Talk:Zeitgeist: Moving Forward: Difference between revisions
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
This article is sadly useless as a description of the movie, and instead seems to be merely a repeat or rehash of the verbal soup that is the movie. I had hoped that the article would be clearer than interviews with the documentarian. That said, I hope someone deals with the flags, as they're pretty much right-on. Regurgitating the content of a movie <i>is</i> original research. [[Special:Contributions/67.180.92.188|67.180.92.188]] ([[User talk:67.180.92.188|talk]]) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
This article is sadly useless as a description of the movie, and instead seems to be merely a repeat or rehash of the verbal soup that is the movie. I had hoped that the article would be clearer than interviews with the documentarian. That said, I hope someone deals with the flags, as they're pretty much right-on. Regurgitating the content of a movie <i>is</i> original research. [[Special:Contributions/67.180.92.188|67.180.92.188]] ([[User talk:67.180.92.188|talk]]) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::"Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." - regurgitating content of a movie does <i>not</i> meet the criteria of original research. |
Revision as of 23:08, 28 February 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zeitgeist: Moving Forward redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Explain the "Multiple Issues"
* It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since January 2011.
It is a true summary of a film, the movie is the reference you need.
* It may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Tagged since January 2011.
It is neutral. Identify a point where we advocate the reader to watch the film.
* Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since January 2011.
It clearly states the movie position.
* It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since January 2011.
It states what the movie states.
* It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since January 2011.
It is the facts in the movie.
* It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since January 2011.
It is the facts of the movie, no advertisement.
* It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since January 2011.
Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stp52x (talk • contribs) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
There is obviously no legitimate reason for a lot of these flags. I suspect trolling or personal motives behind this. 86.52.43.196 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is no need to poison the well...I am not "trolling" this article. Rather, I don't see why it should be held to different standards than other Wikipedia articles. To address your points:
1.It needs additional references or sources for verification. The various sections contain more than just a plot summary for example the Zeitgeist:_Moving_Forward#Part_II:_Social_Pathology section states:
- The other component is the monetary economy. The monetary system regulates the money supply and interest rates by buying/selling treasuries. More critical views of the monetary system are explained. In the final analysis the current monetary system can only result in default or hyperinflation. This is because when money comes into existence it is created by loans at interest. The existing money supply is only the principle. The interest to pay the loan that created the money does not exist in the money supply and must be borrowed repetitively in order to service the debt. Due to this exponential money supply growth, the value of money is eventually destroyed.
This requires sourcing...see WP:RS
2.It may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. The original movie has a criticism section (Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Critical_reaction). Please read WP:NPOV.
3.Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since January 2011. See response for #2.
4.It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. See response for #1. Also see Wikipedia:Systemic bias
5.It reads like a personal reflection or essay. The style and tone of this article is not in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) and WP:MOS. It is the facts presented in the movie without opinion. These arguments against this article are aimed at the movie's message not and have nothing to do with this article.
6.It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. See above answers and Wikipedia:Writing better articles
I hope this clears up why this article has been tagged w/ Multiple issues.Smallman12q (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Watch the film for yourself and come up with a description of its content, then. Everything described in the Content section is sourced straight from the film. None of the other Content sections in documentary film entries list the entire breadth of sources the documentary uses for its material...There are already sources that don't belong in the article, as they are sources that the film itself doesn't reference.86.52.43.196 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Number 1 example is actually a description of the views versed in Addendum. Number 2 I am kinda wondering, because the criticisms expressed in about Zeitgeist: The Movie are on part 1 and are done by academics along with the skeptic community. No academic to my knowledge has commented on Zeitgeist Moving Forward, the film just released and you expect academics to have written criticisms or appraisals of it? This kinda makes your point about number 3 being moot. Also the article is mainly about summarizing the claims of the film, there is no need for sourcing a summation of the film. You can add citations for the claims as things go on, but to say that the article needs to be sources when its summation is just baffling. This makes the points you bring up in 3 and 4 completely moot. With number 5, your going to have be more specific. I view this mainly as an attempt of a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's no need to refer to an ad hominem remark...I am no troll. I am merely asking that the article provide reliable sources per WP:RS to support its claims. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (WP:OR) which includes anything not covered by WP:RS. See also WP:FRINGE.Smallman12q (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do not continue to add flags that are inaccurate. It does not read like an advertisement. If you are going to continue to flag it as such, please provide citation as to where exactly the article reads like an advertisement. At this point in time, it does not, as it simply describes the films accolades, and its content. It also does not include personal research. If you watch the film itself you will realize that the content section is exactly what it describes, the film's content.86.52.43.196 (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's no need to refer to an ad hominem remark...I am no troll. I am merely asking that the article provide reliable sources per WP:RS to support its claims. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (WP:OR) which includes anything not covered by WP:RS. See also WP:FRINGE.Smallman12q (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Number 1 example is actually a description of the views versed in Addendum. Number 2 I am kinda wondering, because the criticisms expressed in about Zeitgeist: The Movie are on part 1 and are done by academics along with the skeptic community. No academic to my knowledge has commented on Zeitgeist Moving Forward, the film just released and you expect academics to have written criticisms or appraisals of it? This kinda makes your point about number 3 being moot. Also the article is mainly about summarizing the claims of the film, there is no need for sourcing a summation of the film. You can add citations for the claims as things go on, but to say that the article needs to be sources when its summation is just baffling. This makes the points you bring up in 3 and 4 completely moot. With number 5, your going to have be more specific. I view this mainly as an attempt of a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Argumentative
This article is sadly useless as a description of the movie, and instead seems to be merely a repeat or rehash of the verbal soup that is the movie. I had hoped that the article would be clearer than interviews with the documentarian. That said, I hope someone deals with the flags, as they're pretty much right-on. Regurgitating the content of a movie is original research. 67.180.92.188 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." - regurgitating content of a movie does not meet the criteria of original research.
- Redirect-Class film articles
- Redirect-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- NA-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- Redirect-Class Alternative Views articles
- Low-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics