are some of Goldberg's other pieces: . These are people who exploit antisemitism for a desired political effect. Such individuals are no more reliable on whether something is antisemitic than are the ADL. Regurgitating their views in the editorial voice is ''not'' a compromise of anything but our content policies.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::: '''Very''' well said, DA. I regret to inform everyone I am taking a break for a few days while I work on an English essay. Earl King, I revoked my ANI complaint about you, partially because of ] but also because I think I acted prematurely, and I need some time to cool off. I hope when I return we can see face to face. DA, keep up the good work. ] (]) 07:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

	:::::As mentioned several times the Goldberg piece has gone through the grinder and has been o'k.'d on a board that looks at ''reliable sources'' on Misplaced Pages. We are not talking about Glen Beck or Soros here either. Critiquing Goldberg's motivations is not the job of editors here and her paper is well known. She is a working journalist. So flaming these issues is pointless ''These are people who exploit antisemitism for a desired political effect. Such individuals are no more reliable on whether something is antisemitic than are the ADL. Regurgitating their views in the editorial voice is ''not'' a compromise of anything but our content policies''. end quote User:The Devil's Advocate. That is your opinion and opinions are not facts. ] (]) 11:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::::The Goldberg piece is not even remotely reliable on this point. Looking at the article more closely it is, like her other pieces, presented in the context of opinionated political posturing. It was written within a month of the Tucson shooting and she specifically notes Loughner in the piece, directing to an that tried to paint his actions as being motivated by antisemitism and right-wring Tea Party rhetoric. It is her opinion about the film, and hers is not a very common one. Presenting this material in the first paragraph of the lede, in the editorial voice, is giving her opinions an incredibly undue amount of weight.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Wrong. It is from a RS. This bit has gone through RSN and been found a reliable source. During that discussion academic sources were found and linked that mirror this Tablet Magazine info. Your opinion is different but that does not count here. Your opinion is that she is some kind of a political stooge. She is a respected journalist writing in many places including The Guardian. You may disagree with her but she is a notable journalist and that is the criteria here. Far from her views being a minority most critical thinkers agree with her and that is the reason the Zeitgeist Movie has been called many things like a ''internet cult'' based on traditional conspiracy theory ideas. No doubt some of the members of the group in question would disagree, but an overview of the information has to be given and you may notice that the article is very balanced in the body with Peter Joseph denying all charges of that kind. The dominant thing about the movie though is its charges of the Fed, banking families such as the Rothschilds, The intelligence services being involved in 911, a sort of secret cabal of players running things behind the scenes etc. That is what the movie is about. Joseph did use Alex Jones, etc... type of persons to make his presentation. ] (]) 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::After checking the RSN archives, it was determined that the source was reliable for the statement that the movement is ''accused'' of being anti-semetic, but notability and weight were questioned. There is no claim that it was found reliable for the claim that it ''is'' anti-semetic; as the makers of the film are living, saying the film is "anti-semitic" requires BLP-reliable sources. In other words, it's reliable, but it's a clear ] violation to include it. Even in the unlikely event that it is not an NPOV violation to include it at all, it is certainly undue weight to include it in the lead. — ] ] 02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

	{{od}}Arthur Rubin is correct. As to your other ref, I do not believe Socialistunity.com is a RS, except for their own opinion. Their own opinion isn't likely notable. 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I should note that I think the ref is accurate in its description of Zeitgeist, its just a partisan website not a Reliable Source. ] (]) 15:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

	::Whoa man. Flip the script. We were all just advised not to denigrate people. No one is even arguing that point now, just trying to use available information to shape up the article. ] (]) 06:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::It isn't "flipping the script" as my comment was quite reasonable given the sources I provided, while his edit gave undue weight to highly-charged partisan vitriol and yet he presumes to lecture me on the article talk page. Glass houses as they say.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	:Actually, it is self-serving when someone ''states'' that words attributed to them are false. It shouldn't be noted in Misplaced Pages's voice unless some reliable source comments about the statement. — ] ] 00:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
	:If he named names, and we quoted that, it would ''clearly'' be a violation of ], as he would be accusing the interviewer (presumably a living person) of lying. — ] ] 00:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

			== What is going on with this page? POV, False Claims, Biased sourcing... ==
	:You have a bizarre interpretation of ] and ]. I have never before seen the fact that the subject of an interview reporting on his own web site that he was misquoted being other than unduly self-serving, even when it might conceivably be relevant. — ] ] 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

			I came here a little while back after seeing the film and was astounded (then) at the ideas made up about the film on this page. I came back today and was even more astounded given the vast range of POV and extremely biased sourcing. How do any of you people rationalize the constant vandalism ( which is what it really is ) of this page, knowing that Joseph's film has nothing to do with "New World Order", is entirely not anti-semetic no matter the uber fringe claims and at no time does anything in the film that says "bankers manipulate world events". Can any of you editors here, not referencing right wing hate press full of pure POV, actually defend any of these ideas as sourced in the film itself? Seriously, please show me in the film where any of this stuff is stated. The script is here: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf
	::I have an understanding of NPOV and RS. The only one indicating a "bizarre interpretation" of them, along with the phrase "unduly self-serving", in light of the definition I provided above, is ''you''. But if you can falsify my arguments, then do so. Explain how publicly stating that words attributed to you were not stated by you conforms to the definition I cited above, or cite some other definition from a reliable reference source, and explain how it conforms to that. ] (]) 02:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
			Also, what is the story with the constant "conspiracy" theory references in the opening, which, again, is pure POV. Zeitgeist The Movie reports historical events as per the view of the author. Putting the "conspiracy label" only insults. Also, the term "conspiracy theorist" is now common known as a pejorative. It is just like a racist term today. I hope other more mindful people can help bring some honestly here as this is likely the worst, most misrepresented article on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

	::~~:You~~ do not have ~~consensus~~ ~~for~~ ~~your~~ ~~edit.~~ ] (]) 04:41, 18 ~~July~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		:: Any opinions of the film should be expressed in the Reception section - not the opening. I have clean it up as the POV was absurd ] (]) 09:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

			== Loughner section RfC ==
	Nor do you. I, on the other hand, have valid arguments for the material's inclusion, which are based on both policy and common sense reasoning, and I have the ability to falsify my opponents on that basis. If you can produce either, then do so. ] (]) 20:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
			{{Archive top\|result='''Yes, it's too long''' Most respondents agree that the section in question is too long. This RfC would have been more productive if there had been some specific proposal or course of action to deal with, but at least the problem's been identified.] (]) 05:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)}}

			Is ] of the article detailing Jared Loughner's reported interest in the film unduly long and in need of shortening?
	:You have a bizarre interpretation of ] and ]. The fact that the subject of an interview reporting on his own web site that he was misquoted being other than unduly self-serving, even when it might conceivably be relevant. Get some second or third party source for this. Not a self serving interview by the person in question. ] (]) 00:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

			===Comments===
	Again, I do not have an "interpretation" of NPOV or RS. Rather, it is you who are not only ignorant of them, but seem to be deliberately ignoring what I've pointed out about those policies, as well as the definition of "self-serving" that I have provided here:
			*'''Yes''' As it stands, the only source we have in the section that devotes more than three sentences to any connection between the movie and Loughner is a single opinion piece by a partisan commentator trying to connect the movie to the right-wing. I believe a single paragraph with a summary of the allegations about the film's influence on Loughner and Joseph's response is sufficient.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

			*A request for comment is for finding others opinions plus Misplaced Pages is not democratic especially on article like this where the 'movements' allies are always willing to throw in. ] (]) 03:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
	*Do you deny that ] states that primary sources can be used on Misplaced Pages? And what precisely does the phrase mean? This phrase is innsensical. A source is either a primary one or it is not. It cannot be determined as a matter of degree.

			*I think it should be covered since it has attracted network media attention. But I would take out the direct quotes and just summarize what was said, which could be done in one or two sentences and would not require a separate section. ] (]) 00:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	*Do you deny that ] actually provides criteria by which self-published sources may indeed be used?

			:*Probably so, but it was big pop culture news event so a little more info. than that might be good. Probably connect it to the section above it, yes. ] (]) 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	*You say the material is "self-serving" (which WP:SELFPUB state is one criterion for exclusion). Do you deny the definition of the phrase "self-serving" that I provided above from Dictionary.com (which is in line with the definitions provided by ]'s and ])? In what way does pointing out or protesting when you've been misquoted constitute "disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others"? Can you answer this question? Every time someone successfully sues someone for libel or slander in a court of law, on the basis that that party was wronged by the actions of the defendant, no one states that the plaintiff was being "self-serving". You two seem to be confusing ''self-interest'' with ''self-serving''. While Joseph is certainly addressing his own interests in pointing out that he was misquoted, that's not the same thing as being ''self-serving''. In what way is pointing out that a statement being made is false solely a question of ''his'' interests? If the statement attributed to him is false, then he has a legitimate grievance for addressing it, and transcendent from that interest on his part is a greater one for ''truth in general''. To argue that he is disregarding the interests or well-being of others by doing this is inane.

			*Seems obvious that the film converted a guy who may have only been suffering a mild paranoia and turned him into a murdering sociopath.--] 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
	Can you two address these three points? If so, then please do so. ] (]) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
			*It doesn't seem like it is that helpful to include a large paragraph that is basically a conclusion between a friend's guess of influence of Zeitgeist the movie and Loughner's behavior. Seems like a not very reliable or helpful inclusion on the article, especially because it doesn't explain how aspects of the film could have influenced Loughner. I wonder if instead, inside the section of proposed negative influences/criticisms of Zeitgeist and this can be just one tiny point. Calling it "Influence" is a bit manipulative, because this one example doesn't categorize the whole influence of the film and to imply so is clearly OR. ] (]) 20:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

			* Yes, it's too long, and it's also not very clear. I had never heard of this person before and the article didn't do a good job of explaining why he was supposed to be notable or relevant. I also agree "Influence" is misleading. ] (]) 10:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
	*This page should not become a platform for the Zeitgeist people to present their views. We need to reference the page to good secondary sources, and use a few primary sources when they are supported by secondary sources and when they help the reader. It would be easier to note that Peter Joseph says he was misquoted if a secondary source wrote that "Peter Joseph says he was misquoted". In any case, tendentious language that has Joseph "pointing out or protesting" takes a side based on something that's only in a primary source, and it's hard to see how approaching the talk page with this in mind is likely to promote consensus or improve the article. As a matter of editorial judgement, I'd leave the quote out until/unless it's picked up by a secondary source. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
			:*The reason you may not have heard of the person is unknown. He was a huge media blitz for a while for shooting a bunch of people. also not sure if the latest comment read the section. ''Influence'' was written out of the heading a few weeks ago so not really relevant to the discussion now. The whole area in question was rewritten several weeks ago and is different from the request for comment era of the article. ] (]) 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
			::"The reason you may not have heard of the person is unknown. He was a huge media blitz for a while for shooting a bunch of people." Doesn't matter. I should be able to read this article with no prior knowledge of the person and see why this information is relevant. (And yes, I did read the section.) For example, the first sentence of the section is "Jared Lee Loughner was described in news accounts as "obsessed" with the Zeitgeist film." To which the unenlightened reader responds: "Who the hell is Jared Lee Loughner and why is that important?" ] (]) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
			::As said the average English speaker probably would recognize that name in relation to a spree killer, something popular in the U.S. It was a big ticket news item for a while and it appears that there is a connection according to the big probably dumb news groups that he was somehow influenced by the film of which others call a conspiracy cult film. Look at the section from a month or so ago for a reference point of change though. Jared has his own article also if people are not sure about who he is and why he seems connected to this 'movie' about conspiracy things. ] (]) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
			:: Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Misplaced Pages articles can't assume knowledge about its readers. Perhaps this person is famous in the US, but I don't live in the US, and neither does most of the world population. What's more, I'm sure there are people in the US who don't know who the person is. I shouldn't have to click on the link to the guy's article to understand why he's relevant to the subject matter. ] (]) 11:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

			:::So what are you saying? That you read my comment? Just repeating what you said before though without useful ideas is not constructive. Its been rewritten. Did you see that? For your information almost the whole world lives in the U.S. also or you think otherwise. What has that got to do with anything/ I think the RFC expired a while back. ] (]) 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
	::Nonsense. To leave the claims from The Marker in place, while saying the subject of the interview can only have his objection to the claims included if some other source picks it up is plainly a BLP problem. Either we remove what the Marker says about him, or we add Joseph's objection. I would prefer the latter myself.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

			:::: Forget about the RFC. You and I are now having a (bizarre) conversation about a different issue: whether the section currently makes it sufficiently clear why this person is relevant. It hasn't been rewritten to address that.
	:::To say any more than "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words" is '''clearly''' unduly self-serving. I'm not sure even that isn't unduly self-serving; any details are clearly inappropriate. ''That'' may qualify as being inappropriate to add to the article is being obvious; I have no doubt that, if an interview with me were to be translated into another language, my words would not be accurately translated. — ] ] 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
			:::: "For your information almost the whole world lives in the U.S. also or you think otherwise." ???? I have no idea what this means or how to respond to it. ] (]) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
			:::::Look. I wrote that to let you know that when you write something like '' What's more, I'm sure there are people in the US who don't know who the person is.'' end quote, that others are equally adept at writing things that do not make sense also like what I wrote. It was just a reflection of your non starter way of making a point which is weird rhetoric. For instance that not everyone lives in the U.S.- Can you see where that is not the kind of comment that goes anywhere or does anything in this discussion? Just a rhetoric question, no need to reply. Any suggestion of improving the article? ] (]) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

			:::::: Here is my suggestion of improving the article. Again. ''Rewrite the section about Jared Lee Loughner so it's clear to all readers who Loughner is and why he's relevant to the subject matter.'' ] (]) 15:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
	::::How is it unduly self-serving to note that the subject of an interview took issue with the way his statements were paraphrased or quoted? Joseph is saying that the interview did not accurately reflect what he said and we are essentially repeating that wording here, while refusing to note his objection. To note his response is not "unduly self-serving" as it is a matter of insuring people are not given misleading or false information about a living person.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
			:::::::Its pretty clear who he is and what he did and where his influence came from. I am not living in the U.S. either, but that is not criteria of looking at the citations. I added more information and subtracted a lot, because probably the section carried on too much about Peter Josephs reaction to the news reports. Also added the Alex Jones stuff which is important. The article had nothing on Jones previously and now the conspiracy angle and the Jared angle might be more clear . The first movie was made up of clips partly from A. Jones media things. ] (]) 00:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

			:: Your arguments are aggressive and very difficult to follow. I sense that English might not be your first language?
	Arthur and Earl, your arguments are based entirely on characterizing one thing as a completely different thing, and are completely inane.

			:: I've copy-edited the section to try to make Loughner's relevance more clear. I now don't understand why this and Jones are in the same section. ] (]) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
	'''"This page should not become a platform for the Zeitgeist people to present their views."''' One more time: Clarifying a falsehood about a quote misattributed to you is '''not a "view"'''. You're making an equivalency between the content of the ''film'' that serves as the article's subject and a quote attributed to its creator in an published interview cited in the article that he says is false. Including mention that a biographical subject has stated that he did not say what a source cited in the article says he said did does not turn the article into a "platform" for his views. To say that it does shows that you and Earl King do not know how to form coherent reasoning, and the fact that you continue to repeat this notion without responding to my response to it shows that you are either not reading my messages, or are just ignoring them because you don't want to admit that this idea of yours is ridiculous on its face.
			:::Maybe you do not understand American culture. Most people there believe that angels are real. Many believe that the moon shot was faked. Many believe that the Jews control the inner actions of the banking system, etc. etc.. Alex Jones is a king of conspiracy stuff. The movie is a conspiracy idea based movie, Zeitgeist is, that borrowed footage from Jones media. Jared believed in all that stuff of international conspiracy. Apparently, according to news reports on him being highly energized in a negative way he struck out at a politician especially ] (]) 02:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
			{{Archive bottom}}

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

			An editor keeps removing references to cited material 'One world government' or New world order references. Zeitgeist the movie is referring to a conspiracy of people involved in just that. ''The first 45 minutes of it explain in detail why Christianity is a sham and Jesus Christ is not the messiah. Besides some not-well-documented dabbling into astrology, it's fairly well argued and revolves around commonly known facts: Many early religions had messianic stories involving virgin births, crucifixions, celebrations on December 25th, etc. The second part of Zeitgeist is devoted to 9/11 Truth, and it's probably the most clearly stated case I've seen, in part because of its brevity; it covers the "facts" as concisely as possible. The third part of Zeitgeist lost me entirely—it's a screed about how everything has always been a part of a master plan to create a New World Order, and the film's emotional climax involves a documentary filmmaker befriending a loose-lipped Rockefeller family member who blurts out the events of 9/11... nearly one year before they happened!'' end quote from citation . ] (]) 14:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
	'''"In any case, tendentious language that has Joseph "pointing out or protesting...."''' You're saying the passage ''"Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words, saying, "At no time did I say anything about 'distancing myself' from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."'' is '''tendentious'''???? How? Can you elaborate on this? What if we compromised by writing the passage ''"Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words, and that he had not distanced himself from his opinion that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by the U.S. government."'' How is that?
			:The problem is you are adding this to the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the article based on the reliable sources in the article body. Only one reliable source provided actually references the term New World Order and the movie itself never uses the term.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

			::One reliable source is enough for anything and the movie is not reliable in and of itself for mentioning New World Order or not, especially since most sources say the movie is written in right wing anti Semitic code language to appeal to unknowing left wingers. I know you were topic banned previously from Truth-er articles and 911 things and broke your topic ban twice and were further blocked T.D.A. so why are you continuing to remove information that is sourced from this article? Maybe only a further topic ban can prevent you from your edit war on Zeitgeist information which is ongoing? ] (]) 03:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
	'''"...takes a side based on something that's only in a primary source..."''' No it does not. One more time: When material '''properly attributes''' an idea to its source, it does '''NOT''' constitute the article "taking a side" or promoting the idea "in Misplaced Pages's voice". Again, I pointed this out above, and instead of responding to me by explaining why you disagree with this, you simply repeat the canard ad nauseum. Again, why is this? Why do you go on and on about "promoting consensus" when you refuse to respond directly to the counterarguments of those who disagree with you? When the articles on ], ], ] or ] describe those ideas, are they presenting them in Misplaced Pages's voice? Are they "taking a side"? Are those articles being used as "platforms" or "forums" for the people who subscribe to those ideas?
			:::A single reliable source making a single mention of a term is not enough to warrant including the term in the lede of the article. The version of the lede you keep undoing does mention their claims of a conspiracy to institute a one-world government, it just does not include the phrase New World Order because it isn't commonly mentioned in reliable sources discussing the film. Not being discussed in the film itself only reinforces that it does not belong in the lede. Both versions of the article note Constant's use of the term to describe the film's ideas. Your specific edit actually claims the film says New World Order forces were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, when the film only really implicates elements of the U.S. government as verified by multiple reliable sources. You and MONGO are also reverting my clean-up of the reference section as well because neither you are apparently willing to do the small amount of work required to restore the version of the lede you want without undoing completely appropriate edits.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

			::::Doubtful. You did not address the issues of your being blocked on this type of article previously for doing exactly what you are doing now, tendentious editing and warring over cited information. ] (]) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
	Can you please answer these questions directly? ] (]) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
			:Okay, I think I got all the clean-up of the reference section in after MONGO's hasty revert, so there is only the material in the lede at issue now, providing MONGO doesn't go and revert again. Here are the issues with your edits Eark:
			:#The Third Estate is not a reliable source and should not be provided here. It appears to be a blog run by three people, only one of whom is stated to be a professional journalist. What is cited is a piece marked as a "guest post" with no further mention of authorship.
			:#News One is being cited here for several details in the current lede. The problem is the piece is loaded with grammatical errors and makes some factually inaccurate statements. Seems rather obvious there was either no editorial review of the piece or it was so lacking that it cannot possibly be taken as sufficient to make the piece a reliable source. On his the author gives his title as "lead blogger" and we see no other evidence of writing experience. Many of the details backed by this source are present in no reliable source and include some of the inaccurate statements from the piece.
			:#Constant is being cited for the statement that 9/11 was "pre-arranged by New World Order forces", but he never actually says this is in the article. In fact, he devotes a total of three paragraphs to the movie in total, but is being cited more than any other source. His quotes already appear in two parts of the article, yet Earl wants to include one of those quotes in the lede as well. This is seriously giving Constant undue weight and it appears in this case to be because he is the only reliable source to bring up the New World Order idea in connection with the movie.
			:Earl's editing on this article is showing no real respect for our sourcing or neutrality policies. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article based on reliable sources. It is not a place to fill up with whatever claims you think are valid.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

			::Wrong on all counts. Those sources have been in the article for years. They have already undergone scrutiny. There is a notice board for sources if you care to bring your ideas there, but right now it is just a case of your making revisions against consensus. Your history of edit warring on 'conspiracy' related things does not bode well for the article under your edits. ] (])!
	::Nightscream, you write "One more time: Clarifying a falsehood about a quote misattributed to you..." Is it then a falsehood? How do you know that? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
			:::You added and just a few days ago. They were not used in the article prior to that. Constant was used already, but my concern there is you misrepresenting the source and giving his article undue emphasis in the lede.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 02:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

			Almost all the critical sources say the same thing. A group of people, one world government people, NWO people according to the movie, want to implant a chip in you and turn you into a kind of zombie for the bankers. They want it world wide and they have been working on it for decades and decades? Maybe watch the movie sometime and see for yourself just to have some kind of reference point for your edits. ] (]) 13:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
	:I was asked to comment on this. I perused this discussion and have a couple of responses. Yes, the comment in question '''is''' self-serving -- and yes, it should be included. We don't leave relevant comments out just because the person who made them was seeking to serve his or herself; most people who comment on their own work are seeking to do just that, and reporting that they've done so is common, because it does '''not''' lend Misplaced Pages's voice to its credibility or lack thereof. The description of this as "clarifying a falsehood" might be a little confusing: We as editors don't seek to clarify anything. We do seek to simply report that Peter sought to clarify it, leaving the validity of his claim up to the reader. The fact that he made the claim is relevant and verifiable, whether or not the claim itself is justified. As for use of a primary source, this is questionable only when an interpretation is involved, but for information about what a person said, there's really no better source than a page written by the person who said it. Primary sources can and are used in plain statements of fact, the fact in this case being that Peter made this particular statement ('''not''' that what he said has validity). '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 01:36, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)</font>
			:I am not denying that Zeitgeist talks about elite forces plotting to institute a one world government and tried to include that in the lede, but the term "New World Order" is never used in the film and the only reliable source making mention of this specific term is Constant. You are using that one reliable source's three paragraphs on Zeitgeist and another horrifically unreliable two-paragraph piece to shove that particular term into the lede as many times as possible. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and, by extension, a summary of the reliable sources. No summary demands repeated use of the term "New World Order" as only one reliable source even uses that term.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

			::Yes, but it can be prominent in the lead because that is what the movie is about and a cursory search finds references to that as one of the main stepping stones of the movies brisk walk down conspiracy lane. ] (]) 23:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Tom Harrison: '''"Is it then a falsehood? How do you know that?"'''
			:::That source states its theories "show a certain closeness" to New World Order conspiracy theories rather than saying it is about that and this in a work that devotes a single paragraph to the film. It is still a reliable source, so I guess that is two. Still not enough to warrant mentioning in the lede.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I don't need to. Joseph says they are. Since he is saying he was misquoted in an interview cited as a source in the Misplaced Pages article, not including it is inappropriate. The question of whether he in fact ''was'' misquoted is something we may never know, unless the interview makes public the raw, unedited audio or video footage of the interview. The point is not that ''I know'' it's a falsehood. It's that Joesph is saying it is. In any he said/she said conflict related in a WP article, we need to include both what "he" said ''and'' what "she" said. Objecting when one is included and the other isn't does not constitute knowledge on the part of the person objecting that they know who is right. Misplaced Pages must include the positions of both (or all) sides when relating controversial material. It doesn't need to "know" which is right or which is wrong, as since that is not within the site's purview.

			::: This film says nothing about NWO and any connections drawn are done artificially by the viewer.] (]) 10:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Equazcion: '''"Yes, the comment in question '''is''' self-serving"'''. How so? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that you understand that it needs to be included, but what definition of ''self-serving'' does it fall under, and how?

	:::~~Equazcion~~: ~~'''"We~~ as ~~editors~~ ~~don't~~ ~~seek~~ to ~~clarify~~ ~~anything~~. We do ~~seek~~ to ~~simply~~ ~~report~~ that ~~Peter~~ ~~sought~~ to ~~clarify~~ ~~it,~~ ~~leaving~~ ~~the~~ ~~validity~~ of ~~his~~ ~~claim~~ up to the ~~reader."'''~~ ~~Agreed.~~ ~~That~~ ~~was~~ my ~~point,~~ ~~and~~ I ~~never~~ ~~said~~ ~~otherwise.~~ ~~Sorry~~ if my ~~wording~~ ~~wasn't~~ ~~clear.~~ ~~(Guess~~ I ~~needed~~ ~~you~~ to ~~clarify~~ ~~me.~~ ~~:))~~ ] (]) 01:41, 22 ~~July~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		::::What former user are you a sock for S.G.L.? I assume it was the last one that was blocked from editing fairly recently. About your comment it does not matter what the film says except explaining the story line. Maybe you do not understand that it is what reliable sources say that counts, so your comment is a non-starter. ] (]) 12:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
			:::::Except, reliable sources do not really throw out the New World Order concept either.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

			::::::Have you ever heard of ] and did you know that most of the Zeitgeist movie is based on his interpretation of the New World Order??? and also that reliable sources point out that one world government and new world order are the same thing? ] (]) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::The statement is self-serving by the simple fact that its author sought to serve his own interests in making it. I can understand feeling compelled to exclude it on those grounds. Tom and Arthur's stance, as I'm reading it, comes down to relevance: They feel the question of whether to include a statement by Joseph should come down to evidence in the form of an existing secondary source that has deemed it relevant enough to comment on. Nevertheless, Misplaced Pages's current policies make no such distinction: Primary vs. Secondary can answer questions about verifiability, but do not themselves test relevance. If we include the conflict this statement was meant to address (and I'm pretty sure we should), we do need to also include Joseph's response, as without it we would be excluding relevant information, whether or not it's been picked up by secondary sources. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 02:19, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)</font>
			:::::::Why do you think the term New World Order is so important?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

			::::::::Because the film clips the movie uses are mostly Loose Change Alex Jones types of things that make claims of that kind of thing. Chips implanted. Secret, not so secret, special interest groups. ] (]) 09:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	I too was asked to comment. I feel that opinions expressed by The Marker should be included, but not their interpretation of Joseph's opinion (i.e., the "quotes"). It's too far removed from the source, given the translation, the interviewer's apparent POV, and the fact that Joseph says the quotations are not accurate. If they are included, Joseph in reply should be quoted directly; but I'd prefer avoiding the "he said, he said" business altogether. It's not becoming of the encyclopedia. ] </small>]] 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

