Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)/Archive 2

More calls from the Zeitgeist folks to come edit

Just another heads up of the sites out there from the Zeitgeist fans that have mounted an aggressive editing campaign on the article [1]

I think this one is already posted somewhere on the talk page also [2] There are several others. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

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

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

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

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

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

OnlyInYourMind, As a single purpose or nearly single purpose account most likely called here to edit for your group, its a good that you examine things and not let other people have to try and follow such a convoluted approach like you are talking about. There are basic guidelines. You can read them. As a single purpose editor whose first and last edits revolve around Zeitgeist material you have to be really cautious to not show bias and keep the pov down to neutral 05:16, 28 April 2015 Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) ‎ (→‎Discussion on 'Documentary style': adding my 2 cents, your first edit to Wikipedia [3] There is nothing wrong with being a 'single purpose' editor but as remarked its a fine line from advocacy to being here to build an encyclopedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Film Synopses "too long"?

@Earl King Jr. and Tom harrison: You've both claimed "too long" when you removed the {{expand section}} tags from the synopsis sections of the 2nd and 3rd films.[4][5][6] I quoted WP guidelines in my edit summary: Documentaries follow the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.[7] Current synopses are close to 100 words. Can you explain why we should not follow these wikipedia guidelines? Seeing as you removed the tags to expand, I assume you would also revert any actual work toward expanding these synopses. Is this correct? And if so, why? OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 20:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Removal of referenced material on grounds of promo and paid events

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

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

diff

1. It appears written in a fairly neutral style.

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

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

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

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

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

@NeilN, MONGO, and Earl King Jr.: Sorry, you've each reverted claiming "promotional": [8], [9], and [10]. Can one of you please explain how this is promotional? I would love to be on the same page here, but to me this looks like neutrally characterizing a group's main events. Is there some way we can objectively identify that something is promotional, or are we doomed to disagree 3v3 on the grounds of our own subjectivity? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 02:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only In Your Mind I would say that you are editing the article tendentiously and that you are a single purpose editor most likely called here by Facebook or one of the other Zeitgeist sites and your edits on the article reflect non neutral presentation and promotion [11] You are claiming consensus now for your pov when there was none. Looking at your edit history your first edit was Zeitgeist related and you have a new account, so it is assumed you are one of the people called here. It is o.k. to be a single purpose account but you have to be neutral. The ground you are trying to cover now is not going to be traversed. Editing tendentiously is a problem for everyone if you continue doing that. It was overwhelming consensus that put the movement article into the film series. Please read the page history of the movement article and the history of disccusion on related articles. Now we are probably going to put the separate section of the Zeitgeist movement into the rest of the article because the consensus among the neutral editors is that it is fitting to do so. Non of the editors here is against Zeitgeist in particular. They do get annoyed though when people try to insert a pov and edit tendentiously. Sorry to focus on you instead of the material which is usually the talk page way but better to say this now as you are agressively insisting against consensus for changes that are basically pro Zeitgeist. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DR

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

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

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

Dispute Resolution (restatement)

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

Dispute Resolution Update

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

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

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

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

Edit-Warring

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

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

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

A Third RFC?

There has been quarreling about whether the Zeitgeist movies should be called documentary, or documentary-style. Is a third Request for Comments in order, either actually to resolve that issue, or at least to provide a dedicated portion of this talk page for quarreling? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, with conditions After reading through these comments, I believe a third RFC is in order. This will give the editors on both sides of the dispute the space to voice their opinions, and then neutral editors (emphasis on neutral) can attempt to reach consensus. However, this should only be pursued if the editors within this dispute agree to this RFC. If they do not then we need to submit this case to a higher authority. Z1720 (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Need More Info before Answering With all due respect, since everyone here claims to be "neutral," can you offer us your definition of "neutral" and how you would screen prospective consensus reachers for neutrality on this subject? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming that Sfarney's above comment is for me and I apologize if it is not. By neutral, I mean editors that have not been involved with the current disputes, and preferably editors who edit in parts of Wiki that are not related to the topic at hand. Z1720 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Civility

Please look at the banners at the top of this talk page. Please heed the advice to be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia. It is not an optional nice-to-have. Also, interestingly, in controversial areas, it works at least as well as incivility. Some contentious editors ignore civil commentary, but they also ignore uncivil commentary. Some contentious editors ignore uncivil commentary, but actually listen to reason. Be civil; it works. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Not according to any evidence available on this talk page, it hasn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, remember that respect is due to people, not ideas. It is disrespectful to pretend to someone with crank ideas, that their crank ideas have any chance of being reflected as reality on Wikipedia. Much kinder in the long run to be honest at the outset. These are, after all, paranoid conspiracist propaganda movies, and anybody who thinks they are a genuine reflection of reality is destined to have a turbulent time on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And what about someone using Wikipedia to promote his own personal conspiracist theories about a named individual? Is the fact that the named individual is widely regarded as a conspiracist sufficient grounds to make him a legitimate target for further crank theories entirely unsupported by reliable sources (or even unreliable ones for that matter...)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Without a specific example I could not comment. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean like someone who thought thousands of crazy radical Muslims were plotting to destroy American cities with WMD? You mean that kind of crazy, paranoid, conspiracy theory? Oh, oops, that's the crazy, paranoid, conspiracy theory we supposed to believe. Sometimes you just can't tell from the quality of the theory which one is crazy and paranoid, and which is God's own truth. For example, fifty years ago, where could you peddle a story about CIA's Operation Mockingbird or NSA's Operation ECHELON? Our job on Wikipedia is to remember which crazy, bat-shit, paranoid delusions we are supposed to believe, and which not. And the list changes from day to day. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That is way off topic. Civility should be cultivated on an article like this. It is controversial and with the multitude of editors called here from the Zeitgeist movement editing the article is not a pick-nick [12] and [13]. There are a few other links to Zeitgeist pages that also call for people to show up here and edit the Zeitgeist pov. Its probably true, our sources say that another editor here Jzg is correct about the basic content of the Zeitgeist information These are, after all, paranoid conspiracist propaganda movies, and anybody who thinks they are a genuine reflection of reality is destined to have a turbulent time on Wikipedia. Saying these movies are documentary like might be a stretch of good will that is not exactly following our sources in the body of the article. I suggest parties take it easy and not get off the topic with tits for tats of examples that are not related to the subject we are discussing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Off the topic of civility, may or may not be civil

Last week you accused everyone who disagreed with you of being meat puppets. Yesterday, you asserted that anyone who disagrees with you should not be a Wikipedia editor. Today, you call for cultivating civility. The hypocrisy is breathtaking, Earl. Breathtaking. In any case, the article should stay within the recognized set of film genres. Inventing a new film genre is not an editorial mandate, regardless of any personal problems an editor might have with the content. Zeitgeist is a documentary, not a psychotic-communist-Islamic-fundamentalist-antisemitic-gives-me-hives get-it-the-hell-away-from-me propaganda piece. Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

grammar is right. documentary-style is inaccurate. film/film maker purports it's non-fiction, it's a documentary. doesn't make a film's content accurate or reliable, but that is the neutral name for genre. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl categorised her work as documentary, too. That doesn't mean we have to. The Zeitgeist films are not documentaries, they are propaganda. Any film that presents 9/11 "Truth" as fact, is not a documentary, by definition. What The Bleep is not a documentary, Zeitgeist is not a documentary, Expelled is not a documentary. As Nancy Snow says in Information War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11, propaganda begins where critical thinking ends.

This isn't a coincidence. Merola's brother Eric, who was art director on Zeitgeist, has gone on to make at least three more propaganda films, two promoting an unethical cancer quack and one proselytising "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history." All of them use common elements: portentous music, conspiracist tropes, misrepresentation of sources, a narrative of suppression by "The Man". To describe these as documentaries is to debase the term and abrogate all responsibility for accuracy and truth. And that was the consensus last time round, which is why the films are described as documentary-style rather than propaganda (which I prefer) or documentary(which the Zeitgeisters, Truthers and others prefer). Guy (Help!) 20:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a dangerous and slippery slope to propose for an Encyclopedia. Most documentary producers have agendas, and someone somewhere will always object to the content. Given the CIA's Project Mockingbird, the result would be a Soviet-style Index of acceptable movies. It's not a drama if it goes against the government, it's not a comedy if it laughs at the wrong people, it's not an adventure if it deals with forbidden activities, and it's not a documentary if the wrong ideas are presented. Questioning the NIST version of 9/11 is getting to be as forbidden as questioning the Holocaust. What's next on the list for the Iron Maiden Thought Police? Cancer, certainly. AIDS. The Official Microsoft Biography of St. Bill Gates? The philanthropy of the School of the Americas? The perfection of General Motors products? GM produces "documentaries," too, you know, as does Boeing, Volkswagen, DuPont, and probably Chase Manhattan Bank. And every one of them will be deliberate propaganda -- that is why they produce them. Julian Assange is also making documentaries, including Citizenfour (2014), WikiRebels: The Documentary (2010), and Wikileaks: War, Lies and Videotape (2011).

Let's be a little more honest about this whole project. Maybe we should call it the "What-We-Should-Think Encyclopedia." And every time we consider being neutral, we should remind ourselves, "What would the CIA want me to write?" That would keep us in line.

Once again for the edification of JzG and Earl, the word "documentary" has nothing to do with "truth." Not even related. Using the word "documentary" in Wikipedia does not endorse the content of a film. The word is simply a statement that the film (or book) is not intended as fiction. According to the formal definition, a documentary contains observations, opinions, or speculations about the real world. Notice please, that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) does not get all blushy and introverted with the use of the term -- for them, "documentary" is not an endorsement of the content. Same with IMDB.com. Anyone with curiosity on how the real world uses the term "documentary" would hustle over to the genre definition, and then pick the best fit from Wikipedia's own list of recognized genres. Maybe you would prefer propaganda? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a dangerous and slippery slope to propose for an Encyclopedia. Most documentary producers have agendas[...]Maybe we should call it the "What-We-Should-Think Encyclopedia."[...]the word "documentary" has nothing to do with "truth." Not even related. Using the word "documentary" in Wikipedia does not endorse the content of a film. Well said, Sfarney. This is exactly my point.

@JzG: You said, These are, after all, paranoid conspiracist propaganda movies, and anybody who thinks they are a genuine reflection of reality is destined to have a turbulent time on Wikipedia. Containing paranoid conspiracist propaganda does not suddenly make a film not a documentary. In my experience, most documentaries are garbage, but that doesn't stop them from being documentaries. It just means documentary filmmakers never learned critical thinking. And it doesn't stop me from having a turbulent time on Wikipedia. My turbulent time is not because I think conspiracy theories reflect reality. I don't. I just want Wikipedia to be accurate. And for this, I get nothing but resistance from zealots. Reverts, accusations, and resistance to article expansion. I agree misinformation is a huge problem in the world, but let's not be part of the problem. The ends don't justify the means. This is an encyclopedia, not a skeptic blog.

It also appears the third film in the series does not contain conspiracy theories. I can find no references to such things. Is that one allowed to be a documentary? :-) OnlyInYourMindT 06:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality. Being packed full of crap and documenting a mad conspiracy theory instead of reality, does indeed make a film fail this basic test of a documentary.

Having a spin on reality is OK. Michael Moore does that, but he's still documenting reality, albeit from a perspective. Zeitgeist does not document reality, in fact it goes out of its way to promote the precise opposite as if it was reality. And that's why it's propaganda. We should avoid the controversy and merely describe it as a film, or, if people absolutely insist on using the word documentary, then as a documentary-style film. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the definition: Mad conspiracy theories are absolutely an aspect of reality. Conspiracy theories exist, conspiracy theorists/believers exist, and this documentary documents those things from the perspective of a believer. Just like Michael Moore.

But the main point is that we don't get to decide. We have to put what the sources tell us. And every source that mentions a genre says "documentary". Only one source that I know of calls it a "pseudo-documentary". OnlyInYourMindT 00:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Civility again

In some cases, civility works better than invective or other invicility. It is true that it doesn't always work. I have not yet known of a content dispute that was finally resolved in one editor's favor because that editor resorted to greater incivility than the other editor. If multiple editors in a content dispute are stubborn, civility may not work, but incivility may not work either. In such a case, civil discourse at least has a neutral or zero effect on the editor. Incivility may have a neutral effect, in that it may accomplish nothing, but it may have the negative effect of resulting in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It is time to stop the personal attacks. It is also time to stop the allegations of meat-puppetry, and to stop the allegations against Peter Joseph unless they are meet the strict standards of the biographies of living persons policy. Within a few days, the ArbCom will close the American Politics case, and will kick in discretionary sanctions, and disruptive and tendentious editors will be subject to topic-bans by a streamlined and draconian procedure, bypassing WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind, it is not "time," -- it is long past time. Moderation was invited here weeks ago because the participants were regularly violating those rules. Without active participation from the moderator, the original condition has reasserted. If you review the history, you will see that several editors stated that anyone who disagrees with them on the page content should be banned from editing Wikipedia -- in response to several who offered exactly that disagreement. The moderator said nothing or was absent. To bring you up to date, we are further from consensus than ever and civility took the first bus to Nopeville. 22:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sfarney says that moderation was invited a few weeks ago. That is true, but moderation was never in effect here, only at DRN. Sfarney says, "Without active participation from the moderator, the original condition has reasserted." There can't be active participation by a moderator here because this is an article talk page, not a dispute resolution page, and dispute resolution was closed as being handled by Requests for Comments. Sfarney may have a good-faith misunderstanding that a DRN moderator retains moderation of the article after DRN is closed, but it doesn't work that way. I agree that the discussion here is again out of control; it hardly qualifies as discussion, just back-and-forth. At this time, conduct issues concerning Peter Joseph as such can be reported via Arbitration Enforcement, because material about living persons is subject to the biographies of living persons policy, even in articles that are not biographies. At this time, conduct issues concerning September 11, 2001, can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. At this time, other conduct issues can be reported at WP:ANI. Within a few days, conduct issues involving American politics in general can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. However, my advice to all of the parties is to agree to disagree and be civil in that agreement, and conduct enforcement will not be necessary. Stop quarreling and start or resume discussing. (Ignoring other editors is better than insulting them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my inferences to the contrary. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter Joseph article

Please check [14] Check Peter Joseph Wikipedia article. Not a lot of people watching that page. I think a source that is being returned might not be a reliable source. Some people pointing out that the interview could be faked if that is the right term [15]. It could also be that the person returning that link to the article is a part of the Zeitgeist editing block on Wikipedia because it is a relatively new account with the first edit being made to Zeitgeist material [16] It seems doubtful that the interview is a reliable source even if its for real as it is not a news item and the person purportedly doing the interview has no identity beyond the interview. Opinions on this related page? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be citing a posting on a forum (entitling itself "Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source") as evidence that a source isn't reliable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't believe in "COINTELPROPANOL" -- that would be a conspiracy theory. And now you think they are editing Wikipedia??! Don't go there, EKJ, I'm telling you for your own good. Once you go down that rabbit hole, you never come out. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's okay to use primary sources for some types of info, surely you know that already? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we do not know who actually made the interview if that is what it actually is. No information on the interviewer is available. It does not seem like a reliable source it could have the baggage of having actually been produced by Peter Joseph. I don't know, but there is some speculation of that. For that reason and because it appears the person asking the questions may not be a real person at all maybe that information should not be used. Not sure it would even qualify as a primary source if it was staged. No actual information is available unless I am missing or could not find more about it in searching. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you are throwing around confusing allegations (sourced to a forum) without actually explaining what the problem is. Are you suggesting that it isn't Peter Joseph that is being interviewed? I presume not - instead you seem to be suggesting that PJ has hired someone to interview him. Which would quite possibly make it a self-published source, but not a 'fake'. As such (if shown to be correct) we shouldn't be citing it for anything controversial - but what has it been cited for anyway? From what I can tell, it seems to be where he went to school (hardly an issue of great significance), and for the fact that he previously had a career in classical music - which I think is common knowledge. If you think the video isn't a reliable source for these statements, take it to WP:RSN and see what the community thinks - of the source, not of your opinions of the person posting it in the article, the interviewer, and some random bloke from a conspiracy-theory forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Eustace Mullins

The statement that Eustace Mullins (in addition to Lyndon Larouche and Alex Jones) was a significant influence on the film made by a Tablet (magazine) writer, is this an allegation on the writer's part or an established verifiable fact? If there is no solid evidence to back this statement up and is simply an allegation, it should be qualified as such, considering Mullins was one of the most notorious antisemites and Holocaust deniers in American history. Same with LaRouche, though obviously he is nowhere in the same league as Mullins. If it is a verifiable fact, apart from the Tablet article, then of course there is no issue. Laval (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a second-hand opinion - The Tablet piece [17] writes that "According to Chip Berlet...". It is also incidentally, quite possibly a copyright violation given the fact that is a slightly amended copy-paste of the Tablet source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I was loathe to even read the article because Tablet is far too much an extreme like FrontPage Magazine, but biting the bullet to do so, I see it refers to the film as being part of an "apocalyptic cult" from the get-go. With the allegations regarding Mullins and LaRouche, it's too inflammatory and unreliable a source, more so when taking into account such sensitive subject matter as accusing others of antisemitism and apocalypticism based on opinion rather than facts. While this isn't a biographical article about the filmmaker, WP:BLP certainly still applies when referring to a living person. Laval (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to 'G. Edward Griffin, a member of the John Birch Society' seems to be equally questionable as fact, with the reference to JBS being more 'guilt by association' than informative.Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would love to hear what the John Birch Society is "guilty" of. Is that more guilt or less than working for People Magazine or sailing on the Valdez? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The substantive point is that his presence in the article is the Tablet saying that Chip Berlet says that the film's ideas came from Griffin, who one of them is saying is 'a member of the John Birch Society', yet it is written in 'our voice'. The JBS (to the best of my knowledge) is a much loved US political organisation noted for its tolerance and famously lauded here, (and by this parody).Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

uH, Bob Dylan is not an RS, so we can't use it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Goldberg piece has been one of the few notable citations and is reliable. The information from it is liberally used in the article because it has passed the sniff test here many times on the talk page. Though editors may think it is not fair to use it it actually is fair. If editors have some bias against the reliable source that should not spill over into claims here that it is not 'fair' or is biased. Mostly other reviews of the film express more or less the same thing as Goldberg. The film originally comes from extreme right wing sources, Alex Jones, Loose change, etc. our sources tell us it then became entangled with kind of a new age hippy movement aspect in the later films. Not sure how else to put it. I am just generalizing what the sources say. It became later a liberal cause celeb after starting as an extremist right wing perhaps conspiracy classic thinking content presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the Michelle Goldberg who is the author of the piece the same as this Michelle Goldberg? If so, she doesn't read as someone well versed in political science and history and writes more often about contemporary feminist issues. But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and she can be accepted as a reliable source. The problem of linking the filmmaker to Eustace Mullins is highly problematic and possibly a violation of WP:BLP unless it can be verifiably sourced as a fact. And no one else has even remotely suggested a link between Zeitgeist and Eustace Mullins. I've spent years researching antisemitism, neo-Nazism/neofascism, etc and I'm familiar enough with Mullins to say that he is extreme even by so-called "white nationalist" and Holocaust denial standards (David Duke, Kevin MacDonald, Revilo Oliver, etc). The guy is on the level of antisemitism as extreme as Tom Metzger, and that's saying a lot considering most in the Holocaust denial/white nationalist scene consider Metzger to be more liberal on social issues. I have no problem if this Mullins connection is bona fide and real and verifiably factual. Otherwise, as speculation or pure opinion, it violates BLP. I could see how paleoconservative groups like JBS (which is not an antisemitic or racist organization, being Goldwater Republicans, Pat Buchanan, and other paleoconservative, libertarian and Objectivist advocates. If I were a conservative, I personally would not be offended or felt harassed if someone tried to link me to JBS. That's just what they are, old school conservatives. But Eustace Mullins? If such an allegation were being made against me in the UK, not only could I sue for libel, but I would win, based on the lack of clear evidence in the Goldberg article. Contrast with the libel prosecution in the UK against David Irving. If there is a consensus to keep it in, though, I won't push this point. Laval (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll happily drop any 'JBS is guilt by association' argument. Griffin's membership (even were it the boy scouts), seems hearsay, though clearly not as serious as the other instances you name.Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing the article currently

Maybe its better the current people involved in the RFC's stop editing the article for a while (including myself unless there is some overwhelming reason, vandalism etc). A very large block of information has been added by one of the participants here and another editor is tweaking information that is still the subject of the request for comment. [18]. The Adendum information was a big volume of not sourced material. Comments? I reverted the large block of information without a source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh hey, sorry, I didn't see you posted on the talk page. Welcome to wikipedia! :-) The synopsis was 100 words. The MOS guideline says 400-700 words for synopses, so I increased it to the proper length. I've mentioned this to you before. In addition, synopses and film plots are assumed to be sourced from the obvious primary source, the film. See the film infobox for reference. This edit has nothing to do with these RfCs.

Note: I intend to increase the length of the synopsis of the third film eventually. OnlyInYourMindT 12:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding a bunch of filler material to the article is not an improvement. A synopsis is just a small mention of what these sections are about. Especially adding things like the call to join the Zeitgeist movement in one section seems inappropriate. You were reverted by consensus previously for adding to much material. The information you are adding is unsourced also and should be removed. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral editors, policy, and guidelines all disagree with you. Please try to cooperate. Your ongoing efforts to minimize this topic could be seen as WP:SNEAKY vandalism. OnlyInYourMindT 07:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an article about a film series but apparently according to you the coverage of the actual topic of the article needs to be minimized. Please. The source is obviously the films themselves and that's completely acceptable for all other films articles. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Point of information, as I understand guidelines, in synopsis sections (if refs are used), the refs should support the claim's PRESENCE in the film, not the claim itself. For that reason, I already noticed that some of Andy's new text (regarding world poverty as I recall) supports the TRUTH of the claims, which makes the refs both unnecessary and inappropriate. My understanding also is that unless the presence ITSELF is disputed or controversial, refs are not needed for synopses (ie we don't use synopses to assert or disprove the truth of any of a film's claims, we simply record that the film makes these claims). Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With a controversial subject such as this all information even in the lead should, can be sourced. There is a crossover in the article about presenters of Zeitgeist information as opposed to Neutral pov. It seems like a bad idea for instance to make a huge unsourced synopsis of orginal research by some Wikipedia editor. Where does it come from? An editor here wrote it? This subject should rely on sourced info. not a large block of information with no author. Disputed and controversial are the cornerstones of the article and special care has to be used for sourcing, that does not include Wikipedia editors written synopsis without citations from another source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Butting in, EKJ, the point I was making was two-fold, firstly that synopsis deals only with WHAT claims are IN the film (presence), not the truth or otherwise of those claims. It is inappropriate therefore to ref. anything other than their presence, and is indeed inviting turning that section into a battleground about the 'truth' of those claims. Secondly it isn't normal to require refs for 'presence', since the source is the film itself, however that is for each article to decide for itself, where content of the film is disputed.Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If the subject is controversial, why doesn't the article represent multiple diverging opinions? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Its controversial on the talk page and in real life which is why most of the synopsis at this point which is new and unsourced can be removed. It is made up by someone who has watched the film apparently a Wikipedia editor??? and it is not sourced to anything. The article presents many sourced views so what is the point of saying why does not the article present many views? The views that are presented are overwhelmingly in a certain tone. Whether people as editors like that tone or not is not an issue. The movie has overwhelming shall we say 'bad' reviews among the press, so the movie article should reflect that. After all as Wikipedia workers volunteers we should just put our reliable sources in and make sure the article is readable. Because of the high controversy of the movie the whole thing all sections including the lead need to be sourced to something. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree -- I do not think anyone would be overwhelmed by this article. The reviews cited are unanimously negative. A group of CIA Mockingbird editors could not do a better job. What else do you want, Earl? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This information in general is not sourced either and should be removed because it is just 'given' without any explanation of where it came from [19] Information like this can not just appear being written by some editor here. Since it is obvious the films bring out a lot of contention among editors we have to take care to source everything. I will be removing that large block of information the reason, unsourced. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to source a neutral retelling of the film's contents, how many times do we have to repeat that to you? The source is the film itself, it's not "unsourced". It can be verified by looking at the film. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I second Jeraphine Gryphon's point. Synopsis is ordinarily written by editors and is where the films claims/contents are stated without endorsement or dismissal or characterisation of those claims. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is neutral because it is made by a Wikipedia editor who might present it a certain way. Citations must be used on this controversial article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That is how a synopsis is written, if any content is excessively promotional, overlong, inaccurate etc. then that can be discussed, but demanding no synopsis because an editor MIGHT not be neutral, is not realistic or in accord with guidelines. If anyone disputes that a specific claim is made in the film THEN a source might be asked for.Pincrete (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Earl, please read the WP policy. Just read it. Then discuss it if you still disagree. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Because you think the article could possibly be on the same level of a CIA false flag operation I disagree -- I do not think anyone would be overwhelmed by this article. The reviews cited are unanimously negative. A group of CIA Mockingbird editors could not do a better job. What else do you want, Earl? Grammar'sLittleHelper. Guidelines provide a rough idea but at this article where it is shown a big influx of editors come from the group itself we have to go to greater care. Guidelines are only that. They are not written in stone. I did not write this message that is a part of the article but it was written when the large influx of Zeitgeist supporters arrived on the scene [20] How many times now Sfarney| have you implied some conspiracy in the editing of the article? I lost count. Also the sources have said The reviews cited are unanimously negative We are obliged to recount what the sources say. Its not the job of Wikipedia editors to sort through until 'positive' sources are found. Number one there are not a lot of positive things in the media about the first movie. Virtually none of the critical writing about it is positive. The extreme right wing aspect of it is written about in reliable sources that we have. This is not a plot by the media or the Fed or Bankers, Trilateral commission etc. to suppress the movies theories about planting chips or the American Union etc. it is just reviews on the movie that are extant. Using the movies claims get sticky as one part says, the 'answer' is joining the Zeitgeist movement and promoting its ideas. The article then is an extension of recruiting for the Zeitgeist company. The synopsis is way to picky and long. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Because you think the article could possibly be on the same level of a CIA false flag operation : -- eh? what??? Sorry Earl, but that is just too screwed up to even address.

Guidelines provide a rough idea but at this article where it is shown a big influx of editors come from the group itself -- You keep saying that, but you have no evidence and you name no names. We just can't take your word on a situation that would force us to go against policy.

we have to go to greater care. Guidelines are only that. They are not written in stone. I did not write this message that is a part of the article but it was written when the large influx of Zeitgeist supporters arrived on the scene [21] -- I see. You hve a theory about a conspiracy among faceless zombies sent from Zeitgeist Central to overwhelm the honest editors?

How many times now Sfarney| have you implied some conspiracy in the editing of the article? I lost count. -- I recall once that I suggested the Skeptics crowd was canvassing for volunteers. But maybe I suggested it twice?

Also the sources have said The reviews cited are unanimously negative -- No, I wrote that.

We are obliged to recount what the sources say. Its not the job of Wikipedia editors to sort through until 'positive' sources are found. Number one there are not a lot of positive things in the media about the first movie. Virtually none of the critical writing about it is positive. The extreme right wing aspect of it is written about in reliable sources that we have. This is not a plot by the media or the Fed or Bankers, Trilateral commission etc. to suppress the movies theories about planting chips or the American Union etc. it is just reviews on the movie that are extant. Using the movies claims get sticky as one part says, the 'answer' is joining the Zeitgeist movement and promoting its ideas. The article then is an extension of recruiting for the Zeitgeist company. -- You are again alleging a conspiracy, Earl. Try to keep it together.

The synopsis is way to picky and long. -- And that is your real complaint, is it not? But it will not go away, Earl. As a notable film, it needs a synopsis. As three notable films, it needs three times that much. And policy says how long it should be. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that reviews are/are not largely very critical is irrelevant to synopsis. Synopsis is not a place where quality/rationality of arguments should be either endorsed or vilified. This is the place where contents of the film are presented as neutrally as possible. Elsewhere on this page I defend the use of 'conspiracy theory' as a descriptor. Here I defend the right of the contents to be presented neutrally in 'synopsis'. EKJ, are there specific parts of the synopsis which you object to or specific contents which are missing?Pincrete (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ps … … on a related point, each film has a 'mini-lead', in the case of one film (the first?) much of the content seems to belong in 'response'.Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

nb there continues to be too much 'slapping down' and incivility on this page. It really is very off-putting and ultimately counter-productive.!Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to neutral synopses. However, if disputed, an independent source would be required. In particular, the claim that part 2 uses real 9/11 footage rather than faked 9/11 footage requires an independent source, considering the availability of great quantities of both. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, there seem to be two issues here, firstly I don't think the reference to 'real footage' is necessary, the substantive point is the allegation itself (Gov. complicity). I noticed during yesterdays edits people changing 'other documentaries', to 'other films' to 'real footage'. I don't know the films sufficiently well to know what was meant by the three terms. Nor do I know what is meant by 'faked', this could mean 'virtual re-creation' (ie animation), it could mean selective editing, it could mean altering/falsifying of original film by video editing. Unless it is the first (animation eg 'using animation to reconstruct etc.'), I think it belongs in 'criticism' and requires sourcing as a criticism. I've modified the text to remove 'real footage' until the matter is settled.Pincrete (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is real simple. The synopsis details what films say, that is the source. That's it. The arguments about this section are getting bogged down in editorial judgement on film content and reception of the film content rather than on synopsis of actual content. Nobody made us Batman, nobody is expecting us to solve any mysteries. Take a peek at Fahrenheit 9/11's synopsis just for kicks. That looks like a fairly decent example of a synopsis. It presents documentary content without a fat blank spot and without asserting every claim made in the film is true. Synopsis doesn't have to be neutral, it is just a recount of what film presents. Arguing about what commentators have to say about documentary content belong in reception. If there is something specific in the synopsis that should or should not be included because it was or was not in the film, address that, otherwise quit screwing around and work together to improve the article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim of "real footage" is not in the article, and I don't intend to put it there. It may be real, but altered. It may have been borrowed from other anti-government or pro-government propaganda, taken directly from the news feeds, or altered specially for Zeigeist. THAT is the tanglefoot we get into when asserting the source of those clips without a RS -- or a credit within the film itself. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim of "real footage" WAS in the synopsis, and is probably unnecessary. If there are RSs that say footage has been 'falsified' in some way, that is a criticism. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis first movie

This seems a better synopsis of the movie because it is cited [22]

In three parts, Zeitgeist (which has no credits) attempts to show that 1) Christianity is rehashed pagan sun-worship and is used by the rich and powerful to control people, 2) the 9/11 tragedies were part of an elite conspiracy, and 3) ever since World War I, the ultra-rich have been secretly manufacturing wars and financial collapses to control the populace and to get richer and more powerful. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to use it, put it into the criticism section, but it is not a synopsis. I have seen only part of the first reel, and I can tell you that is so far from a synopsis. That is just one reviewer counting his sore toes after the bus has passed. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk)

Neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Characterizing the person that did the synopsis as having his foot run over by a bus seems way off the grid of the conversation here. Also it is a typical summation of the movie that sources give. The way it is now, is not attributed to anyone and because this article is so controversial even the synopsis in this case needs to be cited. The synopsis given in the link is more succinct, more to the point and direct than the current one which apparently was written by an editor here on Wikipedia. It is a synopsis of its author from a cited source so attribution of the person to the synopsis would also be given. In other words the notable person that made the synopsis. It would be in his voice not Wikipedia's. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

EKJ, I agree with Grammar, If you want to use it, put it into the criticism section, but it is not a synopsis. I think you are reluctant to acknowledge that (as far as possible), the synopsis is not a place for validating or diminishing claims made in the film, simply briefly stating what those claims are, regardless of how many RSs have 'trashed' them. Criticism/Reaction is the main place where critics have their say.Pincrete (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

EKJ, your POV pushing is getting obnoxious. It's been explained to you by editors how the synopsis works, but you continue doggedly with your crusade. Since you weren't allowed to just blank the synopsis you are resorting to this weird interjection of some dismissive review of the film for the synopsis. You haven't offered any specific criticism of the current synopsis, just that you believe if a synopsis is written by an editor it is OR or non-neutral, despite being repeatedly told that isn't an argument and isn't policy for film synopsis. Other film articles don't do that, nor has it ever been policy to do that. It's clear what you're doing and it isn't the least bit clever. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk about content not editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not everything in the form of a synopsis really is a synopsis. Often, as in this case, the intent is satirical. The classically satirical synopsis of a love story is "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl, end." They thing that King Calls a synopsis is of equivalent quality. It is just satire. And any synopsis must include the film's proposed solution for the problems listed in the film. To answer on King's first comments in this section, Zeitgeist has created a detailed list of credits and sources as a companion to the DVD, here, 220 pages long. I suppose the producers found it was much too long to put at the end of the film. It also seems to contain a detailed summary of the arguments in the film. We could pull from there if watching the films again is too onerous. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please spare us your original research of how the world works :Not everything in the form of a synopsis really is a synopsis. Often, as in this case, the intent is satirical. The classically satirical synopsis of a love story is "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl, end." They thing that King Calls a synopsis is of equivalent quality. end quote. The talk page should not read like a blog.

That self sourced information by Zeitgeist is not a good source for anything. In the past it was added many times by Zeitgeist supporters and other editors removed it. We can not use it because it is too primary and too much presenting the closed loop of the Zeitgeist group without any kind of critical thinking. What is the point of listing this here Zeitgeist has created a detailed list of credits and sources as a companion to the DVD, here, 220 pages long. This is not a blog for posting Zeitgeist information. It does not Google up like a forum either. Please stop treating this as a forum. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Right after a complaint about WP:OR, comes an amazing bit of original research: the closed loop of the Zeitgeist group without any kind of critical thinking. The irony is thick enough to cut with a blunt saw. We should just follow the WP policy. We cannot copy a synopsis from another site. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please respond to content and not comment on other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

EKJ's scepticism about using a non-independent primary source is not OR, it's standard practice. Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism is warranted when faced with the extraordinary. Homeboy just won't be troubled to look into how wiki handles film synopsis/plot sections of an article. The Dark Knight (film)'s plot section isn't riddled with citations from film reviewers. An Inconvenient Truth has some for direct quotes, but just detailing what's in the film hasn't been a problem anywhere save the one article EKJ edits religiously. As mentioned repeatedly the synopsis section isn't there to source for accuracy or inaccuracy of claims film makes, just that film makes claim. Appy polly loggies if I strayed from topic by pointing out that editor's POV pushing is getting disruptive, but come on. Trying to pass off a dismissive film review for the synopsis section is amateur night at the full-of-fail SPA talent show. Is there a specific claim made in current synopsis that wasn't featured in film? Is there a specific claim not made in current synopsis that was featured in film? What specifically is non-neutral about current synopsis? This is where a good faith beginning of this discussion should have started. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Movement Trademark

"The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph." This sort of seems out of place in the lede. Rest of lede describes article topic, the film series. There is no preceding statement in the lede that mentions a movement. Additionally, the fact that someone trademarked something seems awful trivial. If it is somehow important, I'd recommend moving it from the lede to the portion of the article that mentions the movement. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't 'somehow important'. It cites a primary source, which merely asserts that a trademark worded 'THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT' is registered in relation to "Clothing, namely, t-shirts, shirts", along with "On-line social networking services" belongs to Gentle Machine Productions LLC. Any suggestion that is of more significant than that is pure WP:OR. It doesn't belong in the article at all, since no third-party published source discussing Joseph, the movies or TZM has even commented on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I couldn't tell if I was just missing something. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Andy, linking films-production company-PJ in the lead might be legit, but 'trademark' is out of place, we wouldn't mention that Walt (probably) owns 'Bambi' in that lead.Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree about the trademark. Somebody stuck it in there in an obvious attempt to denegrate the subject. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be a consensus that this doesn't belong in the article, someone should probably remove it. NVM done already.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the lead. It should be in the section about the movement, if it extends to more than one paragraph. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why should something that no secondary source considers significant be included in the article? Is it normal practice to add such trivia to articles on political movements? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I forgot the trademark class. If Peter could control who called themselves the "Zeitgeist Movement", that would be important even without a secondary source. But that doesn't seem to be the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation

This seems like a good citation to use for describing the Peter Joseph movement [23] There is not a lot of information in the article now on the movement or its psychological underpinning. This is a second or third party talking or interpreting Zeitgeist material. Opinions for using this in the article? Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WorldSocialism? Really? I don't think we could call this a neutral RS. It is a coalition of political parties and it has an strong agenda that is likely to shape its statements and reviews. For example, ""Socialists are hostile to all religions. ... the important thing is not simply to subject it to abstract criticism but to attempt to show why it arose and what its role in society is. To do this we apply the materialist conception of history."[24] Don't think we can use it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

While I have no doubt that the SPGB is capable of talking more sense about TZM than some of the latter movement's critics, I somehow don't think that Wikipedia will see the views of an organisation with a couple of hundred members as being of any great significance. Still, its good to see Earl accepting that a plurality of views on TZM is appropriate, and that criticism need not only be sourced to supporters of the status quo. A Marxist critique would certainly add a little intellectual depth to an article that sadly lacks it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Andy. There is such a paucity of sources that this one could be of some use. Not having many members is an issue but at least their writers seem articulate and they had more members at one time. Maybe using the bit where the essay writer who we can name so its in his voice, quotes the Zeitgeist material thus

‘TZM’s advocated train of thought, on the other hand, sources advantages in human studies. It finds, for example, that social stratification, which is inherent to the capitalist/market model, to actually be a form of indirect violence against the vast majority as a result of the evolutionary psychology we humans naturally possess. It generates an unnecessary form of human suffering on many levels which is destabilizing and, by implication, technically unsustainable.’ (Their emphasis) So, unless all they are concerned about is that capitalism is ‘technically unsustainable’, they too want to overcome the ‘indirect violence’ and unnecessary suffering that its ‘social stratification’ imposes on the ‘vast majority’.

There are other things in that article which could possibly be used also. Right now the explanation of their outlook in the 'movement' section is lacking basic info. hard to figure out, so maybe a source like this interpreting their ideas can work. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

When we cite articles, we don't just cherry-pick material to suit our purposes, but accurately reflect what they have to say about the subject. A Marxist critique of TZM needs to be represented as a Marxist critique, not stripped of the essential point that the SPGB were making - that TZMs 'train of thought' lacks any concept of class struggle as a driving force for change. That is what Marxism is about, and that is why the SPGB is criticising TZM. Anyway, I can't see this minority opinion being seen as a legitimate source, and certainly wouldn't see the justification for using it while excluding other sources that have been less critical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Article's current scope seems to be focused on film series, not movement. Opinions on non-notable group don't seem to add to this article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the publication notable? Does it have a page in Wiki? All that comment is interesting, but difficult to use because it cannot be quoted as an RS. If you don't watch the film, you don't know whether the argument is made by the film or added by the reviewer. If you do watch the film, you mention the argument in the synopsis and you don't need the World Socialist reviewer. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

'Notability' isn't relevant - there is no requirement in WP:RS that says that a source has to pass our notability guidelines (it would rule out probably the majority of academic writers, for a start). What matters here is reliability and significance. The SPGB are clearly a reliable source for their own opinions of TZM - the question is whether the opinions of a small socialist party on the matter deserve discussion in the article. Since we don't generally cite them for their opinion on political movements, I can't see any particular reason why we should do so here: at least not while other sources (e.g. the Huff Post) are being excluded as 'opinion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The piece is actually from the Socialist Standard, Feb 2013, (follow links in article to verify), author is Adam Buick, clearly any use would need to distinguish between opinion/characterisation and fact and be attributed. Notability isn't relevant, but the related issue of 'weight' is. However, since the subject is relatively fringe, there aren't going to many 'mainstream' articles. I noticed already that two 'student newspaper' sources are already used (1+,!-). The legitimacy of using it would depend on how it was being used.Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Socialist Standard is a good source for the article and the writer is notable also. Pincrete would you care to attempt to integrate some information into the 'movement' area? Or anyone else? There is such a dearth of material in that section. Probably it points out just how insignificant this movement is from the lack of people writing about in the mainstream. Socialist Standard is about as mainstream as anything and it is an essay on the subject. The Huff post thing just had too much baggage as a blog. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How exactly does an opinion piece in a mainstream source like the Huff Post have 'more baggage' than an opinion piece in a minor leftist publication? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the whole 'back story' on Huff post, I read the RSN, which hasn't outlawed its use, but refused to give 'carte blanche'. Soc Standard is an additional source for how tZM describes itself. Additionally, it offers a Marxist perspective written by someone with a lifetime experience of making such judgements, but yes, that perspective is still his opinion. EKJ, I wouldn't want/ don't feel competent to propose text using Soc Stan.Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Probably it points out just how insignificant this movement is from the lack of people writing about in the mainstream." No duh. Non-notable group is non-notable. Inflating group's perceived importance by including random criticism is UNDUE. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, civility is required of 'Anon's as much as registered editors. 'No duh', calling someone 'Homeboy' etc. is uncivil and detracts from anything pertinent you might have to say.Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was uncivil, wasn't intended to be, but I'll drop the vernacular if it is distracting. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It is uncivil, it is distracting, the fact that you aren't the only one on this page to 'personalise' things doesn't make it better. Thanks for replying.Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Check out above: "Please spare us your original research of how the world works," wrote one editor, just before whining about how people should comment on the content, not the other editors. Civility has always been a one-way street on this talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, what does your last comment contribute to this discussion? Whoever started it, it's everybody's duty to contribute to stopping it. Pincrete (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never been "uncivil" to you or to anyone else here -- except King. The same with the other 6 or 8 participants -- except King. Those who were here from the beginning of this brawl will recall that for all his whining when someone raises an eyebrow in his direction, he is nevertheless the first and greatest offender. He complains that there are no credits in the film, then pisses on me when I find a document giving all the credits and a synopsis. He has nothing but contempt for Zeitgeist ("without any kind of critical thinking") or for those who are trying to create a decent Encyclopedia page on the subject. You ask, and I answer that my contribution is truth. I give King "all due respect." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@JWilson092:; We are on a search for references about the Movement now. Please contribute to the list of RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks like saying someone is pissing on you or other name calling is not acceptable, saying another editor is whining or general derogatory behavior is not acceptable. You were warned about this many times now and you could be blocked from editing if you continue like that. You have been told, and I mean told not to use the talk page like an angst blog already and to comment on content and not other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, "I give editor XXX all "due respect"", is NOT how it works. I have no idea who started the abuse back at year Zero (nor any wish to know). We can all lose our cool sometimes, overuse irony etc. but your reply is practically a justification of your right to be uncivil to one editor. How many people on this page have already pointed out that it is actually counter-productive?Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have also pointed out that abusive personal remarks are counter-productive. Now let us separate the 4 subjects, films 1, 2, 3 and the Movement, and create the content. Then the discussions will be separated into discrete talk pages and we will not be discussing the Movement on the film(s) 1/2/3/Movement page. The consensus is in. ALL editors have agreed that where there is no WashingtonPost articles, we will use the less notable sources, such as editor opinion pieces in the Huffington Post and the Workers World Daily. Let's get started. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the recent RSN pretty much outlawed HuffPost, and pointed out that there are better sources for factual content. I'm not sure whether Workers World Daily is a reference to the Soc Standard piece.Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the point in expanding on the movement portion of the article if it isn't otherwise notable. The statement that the film spawned a political group and the citations related to their purported agenda should be enough. I'm pretty green, so maybe I'm missing something, but is the sort of commentary that EKJ found criticizing the non-notable group significant enough to be included? Or is there a desire among editors to explain the scope of the article to devote more coverage to the non-notable group? I haven't been following this group, but then I haven't heard of them until I started reading this article. If they've been involved in some sort of activism that's gotten mainstream attention that would be a decent addition, otherwise expanding the section seems UNDUE. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

collapsing mis-placed tally.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing mis-placed (duplicated) tally. Hope no one minds.Pincrete (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The film grew out of the Venus Movement. The Movement grew out of the Venus Movement and the Zeitgeist film -- two parents, according to the sources we have. Characterization of the Movement as a fan club is incorrect. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about not expanding on the movement area. Yes the Huffington post blog is a non starter. Not a good citation so it is iffy why that is claimed as some kind of consensus that it is usable. The movement if one wants to call it that is probably not going to get its own article. The request for comments I think have failed to get a real consensus. The other previous RFC did have a real consensus and that was to put the movement article into the Film Series article. Because of the long drawn out aspects of the Requests for comment, they do not really give any direction. Next time around, If, there is a next time, I suggest the regular editors stay farther out from the debate and not comment on every nuance and just let other people have a say. I think we can toss out the Requests for comment. An editor also talked about separating out the movies for articles and the movement for a new article. Doubtful that is going to happen. Zeitgeist movement if it contains one paragraph that has some decent ref's might be about the length it should be then. So maybe lets forget about expanding it though I think the Socialist Standard essay is good and notable and can be used. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You haven't actually explained why you think the opinion of a minor socialist organisation (clearly partisan, as a rival political movement) is more important than the opinion of a Huff Post journalist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably same reason why a Wikipedia editor can't be trusted to write a film synopsis. Huff Post journalist might present it "a certain way". 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was pretty decisive: The Movement should be a separate article, not a malformed Siamese twin joined at the appendix to the Film article. The Movement is a sibling phenomenon, not a child of the film: the RFC was a clear consensus. There was only minor disagreement without rational support. The Movement is also mentioned in a number of books, mostly critical, many apparently Christian, not TMZian. JonPatern has a draft. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'The RFC was pretty decisive: The Movement should be a separate article … … the RFC was a clear consensus', is my maths failing me? I oount 8 'Keep merged/One article' and 8 'Split', that isn't even a majority let alone a consensus!

The reasons for rejecting the 'HuffPost' are in the RSN, briefly those reasons are that there are better sources for wholly factual matters (which is why it was claimed people wanted to use the HuffPost, not for 'opinion', perhaps there would be a different answer for opinion).

The 'minor socialist' (opinions would be credited to the individual, not the organisation) has a very long experience of writing on political matters, what reason is there to believe that the HuffPost-er's opinion has any more worth than yours or mine? He now appears to write mainly on music.Pincrete (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Think HuffPost is the more mainstream source. Neither are strong RS for content, Pincrete, but it's a hard sell that writer for minor socialist org is preferred to Huffpost writer. All things being equal, the Huffpost is higher on the hierarchy of mainstream publications. If you wrote for the NY Times your opinion would be notable by virtue of mass readership. Isn't fair, but that's why HuffPost gets cited more than minor socialist publication even outside of Wiki. Doesn't seem to be a reason to favor minor socialist publication beyond that's the one that contains more criticism. Realize it's a moot point, section doesn't require opinionated commentary of non-notable group and there are better sources to establish factual content about group. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues here, the first is to do with matters of fact, Huffpost was rejected by the RSN partly because all the matters of fact are covered by a more established sources (NY Times as I recall), therefore there is no reason to use a Huffpost blog for those factual matters. Second there are matters of opinion, the WRITER of the Huffpost blog and the writer of ANY other piece (as well as what they have to say) has to be weighed as to their value. If the Pope happened to write something significant about Catholicism in a minor local magazine (assuming we could be sure he had written it), that might be judged to have more value than, say, the cookery editor of the WashPost/Gdn etc. writing on the same subject in their own paper.

The Huffpost CAN be used, I believe for the opinion of the writer, but why should it be used? Why use the opinion of someone with no 'track-record' of writing on related matters? The 'minor socialist org' by the way (actually a magazine), is over 100 years old and publishes a 'real' (ie printed) edition every month. The writer is (I believe) ex-Gen. Sec. of the Comm Party of GB, IF he is used, it is to give a Marxist perspective, and because his opinion is deemed valuable, not mainly because of where he was writing.Pincrete (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I fundamentally agree with you, Pincrete. I think consensus holds there's no good reason to use either. This has become a hypothetical discussion about the lesser of two evils. "Why use the opinion of someone with no 'track-record' of writing on related matters?" because publication is mainstream. Both writers are not notable, former Grand Moff of the Comm Party of GB or not. Assuming article had reason to use either source, Huffpost would be preferable. If writers were of same opinion there wouldn't be a point to citing publication with minority readership over mainstream publication. I concur if Marxist perspective were valuable, the source would have a fighting chance, but most article don't feature a Marxist perspective section for a reason. A Marxist perspective generally doesn't carry as much weight as those featured in mainstream discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

233.104, that isn't what I was saying. However instead of abstract discussion about whether a Marxist is more important than a whatever-ist, why do people want to use Huffpost? Factual matters are better sourced elsewhere and what opinion expressed is so valuable? The main reason Huffpost, was rejected by the RSN was because the proposer was unable to say what text s/he wanted to include. They refused to give 'carte blanche'.Pincrete (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that Pincrete answered Andy's question about the significance and viability of using the Socialist Standard essay article and not using the Huff post piece.

Also disputing about a consensus on the RFC seems out of place. There is none. It will be removed from the page after a while as being inconclusive so we are back to talk page discussion on issues, unless people want to jump outside this box for another box [25]. Part of the argument now is that the article on the movement should have its own space as an article. No, I don't think so. It is just too insignificant. There are zero recent reliable sources about it. The old Newyork Times article is really the only one that sticks out as significant. Mostly awful criticism of the movie is about the only thing readily available, like the Goldberg piece. That can be mined for a lot of information but really the movement should stay with the film series as an afterthought to and spin-off. As a conspiracy cult movie it just has a very limited fringe appeal. If Facebook were notable then Zeitgeist would be a lot more notable. As it is its not except for the very zealous members that are mentioned in our reliable sources [26] My predication. Failed RFC's and just more discussion and hopefully arguments that are about content and not editors here with some resolution to issues. Thanks to some new people arriving here with something to say its going to make it easier. I hope. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

" If Facebook were notable then Zeitgeist would be a lot more notable."? Facebook meets out notability guidelines by a country mile... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Huffington Post has published several articles that mention the Zeitgiest Movement by notable professional writers. Let's review a few of them:

1. In "A World that Works for Everyone," Work and Jobs As We Know Them Are Obsolete: The Buckminster Fuller View[27]. L. Steven Sieden is the author of “Buckminster Fuller’s Universe” and “A Fuller View, Buckminster Fuller’s Vision of Hope and Abundance for All.” Since 1981 he has been speaking and writing about Fuller’s mission “to make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological damage or disadvantage to anyone.” His website is http://www.BuckyFullerNow.com.
2. Is Bucky Fuller's Critical Path Still Viable Today?[28] L. Steven Sieden
3. The Zeitgeist Movement: Envisioning A Sustainable Future[29] Travis Donovan

Travis Donovan himself is a former senior editor of the Huffington Post, and his article on the Zeitgeist movement is within a line-up of articles he has written about global ecological and economic problems, and emerging political movements, including:

1. Sea Shepherd Declares Victory: Activists' 'Sabotage' Blamed For Japan Whaling Season Falling Short[30]
2. Mountaintop Removal Mining Birth Defects: New Study Suggests Controversial Coal Operations Linked To Adverse Health Effects[31]
3. Introducing 'All Terrain': A New Column Charting Unexplored Territory In The Energy And Environment Debate[32]
4. State Of The Ocean: 'Shocking' Report Warns Of Mass Extinction From Current Rate Of Marine Distress[33]

... and a half dozen more,[34] each drawing hundreds of comments from readers. Donovan is notable in his own right and his former position with Huffington Post just adds shine. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the claim that Travis Donovan was a 'former senior editor' is on his own website, and what exactly is a senior editor on a site that mainly aggregates news? The man was clearly a regular blog contributor on (loosely) environmental issues for about two years, that has more authority than a private blog but less than a dedicated expert writing in a 'proper' publication. The two Bucky Fuller articles above say nothing about tZM, except name its 'book of the month'.

I can't help feeling that there is a determination to 'flog a dead horse' by soliciting/advancing some general notability/reliability to Huffpost/Travis Donovan. His opinion MAY be useful, but what text exactly do people want to use? A 'carte blanche' was explicitly denied by the RSN.Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't help feeling that someone presumes the horse is dead while it's still up and kicking its heels in the hay. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone asked what the Huffington Post/Trevor Donovan article is good for. The article establishes the following about the Movement:

1. 337 sympathetic events occurred in over 70 countries worldwide on ZDay, March 13th, 2010.
2. NYC was home to the main event, 30 different countries represented in the audience.
3. TZM is the activist arm of The Venus Project (not a film fan club), therefore combining it with a film of the same name is a huge fustercluck. A real dummy might think that because it has a similar name to a film, it was just a film fan club. But Wikipedia should not be listening to dummies when it has Trevor Donovan, who has done his homework. If anything, the TZM could be a footnote on the Venus Movement page. What!! There is NO Venus Movement web page? Maybe the dummies have been busy over there merging it with the Hare Krishna page, or coatracking it on the Church of God page. Consolidate, Abbreviate, Summarize, Eliminate -- and soon everything they don't like just disappears.
4. As envisioned by TZM, in a resource-based economy, the world's resources would be the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples, and that idea must make some people want to toss their cookies and vandalize Wikipedia pages.
5. As told by Joseph in a presentation at ZDay, because America has such a vast gap between rich and poor, it is plagued with higher homicide rates, drug use, obesity, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, infant mortality, and imprisonment.
6. The Zeitgeist Movement has more than 360,000 registered members worldwide.
7. Joseph said in his presentation: resource preservation is equal to human survival
8. The movement's founder, Jacque Fresco, who is 94, told the audience that there is currently enough food to feed everyone in the world, but not enough money to pay for it.
9. Americans throw out 40% of their purchased food.
10. Joseph said that a society based on money depends on waste of excesses, wasting resources, and building products that will fail

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, you cannot go to a RSN and then unilaterally reject its conclusions, some of Trevor Donovan's writing MAY BE legitimate opinion. Getting HuffPost accepted as a RS, would not anyway justify 'splitting', 'one swallow does not make a summer'. TO ME, relying so much on a single (blogged ?) article, simply advertises the lack of widespread coverage.Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's put the cards on the table. You (I think it was you) asked what facts the Donovan article brings to the table. That is what this thread is about. I listed some above, and announced why I was listing them in the statement over the list. I didn't do it to prove the content of Chinese pet food or to invalidate the original merge. I listed the content for the stated purpose. Perhaps I distracted you with a thoughtless comment. Try to ignore ignore the deleted comment and look at the rest of the list. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What I actually asked (I think), is what text people wanted to use, solid propositions. I'm no closer to getting an answer. There is no point discussing content that has been rejected by the RSN, and which could only (at best), be used as the opinion of the individual or as 'claims of tZM'. Your unwillingness to make the most of that fact means you are painting yourself into a corner, where few editors will be willing to join you. WP isn't a soapbox.Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My "unwillingness"?? After all the complaints of personal attacks in this thread, THAT is how you choose to play it -- with an unprovoked personal attack? You have mischaracterized the RSN. The RSN was undecided because there the statement to be used was not defined. Here is the decision (with the original spelling): "an inprecise request, not mentioning the precise content to be included in the encyclopedia will only get a blanket refusal. No amount of jugling around with fancy allcaps links will make the request more acceptable. The only way to possibly (although unlikely) make it more acceptable is to mention the precise content one wants to add to the encyclopedia." Any or all of the statements in the list above could be used from the Huffington Post, wording depending on the article structure. My intention here is to create a good Encyclopaedia, not to pass judgement on the movements and ideas of other people, or to establish a list of the pure and impure, be they the mating habits of unmarried oysters or people with funny ideas about pyramids and UFOs; just tell the story. The smart readers will understand the issues. The dumb ones can't be protected from their own shadows. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

nb edit Conflict, inserted out of sequence Grammar'sLittleHelper, I believe that it was me (several days ago), who tried to gently point out that, IF people had gone to the RSN with specific text, they MIGHT have got a better answer. All RSNs are technically undecided, but there were NO endorsements of the use of HuffPost and an unequivocal refusal to give a 'carte blanche', (and quite a few unequivocal 'No's). The RSN asked several times for concrete text (they didn't get it), I, several times, have asked for concrete text (I haven't yet got it). All this 'heroic outrage', is as useful as a 'fart in a colander'. If you really want to improve the article, propose some text.Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC) … … RSN here.

ZDay may be worth mentioning. Seems like that's the big event for tZM. Using HuffPost just to note that the annual event exists wouldn't be so bad. Though there are other [sources] for that too, but eh. I don't think it'd hurt to include a sentence about ZDay, even if it is no Gathering of the Juggalos. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

PRNewswire is a press release site, not a good source. (Well, it can't be considered independent.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I don't know if anyone feels mentioning ZDay is important enough to mention to begin with. The group doesn't seem to get much press outside Huffpost, so I guess it isn't surprising ZDay doesn't get much more coverage either. If anyone feels tZM section needs to be expanded, I guess something on ZDay would be relevant. Not sure if an independent source is required just to assert, without commentary, that the event exists, but I realize a better source would be preferable. I'm kind of apathetic about including this though. I'm mostly throwing this out there as an example where a Huffpost article may actually be useful. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

233.104, there is a NY Times article (linked on 'your' source), which includes factual mention of ZDay. Yes a ref would be required for it existing even and claims distinguished from facts (eg claimed membership).Pincrete (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The NY Times article is from '09. I suppose that's sufficient to say there was at least one ZDay, but I don't think it would be worth mentioning if it wasn't still an annual event. Finding a strong RS that reflects that ZDay had its 7th ZDay is lacking. I wasn't suggesting a ref wasn't needed, just expressing doubt on how strong the source has to be to support event is still being held annually. It doesn't appear to be too controversial a statement that would require strong sources to state that group has annual event, but idk. Event isn't notable, group isn't notable, so... I'm not pushing for including ZDay content or arguing in support of a source, just saying if Huffpost had covered last ZDay, that'd maybe be justification to use a Huffpost. I'm not seeing anything out there though. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)