Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

Lead expand

Slade Farney you reverted the article saying the reliable source was a 404. Assuming your computer is not working correctly I reverted you. The description is from a reliable mainstream source. [1] link to article Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

No. Remember you brought that Tablet magazine source to the reliable sources notice board and they approved it as a reliable source Slade? They also admonished you at the time for bickering on and on about their results. That citation is as good as the Newyork Times citation as to quality. When you say, that columnist is totally out of control I am afraid that because you just don't like it that you removed it. As a Wikipedia editor can you prove that that mainstream writer Michelle Goldberg is totally out of control or are you making some kind of putdown which reflects your opinion? She is a reliable source. Excerpt from the information Over the last two weeks, Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, the third in a series of apocalyptic cult documentaries, has been screening around the world, translated by devotees of the so-called Zeitgeist movement into more than 30 languages. There were engagements in Buenos Aires and Athens, Sarajevo and Tel Aviv, Mumbai and Tokyo, among hundreds of other cities. In the United States, it showed at indie movie houses, underground bookstores, public libraries, and universities from coast to coast, including a five-day run at New York’s Tribeca Cinemas. and link [2]. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Truth has nothing to do with anything about a reliable source. Its not an exceptional claim. It is what a notable author is saying about a subject in the [3] category is about. There are lots of sources that say it is a cult. There is no good reason to pile sources onto this when this one does fine. Could you say why you are against this Marker article and its author beyond saying it is not true? No. Editors on Wikipedia are not reliable about judging cool-aid, or Waco or the Holocaust etc unless they are published experts or otherwise notable. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Calling all editing buddy's does not change things and editors giving their non notable opinions does not change things. Your opinion about her does not change things. Its a reliable source and numerous other reliable sources could be used to confirm that [4] tandem editing aside. We know from many sources it uses antisemitic conspiracy theory as the very basis. Would you care to comment as Slade Farney on that? Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting all three complete definitions from the Random House Dictionary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It means what it means.

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

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

The movie franchise certainly depicts a financial apocalypse unless the Zeitgeist/Movement/Peter Joseph is followed. Even Wikipedia which is not a reliable source for anything understands the meaning of this Greek word apocalypse Link to basic definition [5] So lets move on. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Merge in The Zeitgeist Movement

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

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

11 "conspiracy theories"

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

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

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

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

I feel like this topic is presented in a very negative fashion that definitely seems to be leaning in the direction of making Zeitgeist in general sound like all conspiracy theory and nonsensical.

I see for the very first movie there is a long list of reviewers almost all of which are completely negative. and the second two movies there's hardly any. and just in general feels like the topic is presented in a negative light. and whether it's right or wrong Wikipedia is supposed to show things in a non-biased sort of way. but in my reading of the article it definitely seems biased towards making it sound like Zeitgeist is just nonsense. I've looked and there are lots more people who have reviewed these movies who have painted it in a good light or non-negative light but seems none of those are referenced. and while I get a lot of the first movies stuff is very controversial. the second two are more of a perspective kind of a thing and so I really honestly feel like if it hasn't been done that each one of these movies should be presented on its own page. I've also found quite a few sources that I find to be credible they would make the claim that the USA is now a plutocracy. and I don't see any information from any of those sources on here. I mean come on we live in a country where corporations are people and can donate vast sums of money to politicians. how many politicians are in office now that used to be in banking or in some corporate sector upper management. so point being is I thought the goal of Wikipedia was to be unbiased and in partial and this doesn't seem like that. Mrgrimfate (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an article on whether the US is a plutocracy, and as such, any general discussion on that would be off-topic. As for Wikipedia policy on neutrality, I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We aren't supposed to aim for some entirely imaginary absolute neutrality, but rather to reflect the balance of opinion amongst appropriate sources. Picking sources just because they agreed with the films perspective would be improper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I understand not picking sources just because they agree makes absolute perfect sense. but at the same time having a lot of sources quoted as saying that something is nonsense or that they disagree with the point of view seems just as bad. and that's kind of what it seems like to me when I read through the articles there's a lot of critical reviews from different sources. that's also why I mentioned e to the movies being done in a separate Wikipedia page. because I agree that the first movie was absolutely controversial. and I imagine it contains some stuff that's nonsense. however the other two contain a lot less controversial information. and because the first movie is talked about first and below it there are a lot of reviews that paint the picture that it's conspiracy nonsense. which if I just start reading an article and it's about three movies and the first reviews I'm seeing of the first movie I'll make it sound like nonsense then I'm less likely to read anything about the next two movies. so I guess it's not so much about looking for support from a review. and it's more that by having them all be reviewed on the same page being as the second two movies are far different from the first one seems like a better idea to me. Mrgrimfate (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

To justify separate articles, it would have to be shown that each met Wikipedia:Notability criteria independently, and I have my doubts that the necessary coverage to do that really exists. Furthermore, explaining the later films really requires context - which comes via the first film, which seems to have attracted by far the most outside commentary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump the fictional movies The critters franchise have separate pages. I grew up and saw the first critters movie at the theater and it was by far the best one and is still very unmemorable. yet it seems like every movie in the series has its own separate page in Wikipedia. just seems like if something like critters especially the latter of the movies are getting their own page instead of critters movies on a single page. I mean how much can you find about critters 3 and 4 and people that actually remember any of those movies. and that was just one that I looked up. and I promise you I'm not trying to be a pain but I mean these are documentaries. critters is fictional and obscure. and I don't know if you've seen the Zeitgeist movies but two and three are completely different than the first one. I'm pretty certain there's no mention of 9/11 or any of those sorts of conspiracy theories in either one of the last two movies. I'm not sure how the first one gives context to the second two. especially since critters gets its own page per movie and critters one really does give context to the latter films. but you know you can always tell me to screw off and then I'll just quit talking about it. Thanks Mrgrimfate (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)