![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
If we were to rewrite this section TheMarker[12] characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by The Irish Times[15] (See above). TheMarker further wrote that Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film, and that an updated version of the film, released in 2010, dropped the claim on the unification of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. TheMarker additionally wrote that Joseph said that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect. In addition, TheMarker also quotes Joseph as saying: "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do."[12][23]
What would it look like? Say for instance if the contentious aspect of the Marker story of Joseph distancing himself and the Marker report of that were removed, meaning those lines of the Marker, making the claims and Joesph's counter claims were removed? I assume other aspects of the Marker reporting would still exist as they are? Right now it appears few have weighed in on the RFC issue, but the drift is for removing claims from Marker and Joseph on the issue. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The size of this section violates the neutrality of the article. It needs to be substantially trimmed down. See WP:Weight for more info. TheMarker carries little weight as does Filipe Feio or Jane Chapman. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I was asked to weigh in here. Neutrality is not "violated" by mere the size of a section. Neutrality is violated when material indicates an editor's POV, or conveys a POV or appearance of a POV in Wikipedia's voice. One could argue that all material must be summarized in proportion to its relevance, but that's more of a writing and composition issue than a neutrality one. One could argue that NPOV can be violated by putting too much detail of either positive or negative reaction to a film in an article, but that does not appear to me to be the case in this one. The section appears to summarize the different types of critical reaction to the film, which isn't just a matter of aesthetics, as the material in most film articles are, but of the validity of its factual and historical content, which is in keeping with other articles on films, particularly documentaries, that are socially, historically or politically controversial. See Bowling for Columbine and Sicko for examples of articles on films with sections on reception that are more extensive than typical films, and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as an example of an article whose content is mostly about the controversy over the film's content. See also Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy for an example of an entire article devoted to controversy over reactions to a film, and Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code for a similar article on a book. Nightscream ( talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
For those editors involved, please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And still no response for the reverts so I'll post it again. For those editors involved, please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If the section is predominantly negative, that may be because critical reaction to the film has been predominantly negative. The critical reception section in the Jack and Jill (film) article is predominantly negative. Is that in violation of NPOV, or just an accurate reflection of critical reaction to the film? And if this is not the case with Zeitgeist, if you feel that critical reaction to the film has been mixed or mixed-to-positive, then you can fix it by adding positive reviews from reliable sources. Nightscream ( talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted some questions previously regarding changes made to the Critical reaction section. I understand that the current consensus is to keep that section as it is, so I'm not editing the article, but the questions remain relevant and unanswered. They're open to all editors.
1) Why was the material from Dr. Mark Foreman, which comes from a primary source, put back in place? 2) Why is the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? 3) Why was the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response removed at the beginning of the section? 4) Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The source for the statement "Acharya also acted as consultant for Part I of the movie." has been called into question by Arthur Rubin. The source is < http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/376-zeitgeist-sourcebook-part-1-the-greatest-story-ever-told.html>
I think this source is reliable and should be kept because:
— Dustin184 ( talk) 02:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The source for the statement in the article , "Acharya also responded to Forbes's statements, insisting that the primary sources used in her research support the ideas in her writings." has been called into question by Arthur Rubin. The source is < http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html>.
The source should be considered reliable and kept because:
— Dustin184 ( talk) 02:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That it is a blog does not make it unacceptable. It is reasonable to assume that content posted on Acharya's website attributed to Acharya is in fact written by Acharya. - Dustin184 ( talk) 17:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dustin184 ( talk) 19:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised the incorporation of Zeitgeist: The Movie into the new Black Sabbath video has not been mentioned... maybe a "Pop Culture" Section?
JamesB17 ( talk) 23:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. So let me see if I understand this. A woman, with a clear bias and hatred of the film, states that it is "anti-semitic"... And you guys make a whole sub section out of it? To post that blog style opinion here is deplorable. How can that be justified as neutral? While it is clear the criticisms sections is about as extreme as can be, with this page run by the worst editors on wikipedia, going so far to call the film racist in the context of extreme fringe reporting is absurd. JamesB17 ( talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is Michelle Goldberg given such clout here? Is she an authority on Zeitgeist? She says that it has to do with the "La Rouche" movement" - so therefore it should be posted here?! JamesB17 ( talk) 09:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Give the 200+ page published Source Guide which, according to Joseph, sources "every line" of the film, should this text be given a more prominent position given the large negative slant otherwise noted in this article? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB17 ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know why the links I contributed to section 'See Also' were removed twice for being allegedly "unhelpul"
Anyone who have seen the three documentaries (the two I cited plus Zeitgeist), cannot help to realise their common background: They denounce a Conspiracy led by international bankers in order to enslave the people all, in which the management of money: its creation by Central Banks in particular plays a central role. The Second Zeitgeist Movie practically retells the plot of "The Capitalism Conspiracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engranaje ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I will try to prove my point by citing the current articles on English wikipedia, which I didn't write, in case anyone has't seen all three films [bold emphasis mine]:
1) The capitalist conspiracy
“ | There is a conspiracy among some of the richest people in the non-communist nations and that its power is protected by their respective governments, and it is perpetuating its wealth by creating money out of nothing.
In the USA it is perpetuated through the Federal Reserve system. That although it appears that the executive branch controls them it is in fact the other way around.(...) That the root of the evil is that money is created out of nothing. The solution is to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve and return to the gold and silver standards, thus preventing anyone, in or out of government, from manipulating the money supply. |
” |
2) Money as Debt
“ | Much of the film presents the filmmaker's understanding of modern money creation in a fractional-reserve banking system. New money enters the economy through the indebtedness of borrowers, thus not only obligating the public to the money-issuing private banks but also creating an endless and self-escalating debt that is to eventually outgrow all other forms of wealth generation. The film claims that this ever-increasing gravitation of money to banks is capable of impoverishing any nation. | ” |
3) Zeitgeist
“ | This section also claims the Federal Reserve System is in fact controlled by a small cabal of international bankers ('the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed') who then stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves. | ” |
As can be seen, these similarities I found are well beyond my own opinions.
May I add another quote, this time from Wikipedia Manual of Style [Bold emphasis mine]
“ | Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
(...) The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. |
” |
Engranaje ( talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the links could be worked into the article as article links if they are relevant, but I doubt it they are. There is no corollary to them in the film. It is just more fringe conspiracy theory opinionated backing up the conspiracy aspect of the movie. The implication is that something dark and sinister is happening. It might be noxious also to imply a racial religious group is behind the "system" Earl King Jr. ( talk) 22:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The two links in question (The Capitalist Conspiracy, Money as debt) should be included in the "See Also" section. Engranaje has shown that the three articles are related. Also, as Engranaje pointed out, it is a matter of judgement and common sense whether or not link should be in the "See Also" section; Earl King Jr. is incorrect in saying that some citation is needed for their inclusion. Also, it makes sense to also include a link to criticism of the Federal Reserve.— Dustin184 ( talk) 01:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
«Maybe the links could be worked into the article as article links if they are relevant, but I doubt it they are» If you doubt it, you should watch the films. The similarities among them are even stronger than what can be read from the wikipedia articles. The truth is, Zeitgeist didn't say anything new on this matter.
«There is no corollary to them in the film. It is just more fringe conspiracy theory opinionated backing up the conspiracy aspect of the movie.» There's no conspiracy "aspect" of the movie. The whole movie revolves around conspiracies. May I cite Wikipedia again:
“ | Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary-style film by Peter Joseph. It presents a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including a version of the Christ myth theory, conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and the claim that bankers manipulate both the media and the international monetary system. | ” |
«The implication is that something dark and sinister is happening.» That's what the three movies (Zeitgeist, Money as debt, the capitalist conspiracy) are all about.
«It might be noxious also to imply a racial religious group is behind the "system"» Again, if you had seen the films, you would have found no antisemitism claims at all. And if there were, what's the big deal? Each article shouldn't reflect our own opinions, but mainly that of the movies/film/books/people they are based upon. Would you delete the entry The Protocols of the Elders of Zion because the book's noxious?
I think a link to criticism of the Federal Reserve is also a good idea, why not include the movies too? if you don't believe they are similar, just watch them. The analogies are very hard to ignore. And finally may I point out that I am not giving any opinion wheter the conspiracies denounced are true or not. That's not the issue here.
Engranaje ( talk) 05:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have recieved no further replies. Should I assume it's OK to put the links back and they won't be removed? Engranaje ( talk) 03:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Fine, whatever floats your boat. Seemengly I was unable to convince you. Though you keep on coming up with weak and flamboyant arguments, and, on top of that, you fail to address mine (Haven't you read the See Also citation?), your tone has convinced me that, no matter what I say, you'll just get away with it. Engranaje ( talk) 16:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
"This section also claims the Federal Reserve System is in fact controlled by a small cabal of international bankers ('the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed') who then stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves."
Excuse me, Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.136.218 ( talk) 22:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Have to assume you are kidding or not getting the point. [2] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
How are these not reliable sources? They are commonly cited on other films' Wikipedia pages, and other sites and media commonly reference them. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=591478444 startswithj ( talk) 23:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
For over a year or more, our article here has referenced the following review: http://www.themarker.com/markerweek/1.1620957
Previously it was summarized from a negative viewpoint, which I found odd considering its title. Of course translated sources are allowed, so I ran it through three translators:
I then removed direct quotations and adjusted our summary to a more neutral tone that would be more reflective of the source's general stance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&oldid=591987918#Conspiracy_theory_and_propaganda).
It appears now that because the summary is not as (incorrectly) negatively critical as before, it's being repeatedly deleted. This is a reputable source, a professional writer, and a highly relevant and interesting review in its connection to Judaism and the Occupy Movement. Not to include it in our article would reveal a bias against the subject. startswithj ( talk) 04:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the claim sourced to talk2action.org on the basis of WP:V. Per their [ FAQ], the website's material is user-generated without editorial oversight, and the website itself is hardly notable or professional. Other content of equal or greater footing has been deleted from this article, so in the interest of WP:NPOV, I'm unsure why would we would hold onto this small bit. The claim was re-added with little reason given—thus my invitation to talk here, Thank you. startswithj ( talk) 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the claim sourced to talk2action.org on the basis of WP:V. Per their [ FAQ], the website's material is user-generated without editorial oversight, and the website itself is hardly notable or professional. Other content of equal or greater footing has been deleted from this article, so in the interest of WP:NPOV, I'm unsure why would we would hold onto this small bit. The claim was re-added with little reason given—thus my invitation to talk here, Thank you. startswithj ( talk) 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In 2013 September, the claim that Zeitgeist and Venus Project split was tagged for citation needed. This week, I added cites from each party. These cites were removed, and now the claim has been removed. My reading of WP:SELFSOURCE would indicate these self-published sources are acceptable given that both sides say the same thing, the claim is not self-promotional, and the claim isn't contentious. So why the deletions? Thanks, startswithj ( talk) 02:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed this because there doesn't seem to be any particular notability to the "special acknowledgement" - when the filmfest ran out of actual awards, they gave "special acknowledgements" to six other movies. Strangely, they then singled out Peter Joseph for a slightly strangely-worded variation where the "special acknowledgment" is given to him, not to Zeitgeist. Between that and the obscurity, I think it's better to leave out the "award". It's a little sad that of all our articles on movies, obscure activist movies tend to devote more of their column-inches to listing awards. bobrayner ( talk) 21:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
O.k. I am tired of that kind of B.S. now. Either bring that to some board for a dispute or stop. You have proven a tendentious edit warring personage and perhaps if you do not stop that approach could be topic banned from related things in the future. Accusations of threats are not looked at kindly here. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed this because there doesn't seem to be any particular notability to the "special acknowledgement" - when the filmfest ran out of actual awards, they gave "special acknowledgements" to six other movies, they then singled out Peter Joseph for a slightly strangely-worded variation where the "special acknowledgment" is given to him, not to Zeitgeist. Between that and the obscurity, I think it's better to leave out the "award". Earl King Jr. ( talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
"...and argues that bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system."
is no where to be found in either source provided.
(a) What is the page number that states this specifically in the Official Companion Guide?
(b) As far as the "Stranger" article which appear to be nothing more than a blog, I see nothing about bankers here as well.
If a legitimate source cannot be found in the film - why is this line there? Zeitgeist: The Movie, based on its release narration, saying nothing so specific. It speaks broadly about influence. It never says "bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system" Flowersforparis ( talk) 08:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor has removed some sourced material from the article by a noted journalist Chip_Berlet It may have been tagged previously by Zeitgeist supporters because they do not care for the content as it is critical of the movement. The same editor generally edits with Zeitgeist supporters and recently advertised this movie for sale on another article talk page (The Zeitgeist Movement) by listing an Amazon sales site and over linking Zeitgeist sites that offer the material for sale. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
He may be a noted journalist but the source it appears in is not, nor is it reliable. Either find it in a reliable source or leave it alone. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 07:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Should there be a redirect to the Zeitgeist movement? Capitalismojo ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The DevilsAdvocate an apparent conspiracy buff is at it again trying to manipulate the article to 'sound' better by denying material that does not sound good like the edit about the Arizona shooter, his edit summary Revision as of 02:27, 17 August 2014 (edit) The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 621528200 by MONGO (talk) definitely suggestive, section title and phrasing implies a connection between the movie and the shooting) end quote. Suggestive? Its a news story about the Arizona shooter and his influence from the Zeitgeist movie. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 13:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Simple question: are you or MONGO going to actually respond to my concerns about the current material?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Earl King Jr. proposes to turn this page into a redirect (ie, replacing the entire page contents with #REDIRECT [[The Zeitgeist Movement]]). There is an ongoing discussion here, which I encourage others to join. nagual design 19:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
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 wikipedia 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)
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)
You are way off. I returned the last neutral edit that is sourced to this. You removed that source also previously [8] So, not sure why you are removing cited information but please stop. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
If we were to rewrite this section TheMarker[12] characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by The Irish Times[15] (See above). TheMarker further wrote that Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film, and that an updated version of the film, released in 2010, dropped the claim on the unification of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. TheMarker additionally wrote that Joseph said that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect. In addition, TheMarker also quotes Joseph as saying: "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do."[12][23]
What would it look like? Say for instance if the contentious aspect of the Marker story of Joseph distancing himself and the Marker report of that were removed, meaning those lines of the Marker, making the claims and Joesph's counter claims were removed? I assume other aspects of the Marker reporting would still exist as they are? Right now it appears few have weighed in on the RFC issue, but the drift is for removing claims from Marker and Joseph on the issue. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The size of this section violates the neutrality of the article. It needs to be substantially trimmed down. See WP:Weight for more info. TheMarker carries little weight as does Filipe Feio or Jane Chapman. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I was asked to weigh in here. Neutrality is not "violated" by mere the size of a section. Neutrality is violated when material indicates an editor's POV, or conveys a POV or appearance of a POV in Wikipedia's voice. One could argue that all material must be summarized in proportion to its relevance, but that's more of a writing and composition issue than a neutrality one. One could argue that NPOV can be violated by putting too much detail of either positive or negative reaction to a film in an article, but that does not appear to me to be the case in this one. The section appears to summarize the different types of critical reaction to the film, which isn't just a matter of aesthetics, as the material in most film articles are, but of the validity of its factual and historical content, which is in keeping with other articles on films, particularly documentaries, that are socially, historically or politically controversial. See Bowling for Columbine and Sicko for examples of articles on films with sections on reception that are more extensive than typical films, and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as an example of an article whose content is mostly about the controversy over the film's content. See also Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy for an example of an entire article devoted to controversy over reactions to a film, and Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code for a similar article on a book. Nightscream ( talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
For those editors involved, please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And still no response for the reverts so I'll post it again. For those editors involved, please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If the section is predominantly negative, that may be because critical reaction to the film has been predominantly negative. The critical reception section in the Jack and Jill (film) article is predominantly negative. Is that in violation of NPOV, or just an accurate reflection of critical reaction to the film? And if this is not the case with Zeitgeist, if you feel that critical reaction to the film has been mixed or mixed-to-positive, then you can fix it by adding positive reviews from reliable sources. Nightscream ( talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted some questions previously regarding changes made to the Critical reaction section. I understand that the current consensus is to keep that section as it is, so I'm not editing the article, but the questions remain relevant and unanswered. They're open to all editors.
1) Why was the material from Dr. Mark Foreman, which comes from a primary source, put back in place? 2) Why is the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? 3) Why was the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response removed at the beginning of the section? 4) Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The source for the statement "Acharya also acted as consultant for Part I of the movie." has been called into question by Arthur Rubin. The source is < http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/376-zeitgeist-sourcebook-part-1-the-greatest-story-ever-told.html>
I think this source is reliable and should be kept because:
— Dustin184 ( talk) 02:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The source for the statement in the article , "Acharya also responded to Forbes's statements, insisting that the primary sources used in her research support the ideas in her writings." has been called into question by Arthur Rubin. The source is < http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html>.
The source should be considered reliable and kept because:
— Dustin184 ( talk) 02:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That it is a blog does not make it unacceptable. It is reasonable to assume that content posted on Acharya's website attributed to Acharya is in fact written by Acharya. - Dustin184 ( talk) 17:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dustin184 ( talk) 19:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised the incorporation of Zeitgeist: The Movie into the new Black Sabbath video has not been mentioned... maybe a "Pop Culture" Section?
JamesB17 ( talk) 23:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. So let me see if I understand this. A woman, with a clear bias and hatred of the film, states that it is "anti-semitic"... And you guys make a whole sub section out of it? To post that blog style opinion here is deplorable. How can that be justified as neutral? While it is clear the criticisms sections is about as extreme as can be, with this page run by the worst editors on wikipedia, going so far to call the film racist in the context of extreme fringe reporting is absurd. JamesB17 ( talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is Michelle Goldberg given such clout here? Is she an authority on Zeitgeist? She says that it has to do with the "La Rouche" movement" - so therefore it should be posted here?! JamesB17 ( talk) 09:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Give the 200+ page published Source Guide which, according to Joseph, sources "every line" of the film, should this text be given a more prominent position given the large negative slant otherwise noted in this article? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB17 ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know why the links I contributed to section 'See Also' were removed twice for being allegedly "unhelpul"
Anyone who have seen the three documentaries (the two I cited plus Zeitgeist), cannot help to realise their common background: They denounce a Conspiracy led by international bankers in order to enslave the people all, in which the management of money: its creation by Central Banks in particular plays a central role. The Second Zeitgeist Movie practically retells the plot of "The Capitalism Conspiracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engranaje ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I will try to prove my point by citing the current articles on English wikipedia, which I didn't write, in case anyone has't seen all three films [bold emphasis mine]:
1) The capitalist conspiracy
“ | There is a conspiracy among some of the richest people in the non-communist nations and that its power is protected by their respective governments, and it is perpetuating its wealth by creating money out of nothing.
In the USA it is perpetuated through the Federal Reserve system. That although it appears that the executive branch controls them it is in fact the other way around.(...) That the root of the evil is that money is created out of nothing. The solution is to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve and return to the gold and silver standards, thus preventing anyone, in or out of government, from manipulating the money supply. |
” |
2) Money as Debt
“ | Much of the film presents the filmmaker's understanding of modern money creation in a fractional-reserve banking system. New money enters the economy through the indebtedness of borrowers, thus not only obligating the public to the money-issuing private banks but also creating an endless and self-escalating debt that is to eventually outgrow all other forms of wealth generation. The film claims that this ever-increasing gravitation of money to banks is capable of impoverishing any nation. | ” |
3) Zeitgeist
“ | This section also claims the Federal Reserve System is in fact controlled by a small cabal of international bankers ('the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed') who then stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves. | ” |
As can be seen, these similarities I found are well beyond my own opinions.
May I add another quote, this time from Wikipedia Manual of Style [Bold emphasis mine]
“ | Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.
(...) The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. |
” |
Engranaje ( talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the links could be worked into the article as article links if they are relevant, but I doubt it they are. There is no corollary to them in the film. It is just more fringe conspiracy theory opinionated backing up the conspiracy aspect of the movie. The implication is that something dark and sinister is happening. It might be noxious also to imply a racial religious group is behind the "system" Earl King Jr. ( talk) 22:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The two links in question (The Capitalist Conspiracy, Money as debt) should be included in the "See Also" section. Engranaje has shown that the three articles are related. Also, as Engranaje pointed out, it is a matter of judgement and common sense whether or not link should be in the "See Also" section; Earl King Jr. is incorrect in saying that some citation is needed for their inclusion. Also, it makes sense to also include a link to criticism of the Federal Reserve.— Dustin184 ( talk) 01:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
«Maybe the links could be worked into the article as article links if they are relevant, but I doubt it they are» If you doubt it, you should watch the films. The similarities among them are even stronger than what can be read from the wikipedia articles. The truth is, Zeitgeist didn't say anything new on this matter.
«There is no corollary to them in the film. It is just more fringe conspiracy theory opinionated backing up the conspiracy aspect of the movie.» There's no conspiracy "aspect" of the movie. The whole movie revolves around conspiracies. May I cite Wikipedia again:
“ | Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary-style film by Peter Joseph. It presents a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including a version of the Christ myth theory, conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and the claim that bankers manipulate both the media and the international monetary system. | ” |
«The implication is that something dark and sinister is happening.» That's what the three movies (Zeitgeist, Money as debt, the capitalist conspiracy) are all about.
«It might be noxious also to imply a racial religious group is behind the "system"» Again, if you had seen the films, you would have found no antisemitism claims at all. And if there were, what's the big deal? Each article shouldn't reflect our own opinions, but mainly that of the movies/film/books/people they are based upon. Would you delete the entry The Protocols of the Elders of Zion because the book's noxious?
I think a link to criticism of the Federal Reserve is also a good idea, why not include the movies too? if you don't believe they are similar, just watch them. The analogies are very hard to ignore. And finally may I point out that I am not giving any opinion wheter the conspiracies denounced are true or not. That's not the issue here.
Engranaje ( talk) 05:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have recieved no further replies. Should I assume it's OK to put the links back and they won't be removed? Engranaje ( talk) 03:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Fine, whatever floats your boat. Seemengly I was unable to convince you. Though you keep on coming up with weak and flamboyant arguments, and, on top of that, you fail to address mine (Haven't you read the See Also citation?), your tone has convinced me that, no matter what I say, you'll just get away with it. Engranaje ( talk) 16:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
"This section also claims the Federal Reserve System is in fact controlled by a small cabal of international bankers ('the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed') who then stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves."
Excuse me, Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.136.218 ( talk) 22:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Have to assume you are kidding or not getting the point. [2] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
How are these not reliable sources? They are commonly cited on other films' Wikipedia pages, and other sites and media commonly reference them. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=591478444 startswithj ( talk) 23:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
For over a year or more, our article here has referenced the following review: http://www.themarker.com/markerweek/1.1620957
Previously it was summarized from a negative viewpoint, which I found odd considering its title. Of course translated sources are allowed, so I ran it through three translators:
I then removed direct quotations and adjusted our summary to a more neutral tone that would be more reflective of the source's general stance ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&oldid=591987918#Conspiracy_theory_and_propaganda).
It appears now that because the summary is not as (incorrectly) negatively critical as before, it's being repeatedly deleted. This is a reputable source, a professional writer, and a highly relevant and interesting review in its connection to Judaism and the Occupy Movement. Not to include it in our article would reveal a bias against the subject. startswithj ( talk) 04:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the claim sourced to talk2action.org on the basis of WP:V. Per their [ FAQ], the website's material is user-generated without editorial oversight, and the website itself is hardly notable or professional. Other content of equal or greater footing has been deleted from this article, so in the interest of WP:NPOV, I'm unsure why would we would hold onto this small bit. The claim was re-added with little reason given—thus my invitation to talk here, Thank you. startswithj ( talk) 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the claim sourced to talk2action.org on the basis of WP:V. Per their [ FAQ], the website's material is user-generated without editorial oversight, and the website itself is hardly notable or professional. Other content of equal or greater footing has been deleted from this article, so in the interest of WP:NPOV, I'm unsure why would we would hold onto this small bit. The claim was re-added with little reason given—thus my invitation to talk here, Thank you. startswithj ( talk) 04:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In 2013 September, the claim that Zeitgeist and Venus Project split was tagged for citation needed. This week, I added cites from each party. These cites were removed, and now the claim has been removed. My reading of WP:SELFSOURCE would indicate these self-published sources are acceptable given that both sides say the same thing, the claim is not self-promotional, and the claim isn't contentious. So why the deletions? Thanks, startswithj ( talk) 02:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed this because there doesn't seem to be any particular notability to the "special acknowledgement" - when the filmfest ran out of actual awards, they gave "special acknowledgements" to six other movies. Strangely, they then singled out Peter Joseph for a slightly strangely-worded variation where the "special acknowledgment" is given to him, not to Zeitgeist. Between that and the obscurity, I think it's better to leave out the "award". It's a little sad that of all our articles on movies, obscure activist movies tend to devote more of their column-inches to listing awards. bobrayner ( talk) 21:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
O.k. I am tired of that kind of B.S. now. Either bring that to some board for a dispute or stop. You have proven a tendentious edit warring personage and perhaps if you do not stop that approach could be topic banned from related things in the future. Accusations of threats are not looked at kindly here. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed this because there doesn't seem to be any particular notability to the "special acknowledgement" - when the filmfest ran out of actual awards, they gave "special acknowledgements" to six other movies, they then singled out Peter Joseph for a slightly strangely-worded variation where the "special acknowledgment" is given to him, not to Zeitgeist. Between that and the obscurity, I think it's better to leave out the "award". Earl King Jr. ( talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
"...and argues that bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system."
is no where to be found in either source provided.
(a) What is the page number that states this specifically in the Official Companion Guide?
(b) As far as the "Stranger" article which appear to be nothing more than a blog, I see nothing about bankers here as well.
If a legitimate source cannot be found in the film - why is this line there? Zeitgeist: The Movie, based on its release narration, saying nothing so specific. It speaks broadly about influence. It never says "bankers manipulate the media and international monetary system" Flowersforparis ( talk) 08:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor has removed some sourced material from the article by a noted journalist Chip_Berlet It may have been tagged previously by Zeitgeist supporters because they do not care for the content as it is critical of the movement. The same editor generally edits with Zeitgeist supporters and recently advertised this movie for sale on another article talk page (The Zeitgeist Movement) by listing an Amazon sales site and over linking Zeitgeist sites that offer the material for sale. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
He may be a noted journalist but the source it appears in is not, nor is it reliable. Either find it in a reliable source or leave it alone. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 07:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Should there be a redirect to the Zeitgeist movement? Capitalismojo ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The DevilsAdvocate an apparent conspiracy buff is at it again trying to manipulate the article to 'sound' better by denying material that does not sound good like the edit about the Arizona shooter, his edit summary Revision as of 02:27, 17 August 2014 (edit) The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 621528200 by MONGO (talk) definitely suggestive, section title and phrasing implies a connection between the movie and the shooting) end quote. Suggestive? Its a news story about the Arizona shooter and his influence from the Zeitgeist movie. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 13:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Simple question: are you or MONGO going to actually respond to my concerns about the current material?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Earl King Jr. proposes to turn this page into a redirect (ie, replacing the entire page contents with #REDIRECT [[The Zeitgeist Movement]]). There is an ongoing discussion here, which I encourage others to join. nagual design 19:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
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 wikipedia 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)
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)
You are way off. I returned the last neutral edit that is sourced to this. You removed that source also previously [8] So, not sure why you are removing cited information but please stop. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)