			::::::::: Actually, the film has maybe 2 clips of alex jones and maybe 5 of Loose Change with 40-50 clips of many other films and sources. At no time is "New World Order" ever talked about. This is one massive POV insertion that has no basis in anything. ] (]) 09:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	I as well was asked to comment on this and I must throw my support in with Nightscream, The Devils Advocate, Equazcion and Jordgette after reviewing the articles in question being linked and considering the questions being proposed, I am convinced that if the Marker is being used as a source then the idea of leaving out Joseph's clarification would be a disservice to us as reporting in an objective manner. While I do not agree with that it is "unduly self-serving" as no one has yet to give an indication of how it is based on Wiki policies and until someone does I am not exactly convinced but that is irrelevant to the issue of the relevancy of Joseph's mention until someone can point to me why it is relevant for exclusion. ] (]) 09:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

			:::::::::What relevance does any of that have to why you think the term is so important?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Having been asked to comment, I would also say that the opinions expressed by The Marker should be included. If somebody has been quoted as saying something, and later that person claims that they were misquoted, it's surely in the interest of neutrality to include ''all'' parties' comments. Moreover, using a secondary source (if one exists) in order to quote Peter Joseph (ie, quoting them quoting him) adds ''nothing'' in terms of verifiability. He claims that he was misquoted, and whether or not that is true is irrelevant, the comment should be included. Withholding the comment on the basis that it wasn't published by a reliable secondary source is illogical. ] (]) 12:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
			I suppose that you are a member of the movement S.G.L. that has edited here in many guises in the more recently blocked group of socks and meat puppets that tried to highjack the articles to sound like the Zeitgeist Faq's page. The movie can not be presented as story line by Peter Joseph, if you know what I mean. Some sources say it is a cult of people that are involved and it seems a few of the members, like yourself feel obligated to come to preach. ] (]) 13:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

			== RSN discussion ==
	I think it is safe to say that sock puppets for Mr. Zeitgeist have now made an appearance here. It would be a mistake to use Joseph as a source. He is obviously a biased observer of himself and his group.
	There are already enough connectors to the Zeitgeist web pages in the article. Better if some news story gave information on this, than Joseph himself. ] (]) 13:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
	:That would be a problem if we were using him as a source for the article's interpretation of events, ie. if we were to say ''Peter Joseph was misquoted '', that would definitely be a problem. But we're not. We're using him as a source to quote his response, and nothing more. People's responses to conflicts are generally biased, and yet we do need to report them all the same. Doing so doesn't imbalance an article. As for your sockpuppet claim, I'm not sure if you're talking about this discussion, but all the people who've responded to this discussion thus far are more prominent Misplaced Pages figures than yourself (aside from the OP). I see no reason to claim sockpuppeting. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 13:26, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)</font>

			I have started ] at the reliable sources noticeboard concerning The Third Estate and News One.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Kudos to Equazcion for diplomacy. To Earl King Jr, I'd like to invite you to browse through my ] and those of the other editors here trying to reach a consensus, and consider the likelihood that we're all actually Peter Joseph, before casting aspersions. Otherwise, I suggest you simply ] and ]. ] (]) 16:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:22, 28 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zeitgeist: The Movie redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film

This redirect 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

United States

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Alternative views

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views

Skepticism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
Keep, 13 November 2007, see discussion. Recreate and relist, 8 November 2007, see discussion. Deletion endorsed, 3 November 2007, see discussion. Deletion endorsed, 7 September 2007, see discussion. Speedy endorse, 17 August 2007, see discussion. Delete, 9 July 2007, see discussion.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

What is going on with this page? POV, False Claims, Biased sourcing...

I came here a little while back after seeing the film and was astounded (then) at the ideas made up about the film on this page. I came back today and was even more astounded given the vast range of POV and extremely biased sourcing. How do any of you people rationalize the constant vandalism ( which is what it really is ) of this page, knowing that Joseph's film has nothing to do with "New World Order", is entirely not anti-semetic no matter the uber fringe claims and at no time does anything in the film that says "bankers manipulate world events". Can any of you editors here, not referencing right wing hate press full of pure POV, actually defend any of these ideas as sourced in the film itself? Seriously, please show me in the film where any of this stuff is stated. The script is here: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf Also, what is the story with the constant "conspiracy" theory references in the opening, which, again, is pure POV. Zeitgeist The Movie reports historical events as per the view of the author. Putting the "conspiracy label" only insults. Also, the term "conspiracy theorist" is now common known as a pejorative. It is just like a racist term today. I hope other more mindful people can help bring some honestly here as this is likely the worst, most misrepresented article on Misplaced Pages. SweetGirlLove (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Any opinions of the film should be expressed in the Reception section - not the opening. I have clean it up as the POV was absurd SweetGirlLove (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Loughner section RfC

Yes, it's too long Most respondents agree that the section in question is too long. This RfC would have been more productive if there had been some specific proposal or course of action to deal with, but at least the problem's been identified.Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this section of the article detailing Jared Loughner's reported interest in the film unduly long and in need of shortening?

