Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:39, 8 October 2014

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: American 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 This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Media Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments United States: September 11 Low‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Low-importance). [REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance [REDACTED] 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 Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance 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 Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

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.

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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)

Should we redirect this page to The Zeitgeist Movement?

Earl King Jr. proposes to turn this page into a redirect (ie, replacing the entire page contents with #REDIRECT ]). There is an ongoing discussion here, which I encourage others to join. nagualdesign 19:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to personalize this by emphasizing what editor did what. Lets just stick with neutral editing and discussion. Mostly the conversation about this is on the The Zeitgeist Movement page.

Redirection is a terrible idea. Peter Joseph made this film years before TZM and TZM does not promote the ideas in Zeitgeist The Movie in any of its work, which is ubiquitous online in lectures and their book. JamesB17 (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why anyone would even suggestion that is odd. No redirect. The whole Zeitgeist film set appears to have nothing to do with The Zeitgeist Movement beyond inspiration. TZM be based on The Venus Project's work clearly.SweetGirlLove (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Loughner section RfC

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)

POV in opening summary

Having watch this film on Netflix and researching it, the opening section has a very wrong statement.

It states:

"...and argues that bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system."

It sources an article that doesn't actually make this claim directly at all. Even if it did or was implied, the truth is that the film doesn't say this when the script is read. Part 3 describes how bankers and businesses make money from war and prefer war to peace in many ways.

It never says or implies "bankers manipulate the media".

Is it[REDACTED] policy to defined the purpose of a subject simply because some random person who it "notable" reinvents it, even if it is incompetent? I would hope more integrity would exist in this place. Can we update this problem? SweetGirlLove (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The movie definitely talks about bankers controlling the international monetary system and it is stated that the same people control the media. When reliable secondary sources all recognize that as being the movie's meaning then we note as much. Just because it does not say it in so many words does not mean we should act like this is not strongly implied and act like this is not recognized as being the case by numerous reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you for your input. However, while it is clear that Zeitgeist states the point about monetary policy, I see no corroboration on the film inclusion that "bankers control the media" either by discussions here or, more importantly, in the media. Even the current source never actually says it. Would you mind providing more than one source on this dubious claim? The film certainly doesn't say this and having only the one media source, which is weak, certainly doesn't warrant it making it into this article in such a declaratory manner, does it?. Until consensus is met, the "citation needed should remain as I see nothing here on the talk page about it. thanks SweetGirlLove (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the movie does strongly suggest this, but it does seem The Globe and Mail is the only one that gets so specific. More accurately one would say the allegation is that the international bankers control world events through their domination of the international monetary system and multiple reliable sources mention that as prominent element of the story. Do you consider that sort of adjustment acceptable?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, and its changing the article into something it isn't to suggest that the movie does not endorse the idea of international bankers controlling the world. So, have to assume talk you are one of the many banned/blocked pov editors for Zeitgeist or part of the others that wind up here trying to modify the article in a pov. Reading the citation, Zeitgeist, is based on their fact of international bankers controlling things. Excerpt, one of many from the link To what end? Warming to its topic, the film shimmers into its third act. It seems that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. money-printing organ, is in fact the implement of a small cabal of International Bankers (the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed) who stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves. end quote from citation Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems SGL's objection is specifically to the "controlling the media" part not being represented in reliable sources and in this case that does seem to be an apt point. Would you be fine with adjusting it as I suggested above?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Read the citation. It seems likely that SGL is another sock of one of the blocked, from the article editors, returning. Its also seems that The Devils Advocate attempts to slant the article in favor of pro Zeitgeist editors that land here and want to water down the info. Quote from the citation is super clear.

To what end? Warming to its topic, the film shimmers into its third act. It seems that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. money-printing organ, is in fact the implement of a small cabal of International Bankers (the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed) who stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves. They arranged for the Lusitania to be torpedoed, dragging the U.S. into the First World War. They manipulated FDR into essentially staging Pearl Harbour, starting the Second World War. (That was the start of the Second World War, right?) Ditto Vietnam, ditto 9/11. Their ultimate goal? A one-world government whose citizens all carry implanted microchip IDs. And all the while, the hidden powers are using the consolidated mass media, the church, and the educational establishment to create a complacent zeitgeist - a spirit of the times - that leaves us dumb as sheep.

End of quote.

That leave zero doubt about bankers manipulating the media according to the source citation that says the movie expounds that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it is in the film and in The Globe and Mail article, but SGL does have a good point about the claim of bankers controlling the media not really being mentioned in other reliable sources. As the lede is a summary it should focus on what are the most prominent details of the subject. We can probably say something like the movie claims international bankers control the world instead as that is mentioned in numerous as a major detail of the film.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No. If they control the world that means they control the media. Its not a point worth making and Peter Joseph says that the media is controlled by the same dark forces that he believes all the other things are controlled by. Why give any credence to the latest i.p. that formed an account to screw with the article as a single purpose? No reason. Its just the same people trying to make the article sound like the Zeitgeist FAQ's material. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Earl, this isn't about whether it is a fact or not. I am only saying that it seems reliable sources do not generally treat alleged banker control of the media as a prominent detail of the film, while control of the world is treated as such. What is the big deal with replacing "media" with "world" exactly?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment on this again. As in the article I think there is no debate on the link and the source or what it says. As said why are you debating endlessly a point from a i.p. meat puppet sock? Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The stuff about the media might be warranted when based off a single source if the material were in the article body, but the lede should be a summary of the subject based off the most common details raised in reliable sources. I do not know who SGL is, but I do know that SGL's point was a legitimate one. Note that I was initially skeptical of the objection, but I checked it out looking at other sources in the article and found the objection to be a valid one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quote sure why I am being insulted here since I am simply pointing out a perceived flaw. Despite your comments, the source indicated says nothing about "bankers controlling the media of the world". I appreciate your POVs and can understand how your persional views may come to the conclusions you have. However, there is nothing in that linked source that says what you are stating as fact in the opening. I suggest removing "world events and" and making the sentence "...and argues that bankers manipulate the international monetary system." That is actually both in the film and in the source. SweetGirlLove (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

They talk about bankers orchestrating international conflicts and wanting global government. Just because they did not use the word "world events" does not mean this is not what they were saying. Many reliable sources do say this is what they are saying and it is evident from the film that they are correct in that interpretation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You are way off. I returned the last neutral edit that is sourced to this. You removed that source also previously So, not sure why you are removing cited information but please stop. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

• Redirect-Class film pages
• Redirect-Class American cinema pages
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• NA-Class Media pages
• Low-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• Redirect-Class United States pages
• Low-importance United States articles
• Redirect-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Redirect-Class September 11, 2001 pages
• Low-importance September 11, 2001 articles
• WikiProject September 11, 2001 articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Redirect-Class Alternative views pages
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• NA-Class Skepticism pages
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics