Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

Two edits and the lead

There was discussion some time ago about two edits to criticism and then about improving the lead. Thoughts? … … ps glad to see everybody is still getting on so well here! Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the student review as it basically says nothing and intend to make the other changes mentioned in the above link shortly.Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Documentary style and tidy up

An RfC last year determined that 'documentary' was the apt description for the series, or that a non-genre description should be found. It doesn't make sense to retain 'documentary-style' on individual films. Unless someone can come up with a non-genre description, I intend to replace with 'documentary', or remove where no descriptor is necessary. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There was hefty discussion that "documentary-style" is not a recognized category in films. Categorizing a film as documentary does not require or imply endorsement of the truth of the statements. It is enough that the producer intended it to be understood as fact. "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction or maintaining a historical record."[1] None of the reliable sources use that term. Anyone with questions should review the discussion from that time. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made a series of edits to movie I. What I've done is 1) remove duplicated comments … 2) move 'critical' comments to 'reaction' such that flow is short neutral factual intro, synopsis, critical reaction … 3) some copy-editing to prune slightly … 4)'documentary-style film' has been shortened to 'film'. Little factual info has been removed but comments are welcome. Pincrete (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking good, Pincrete (talk · contribs). I almost fell off my chair with words "the status and authority of TV news." OMG! I know these are Berlet's words and not yours, but it calls to mind "the status and authority" of the news program that recited the names of the pilots in the Asiana crash. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of removing 'Wessex Scene' review (student review that mainly says 'if you haven't seen you shouldn't judge'), I've tried to NOT remove on the basis of 'worth' or 'weight', but simply to remove duplication and tidy into a standard 'factual background/synopsis/reaction format. Pincrete (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead expand

Slade Farney you reverted the article saying the reliable source was a 404. Assuming your computer is not working correctly I reverted you. The description is from a reliable mainstream source. [2] link to article Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

King, the http://gentlemachineproductions.com/ link was a 404 when I tested it. You can believe it or not -- it took me to the underlying service provider, bluehost. As for "apocalyptic cult" that is utter nonsense. Zeitgeist has nothing to do with the Bible or with a doomsday cult. That columnist is totally out of control. If you want to quote her, don't do it in Wikipedia's words -- no other source agrees with her on that point and you are engaging in WP:UNDUE. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No. Remember you brought that Tablet magazine source to the reliable sources notice board and they approved it as a reliable source Slade? They also admonished you at the time for bickering on and on about their results. That citation is as good as the Newyork Times citation as to quality. When you say, that columnist is totally out of control I am afraid that because you just don't like it that you removed it. As a Wikipedia editor can you prove that that mainstream writer Michelle Goldberg is totally out of control or are you making some kind of putdown which reflects your opinion? She is a reliable source. Excerpt from the information Over the last two weeks, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, the third in a series of apocalyptic cult documentaries, has been screening around the world, translated by devotees of the so-called Zeitgeist movement into more than 30 languages. There were engagements in Buenos Aires and Athens, Sarajevo and Tel Aviv, Mumbai and Tokyo, among hundreds of other cities. In the United States, it showed at indie movie houses, underground bookstores, public libraries, and universities from coast to coast, including a five-day run at New York’s Tribeca Cinemas. and link [3]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Being a reliable source does not excuse WP:UNDUE. It is just one opinion, and it does not agree with the other RSs. That particular opinion is just WP:FRINGE. It ain't even true -- there is no cool-aid in Zeitgeist Movement. So you need multiple secondary sources. See WP:REDFLAG: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Truth has nothing to do with anything about a reliable source. Its not an exceptional claim. It is what a notable author is saying about a subject in the [4] category is about. There are lots of sources that say it is a cult. There is no good reason to pile sources onto this when this one does fine. Could you say why you are against this Marker article and its author beyond saying it is not true? No. Editors on Wikipedia are not reliable about judging cool-aid, or Waco or the Holocaust etc unless they are published experts or otherwise notable. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film and WP:UNDUE. There is absolutely no basis or justification for stressing one editorial opinion over another in an article, and such opinions definitely don't belong in the lede. Goldberg's allegations are a minority view, and there doesn't appear to be much agreement out there to support the claims of antisemitism and "apocalyptic cult" ideology. Laval (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• If course truth qualifies a source. If a source is obviously and demonstrably wrong, we don't use it. You have only one angry source calling Zeitgeist "apocalyptic" -- and that is a very eccentric description. No agreement from other sources. You need multiple high-quality sources. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Calling all editing buddy's does not change things and editors giving their non notable opinions does not change things. Your opinion about her does not change things. Its a reliable source and numerous other reliable sources could be used to confirm that [5] tandem editing aside. We know from many sources it uses antisemitic conspiracy theory as the very basis. Would you care to comment as Slade Farney on that? Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is long past time to stop casting aspersions so just stop it. Your current statement in Wiki voice that Zeitgeist is an "apocalyptic" cult is bizarre and WP:UNDUE. I doubt Joseph could even spell the word or know what it means. The Apocalypse is from the Bible, and Joseph is not. Time to stop the foolery. 16:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't be bothered to read all this, but the RSN on Tablet was for its use a criticism, for that it is a perfectly valid pov, which I would defend. Using the same criticism for a factual description of the films in the lead sentence is undue and is contrary to the RfC of around the same time, which concluded 'documentary'. If you want to add 'apocalyptic cult' attributed, among criticism, that's fine by me. Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

O.K. added it to the movement section toward the bottom. No reason to start a criticism section I suppose when critical ideas can just be a part of the article. The article by Goldberg makes it clear that the movement is born out of the initial couple of movies and other sources tell us they are conspiracy films. As to Slade Farney saying it has nothing to do with the bible he is obviously wrong as the categories at the bottom of the article include things like, 9/11 conspiracy theories Bible conspiracy theories, Christ myth theory etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is not a source for the content on the Wikipedia article. Maybe you put that category there yourself -- who knows? Regardless, Zeitgeist is not a Biblical movement and has nothing to do with the Apocalypse. Your source Goldblat is just wrong. It goes against her credibility. She has no support in other sources. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No I did not put any categories there. Zeitgeist is an anti biblical movement obviously. Goldblat is right on target. Who is Goldblat. I assume you are not joking. Michelle is super notable in many publications. I assume you do not want to somehow be an expert on this subject? Have you published something on in mainstream circles? It is not a revisionist history forum for you to question her, put her down, make fun of her as you have done above and before. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I moved the comment about the films up and amended so that 'movement' section is abou movement, btw her name is Goldberg and 'apocalyptic' doesn't only mean 'related to the Apocalypse'. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Quoting all three complete definitions from the Random House Dictionary:

1 of or like an apocalypse; affording a revelation or prophecy. (does not apply to Zeitgeist)

2 pertaining to the Apocalypse or biblical book of Revelation. (does not apply to Zeitgeist)

3 predicting or presaging imminent disaster and total or universal destruction: (does not apply to Zeitgeist)

What does the editor who wrote it think it means? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ask her! Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I just did. You echoed her edit, what do you think it means? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It means what it means.

"1. the complete final destruction of the world, especially as described in the biblical book of Revelation. (especially in the Vulgate Bible) the book of Revelation. 2. an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale. "a stock market apocalypse"

Zeitgeist is a apocalypse/doomsday cult according to Goldberg and she backs up her theory on this.

The movie franchise certainly depicts a financial apocalypse unless the Zeitgeist/Movement/Peter Joseph is followed. Even Wikipedia which is not a reliable source for anything understands the meaning of this Greek word apocalypse Link to basic definition [6] So lets move on. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

And "cult" means hidden, so Zeitgeist is a secret cult that believes it has the truth revealed of global disaster revealed in divine revelations? That ladyfriend of yours really has her ear to the ground. Now you will back up her odd-ball view of the world with multiple high-quality sources. As we both know, Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. See WP:REDFLAG. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Zeitgeist is all about the Illuminati secret cabal of international bankers controlling the world and leading us all to oblivion. Peter Joseph is all about saving us through originally the Venus Project and now something else. I know Slade Farney has his own views on Jewish history and Zeitgeist is tangled up in those issues, but maybe you should lay off the name calling of that writer and lay off the tendentious page pronouncements. Its wasting time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Re "what do you think she means?", something like dark, angst-ridden, excessively dramatically, foreboding. Or else she is being hyperbolic, which of course no-one could accuse Zeitgeist of being! Pincrete (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Goldberg can be as hyperbolic as she wishes to be, so long as the opinion is attributed. Reviewers aren't 'wrong' or 'right'. No interest in getting involved with comments about other editors either way. Pincrete (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge in The Zeitgeist Movement

• Oppose - Not only do the articles flow better as separate pieces, there is enough notable information for two articles. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is clearly no interest in merging, so I've removed the merge tags from both articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

11 "conspiracy theories"

I don't know why its necessary to use this term so often. It is a pejorative term which has little usefulness in an objective encyclopedia. Are there any objections if I cull the number of times it's used in the article back to 5 or 6? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, the term is used only once in the Zeitgeist Movement. I wonder how that difference can be reconciled? Source usage perhaps but seems arbitrary and weird, to me, at least. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would the films and the movement use the term equally? Most usages in this article relate to reviews, so I don't see how you can remove those without removing those reviews. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Our job, I think, is not to use the exact wording in the sources, but to edit the content to make the article more encyclopedic. We can still use content from all the reviews but without using the exact same term 11 times. It is much too repetitive, for 1 thing, imo. I'll just see what I can do with it in a day or so and you can see if you like my rephrasing. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)