Comments

Yes As it stands, the only source we have in the section that devotes more than three sentences to any connection between the movie and Loughner is a single opinion piece by a partisan commentator trying to connect the movie to the right-wing. I believe a single paragraph with a summary of the allegations about the film's influence on Loughner and Joseph's response is sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A request for comment is for finding others opinions plus Misplaced Pages is not democratic especially on article like this where the 'movements' allies are always willing to throw in. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be covered since it has attracted network media attention. But I would take out the direct quotes and just summarize what was said, which could be done in one or two sentences and would not require a separate section. TFD (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably so, but it was big pop culture news event so a little more info. than that might be good. Probably connect it to the section above it, yes. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems obvious that the film converted a guy who may have only been suffering a mild paranoia and turned him into a murdering sociopath.--MONGO 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like it is that helpful to include a large paragraph that is basically a conclusion between a friend's guess of influence of Zeitgeist the movie and Loughner's behavior. Seems like a not very reliable or helpful inclusion on the article, especially because it doesn't explain how aspects of the film could have influenced Loughner. I wonder if instead, inside the section of proposed negative influences/criticisms of Zeitgeist and this can be just one tiny point. Calling it "Influence" is a bit manipulative, because this one example doesn't categorize the whole influence of the film and to imply so is clearly OR. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's too long, and it's also not very clear. I had never heard of this person before and the article didn't do a good job of explaining why he was supposed to be notable or relevant. I also agree "Influence" is misleading. Popcornduff (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason you may not have heard of the person is unknown. He was a huge media blitz for a while for shooting a bunch of people. also not sure if the latest comment read the section. Influence was written out of the heading a few weeks ago so not really relevant to the discussion now. The whole area in question was rewritten several weeks ago and is different from the request for comment era of the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- "The reason you may not have heard of the person is unknown. He was a huge media blitz for a while for shooting a bunch of people." Doesn't matter. I should be able to read this article with no prior knowledge of the person and see why this information is relevant. (And yes, I did read the section.) For example, the first sentence of the section is "Jared Lee Loughner was described in news accounts as "obsessed" with the Zeitgeist film." To which the unenlightened reader responds: "Who the hell is Jared Lee Loughner and why is that important?" Popcornduff (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As said the average English speaker probably would recognize that name in relation to a spree killer, something popular in the U.S. It was a big ticket news item for a while and it appears that there is a connection according to the big probably dumb news groups that he was somehow influenced by the film of which others call a conspiracy cult film. Look at the section from a month or so ago for a reference point of change though. Jared has his own article also if people are not sure about who he is and why he seems connected to this 'movie' about conspiracy things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Misplaced Pages articles can't assume knowledge about its readers. Perhaps this person is famous in the US, but I don't live in the US, and neither does most of the world population. What's more, I'm sure there are people in the US who don't know who the person is. I shouldn't have to click on the link to the guy's article to understand why he's relevant to the subject matter. Popcornduff (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So what are you saying? That you read my comment? Just repeating what you said before though without useful ideas is not constructive. Its been rewritten. Did you see that? For your information almost the whole world lives in the U.S. also or you think otherwise. What has that got to do with anything/ I think the RFC expired a while back. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the RFC. You and I are now having a (bizarre) conversation about a different issue: whether the section currently makes it sufficiently clear why this person is relevant. It hasn't been rewritten to address that.

"For your information almost the whole world lives in the U.S. also or you think otherwise." ???? I have no idea what this means or how to respond to it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Look. I wrote that to let you know that when you write something like What's more, I'm sure there are people in the US who don't know who the person is. end quote, that others are equally adept at writing things that do not make sense also like what I wrote. It was just a reflection of your non starter way of making a point which is weird rhetoric. For instance that not everyone lives in the U.S.- Can you see where that is not the kind of comment that goes anywhere or does anything in this discussion? Just a rhetoric question, no need to reply. Any suggestion of improving the article? Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion of improving the article. Again. Rewrite the section about Jared Lee Loughner so it's clear to all readers who Loughner is and why he's relevant to the subject matter. Popcornduff (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Its pretty clear who he is and what he did and where his influence came from. I am not living in the U.S. either, but that is not criteria of looking at the citations. I added more information and subtracted a lot, because probably the section carried on too much about Peter Josephs reaction to the news reports. Also added the Alex Jones stuff which is important. The article had nothing on Jones previously and now the conspiracy angle and the Jared angle might be more clear . The first movie was made up of clips partly from A. Jones media things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments are aggressive and very difficult to follow. I sense that English might not be your first language?

I've copy-edited the section to try to make Loughner's relevance more clear. I now don't understand why this and Jones are in the same section. Popcornduff (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you do not understand American culture. Most people there believe that angels are real. Many believe that the moon shot was faked. Many believe that the Jews control the inner actions of the banking system, etc. etc.. Alex Jones is a king of conspiracy stuff. The movie is a conspiracy idea based movie, Zeitgeist is, that borrowed footage from Jones media. Jared believed in all that stuff of international conspiracy. Apparently, according to news reports on him being highly energized in a negative way he struck out at a politician especially Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New world order

An editor keeps removing references to cited material 'One world government' or New world order references. Zeitgeist the movie is referring to a conspiracy of people involved in just that. The first 45 minutes of it explain in detail why Christianity is a sham and Jesus Christ is not the messiah. Besides some not-well-documented dabbling into astrology, it's fairly well argued and revolves around commonly known facts: Many early religions had messianic stories involving virgin births, crucifixions, celebrations on December 25th, etc. The second part of Zeitgeist is devoted to 9/11 Truth, and it's probably the most clearly stated case I've seen, in part because of its brevity; it covers the "facts" as concisely as possible. The third part of Zeitgeist lost me entirely—it's a screed about how everything has always been a part of a master plan to create a New World Order, and the film's emotional climax involves a documentary filmmaker befriending a loose-lipped Rockefeller family member who blurts out the events of 9/11... nearly one year before they happened! end quote from citation . Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is you are adding this to the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the article based on the reliable sources in the article body. Only one reliable source provided actually references the term New World Order and the movie itself never uses the term.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

One reliable source is enough for anything and the movie is not reliable in and of itself for mentioning New World Order or not, especially since most sources say the movie is written in right wing anti Semitic code language to appeal to unknowing left wingers. I know you were topic banned previously from Truth-er articles and 911 things and broke your topic ban twice and were further blocked T.D.A. so why are you continuing to remove information that is sourced from this article? Maybe only a further topic ban can prevent you from your edit war on Zeitgeist information which is ongoing? Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A single reliable source making a single mention of a term is not enough to warrant including the term in the lede of the article. The version of the lede you keep undoing does mention their claims of a conspiracy to institute a one-world government, it just does not include the phrase New World Order because it isn't commonly mentioned in reliable sources discussing the film. Not being discussed in the film itself only reinforces that it does not belong in the lede. Both versions of the article note Constant's use of the term to describe the film's ideas. Your specific edit actually claims the film says New World Order forces were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, when the film only really implicates elements of the U.S. government as verified by multiple reliable sources. You and MONGO are also reverting my clean-up of the reference section as well because neither you are apparently willing to do the small amount of work required to restore the version of the lede you want without undoing completely appropriate edits.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful. You did not address the issues of your being blocked on this type of article previously for doing exactly what you are doing now, tendentious editing and warring over cited information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got all the clean-up of the reference section in after MONGO's hasty revert, so there is only the material in the lede at issue now, providing MONGO doesn't go and revert again. Here are the issues with your edits Eark:

The Third Estate is not a reliable source and should not be provided here. It appears to be a blog run by three people, only one of whom is stated to be a professional journalist. What is cited is a piece marked as a "guest post" with no further mention of authorship.
News One is being cited here for several details in the current lede. The problem is the piece is loaded with grammatical errors and makes some factually inaccurate statements. Seems rather obvious there was either no editorial review of the piece or it was so lacking that it cannot possibly be taken as sufficient to make the piece a reliable source. On his LinkedIn page the author gives his title as "lead blogger" and we see no other evidence of writing experience. Many of the details backed by this source are present in no reliable source and include some of the inaccurate statements from the piece.
Constant is being cited for the statement that 9/11 was "pre-arranged by New World Order forces", but he never actually says this is in the article. In fact, he devotes a total of three paragraphs to the movie in total, but is being cited more than any other source. His quotes already appear in two parts of the article, yet Earl wants to include one of those quotes in the lede as well. This is seriously giving Constant undue weight and it appears in this case to be because he is the only reliable source to bring up the New World Order idea in connection with the movie.

Earl's editing on this article is showing no real respect for our sourcing or neutrality policies. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article based on reliable sources. It is not a place to fill up with whatever claims you think are valid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Those sources have been in the article for years. They have already undergone scrutiny. There is a notice board for sources if you care to bring your ideas there, but right now it is just a case of your making revisions against consensus. Your history of edit warring on 'conspiracy' related things does not bode well for the article under your edits. Earl King Jr. (talk)!

You added The Third Estate and News One just a few days ago. They were not used in the article prior to that. Constant was used already, but my concern there is you misrepresenting the source and giving his article undue emphasis in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost all the critical sources say the same thing. A group of people, one world government people, NWO people according to the movie, want to implant a chip in you and turn you into a kind of zombie for the bankers. They want it world wide and they have been working on it for decades and decades? Maybe watch the movie sometime and see for yourself just to have some kind of reference point for your edits. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not denying that Zeitgeist talks about elite forces plotting to institute a one world government and tried to include that in the lede, but the term "New World Order" is never used in the film and the only reliable source making mention of this specific term is Constant. You are using that one reliable source's three paragraphs on Zeitgeist and another horrifically unreliable two-paragraph piece to shove that particular term into the lede as many times as possible. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and, by extension, a summary of the reliable sources. No summary demands repeated use of the term "New World Order" as only one reliable source even uses that term.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it can be prominent in the lead because that is what the movie is about and a cursory search finds references to that as one of the main stepping stones of the movies brisk walk down conspiracy lane. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That source states its theories "show a certain closeness" to New World Order conspiracy theories rather than saying it is about that and this in a work that devotes a single paragraph to the film. It is still a reliable source, so I guess that is two. Still not enough to warrant mentioning in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This film says nothing about NWO and any connections drawn are done artificially by the viewer.SweetGirlLove (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What former user are you a sock for S.G.L.? I assume it was the last one that was blocked from editing fairly recently. About your comment it does not matter what the film says except explaining the story line. Maybe you do not understand that it is what reliable sources say that counts, so your comment is a non-starter. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Except, reliable sources do not really throw out the New World Order concept either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Alex Jones and did you know that most of the Zeitgeist movie is based on his interpretation of the New World Order??? and also that reliable sources point out that one world government and new world order are the same thing? Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the term New World Order is so important?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the film clips the movie uses are mostly Loose Change Alex Jones types of things that make claims of that kind of thing. Chips implanted. Secret, not so secret, special interest groups. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the film has maybe 2 clips of alex jones and maybe 5 of Loose Change with 40-50 clips of many other films and sources. At no time is "New World Order" ever talked about. This is one massive POV insertion that has no basis in anything. SweetGirlLove (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What relevance does any of that have to why you think the term is so important?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that you are a member of the movement S.G.L. that has edited here in many guises in the more recently blocked group of socks and meat puppets that tried to highjack the articles to sound like the Zeitgeist Faq's page. The movie can not be presented as story line by Peter Joseph, if you know what I mean. Some sources say it is a cult of people that are involved and it seems a few of the members, like yourself feel obligated to come to preach. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion

I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard concerning The Third Estate and News One.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories: