Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Peter Joseph Responds to "The Marker"

The following has appeared on the Official Zeitgeist The Movie Website, which reaction to the points expressed by The Marker. Is this response worth posting? It seems fair in the context of balance.

---IN A 2011 INTERVIEW WITH THE MARKER, THE TRANSLATION MAKES MANY DEFAMING CLAIMS ABOUT PETER'S INTENT WITH THE FIRST FILM AND MOVEMENT. WHAT IS PETER'S RESPONSE? From Peter Joseph: "Having read a posted translation of the interview via Wikipedia, the interviewer took extreme liberty with my words. At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style. It's a clear distortion and sad to see this kind of twisting in the media. Perhaps it was a translation issue since english is not Asher Schechter first language and during the cell phone interview with a bad international connection, I felt like he wasn't even hearing half of the conversation, projecting bias in the conversation itself."---

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/qa.html JamesB17 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not obligated to present the view or opinion, primary source, from the subject itself of the article. Maybe some second party or third party interview that gets some information about Peter Josephs complaints about the media might be better. It is not 'neutral presentation' enhancing just because the author of these movies has an opinion about one thing or another. Better to find information outside of the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the subject of the article is a film, and not the guy who made it, excluding the fact the subject of an interview that is cited in the article has publicly explained that statements attributed to him in that interview are false is inappropriate. User:Arthur Rubin is attempting to argue that excluding this clarification is required by WP:BLP, and that not doing so is a "violation" of BLP, which is inane. The only elaboration he offers on this is that Joseph's comments "would be allowed under WP:SPS, except it makes statements about the interviewer making it a WP:BLP violation." Merely making statements about the interview does not violate BLP, in and of itself, but even if this is the case, removing the entire passage, including Joseph's statements that the things printed in the interview are wrong, is inappropriate. We can easily relate Joseph's statements that the things attributed to him are inaccurate, without including any material about the interviewer, as I have done. We don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Nightscream (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The present version only violates WP:SELFPUB as being unduly self-serving, but it's no longer a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not "self-serving", unduly or otherwise, when someone points out that words attributed to them are false. Biographical subjects have a right to clarify when such material is promulgated about them. Nightscream (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is self-serving when someone states that words attributed to them are false. It shouldn't be noted in Wikipedia's voice unless some reliable source comments about the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If he named names, and we quoted that, it would clearly be a violation of WP:BLP, as he would be accusing the interviewer (presumably a living person) of lying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Actually, it is self-serving when someone states that words attributed to them are false." It is clear that you do not understand what the phrase "self-serving" even means, and that you are using it arbitrarily and blindly, much as you implemented your recent reverts of my edits. From Dictionary.com:

self-serv·ing [self-sur-ving] adjective 1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests.

If someone libels or slanders you by claiming that you stated thing that you did not, then setting the record straight is merely just, and not "selfish", nor indicative of a disregard for the truth, interests or well-being of others.

"It shouldn't be noted in Wikipedia's voice" It isn't. It's attributed explicitly to Peter Joseph in the text. Should we add "in Wikipedia's voice" to the list of policies, words and phrases whose meaning you aren't familiar with? Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(No Nightscream. Its not a format for Peter Joseph. It is sourced to itself, primary, He can 'say' anything but Wikipedia is not obligated to report it.Undid revision 564518718 by Nightscream for that reason. It was not neutral presentation to have Peter Joseph attack who ever interviewed him and claim after the fact, this and that Maybe you can dig out a real interview on the subject and not official Zeitgeist information? Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean forum, not "format", and that isn't the point. The material should be included because it's relevant, not because the article is a forum for Joseph. Wikipedia is indeed obligated to include all relevant information, and that includes all salient viewpoints, as per the Neutrality Policy. The alternative is to print details of an interview, including words attributed to a subject that the subject says he never said, which is obviously inappropriate.

There was no "attack", and even if there was, this is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article, since the most recent version of it prior to your inane content deletion only included Joseph's clarification that the interview did not accurately convey his words, and not any "attack" or any comments at all about the interviewer. Perhaps you should've actually read the passage?

Your statement that he said this "after the fact" is irrelevant, since when he made the statement has no bearing on whether it is valid to include it, nor is there any policy or guideline, much less any principle of good scholarship, journalism or encyclopedia writing that indicates that clarifications about an interview cited in an encyclopedia article that were published after the interview was published are inappropriate for inclusion. If it did, then this would mean that Wikipedia articles could not mention cases of libel or slander (including the Wikipedia article on libel or slander), since those involve persons stating that words attributed to them in a published source were never actually said. To argue that we can't include statements made after a source cited in the article is beyond ridiculous.

Your argument that the material is supported by a primary source is also irrelevant (to say nothing of your inept use of the word "itsef"--which would mean that it's sourced by the film), since it is not prohibited to use primary sources on Wikipedia. Most material in an article should be supported by secondary sources, in particular that which establishes the subject's notability. But that does not mean that some primary sources cannot be used. If you familiarized yourself with WP:PSTS, you'd know:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia....A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

Your arguments, your knowledge policy, and even your vocabulary skills, need improvement, and I suggest you brush up on all three.

Joseph has clarified that an interview cited in this article indicated that he said things that he did not. To cite that interview, without also mentioning Joseph's statement that he did not make the statements published in it, is obviously and self-evidently inappropriate to anyone with half a brain, and there is nothing about the fact that it's self-published or from a primary source that precludes mentioning it. Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a bizarre interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I have never before seen the fact that the subject of an interview reporting on his own web site that he was misquoted being other than unduly self-serving, even when it might conceivably be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have an understanding of NPOV and RS. The only one indicating a "bizarre interpretation" of them, along with the phrase "unduly self-serving", in light of the definition I provided above, is you. But if you can falsify my arguments, then do so. Explain how publicly stating that words attributed to you were not stated by you conforms to the definition I cited above, or cite some other definition from a reliable reference source, and explain how it conforms to that. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for your edit. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nor do you. I, on the other hand, have valid arguments for the material's inclusion, which are based on both policy and common sense reasoning, and I have the ability to falsify my opponents on that basis. If you can produce either, then do so. Nightscream (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a bizarre interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The fact that the subject of an interview reporting on his own web site that he was misquoted being other than unduly self-serving, even when it might conceivably be relevant. Get some second or third party source for this. Not a self serving interview by the person in question. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I do not have an "interpretation" of NPOV or RS. Rather, it is you who are not only ignorant of them, but seem to be deliberately ignoring what I've pointed out about those policies, as well as the definition of "self-serving" that I have provided here:

• Do you deny that WP:PSTS states that primary sources can be used on Wikipedia? And what precisely does the phrase "too primary" mean? This phrase is innsensical. A source is either a primary one or it is not. It cannot be determined as a matter of degree.

• Do you deny that WP:SELFPUB actually provides criteria by which self-published sources may indeed be used?

• You say the material is "self-serving" (which WP:SELFPUB state is one criterion for exclusion). Do you deny the definition of the phrase "self-serving" that I provided above from Dictionary.com (which is in line with the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster's and The American Heritage Dictionary)? In what way does pointing out or protesting when you've been misquoted constitute "disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others"? Can you answer this question? Every time someone successfully sues someone for libel or slander in a court of law, on the basis that that party was wronged by the actions of the defendant, no one states that the plaintiff was being "self-serving". You two seem to be confusing self-interest with self-serving. While Joseph is certainly addressing his own interests in pointing out that he was misquoted, that's not the same thing as being self-serving. In what way is pointing out that a statement being made is false solely a question of his interests? If the statement attributed to him is false, then he has a legitimate grievance for addressing it, and transcendent from that interest on his part is a greater one for truth in general. To argue that he is disregarding the interests or well-being of others by doing this is inane.

Can you two address these three points? If so, then please do so. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• This page should not become a platform for the Zeitgeist people to present their views. We need to reference the page to good secondary sources, and use a few primary sources when they are supported by secondary sources and when they help the reader. It would be easier to note that Peter Joseph says he was misquoted if a secondary source wrote that "Peter Joseph says he was misquoted". In any case, tendentious language that has Joseph "pointing out or protesting" takes a side based on something that's only in a primary source, and it's hard to see how approaching the talk page with this in mind is likely to promote consensus or improve the article. As a matter of editorial judgement, I'd leave the quote out until/unless it's picked up by a secondary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. To leave the claims from The Marker in place, while saying the subject of the interview can only have his objection to the claims included if some other source picks it up is plainly a BLP problem. Either we remove what the Marker says about him, or we add Joseph's objection. I would prefer the latter myself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

To say any more than "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words" is clearly unduly self-serving. I'm not sure even that isn't unduly self-serving; any details are clearly inappropriate. That may qualify as being inappropriate to add to the article is being obvious; I have no doubt that, if an interview with me were to be translated into another language, my words would not be accurately translated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it unduly self-serving to note that the subject of an interview took issue with the way his statements were paraphrased or quoted? Joseph is saying that the interview did not accurately reflect what he said and we are essentially repeating that wording here, while refusing to note his objection. To note his response is not "unduly self-serving" as it is a matter of insuring people are not given misleading or false information about a living person.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, Earl and Tom, your arguments are based entirely on characterizing one thing as a completely different thing, and are completely inane.

"This page should not become a platform for the Zeitgeist people to present their views." One more time: Clarifying a falsehood about a quote misattributed to you is not a "view". You're making an equivalency between the content of the film that serves as the article's subject and a quote attributed to its creator in an published interview cited in the article that he says is false. Including mention that a biographical subject has stated that he did not say what a source cited in the article says he said did does not turn the article into a "platform" for his views. To say that it does shows that you and Earl King do not know how to form coherent reasoning, and the fact that you continue to repeat this notion without responding to my response to it shows that you are either not reading my messages, or are just ignoring them because you don't want to admit that this idea of yours is ridiculous on its face.

"We need to reference the page to good secondary sources, and use a few primary sources when they are supported by secondary sources and when they help the reader. It would be easier to note that Peter Joseph says he was misquoted if a secondary source wrote that "Peter Joseph says he was misquoted"." Easier, but not necessary. One more time: WP:PSTS says that primary sources can be used. Do you do you not deny this? I pointed this out repeatedly above, yet you keep refusing to respond to it. Why is this? Why do you keep stonewalling? Can you please indicate what your response is to that point?

"In any case, tendentious language that has Joseph "pointing out or protesting...." You're saying the passage "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words, saying, "At no time did I say anything about 'distancing myself' from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style." is tendentious???? How? Can you elaborate on this? What if we compromised by writing the passage "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words, and that he had not distanced himself from his opinion that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by the U.S. government." How is that?

"...takes a side based on something that's only in a primary source..." No it does not. One more time: When material properly attributes an idea to its source, it does NOT constitute the article "taking a side" or promoting the idea "in Wikipedia's voice". Again, I pointed this out above, and instead of responding to me by explaining why you disagree with this, you simply repeat the canard ad nauseum. Again, why is this? Why do you go on and on about "promoting consensus" when you refuse to respond directly to the counterarguments of those who disagree with you? When the articles on Scientology, flat earth theory, creationism or chaos magic describe those ideas, are they presenting them in Wikipedia's voice? Are they "taking a side"? Are those articles being used as "platforms" or "forums" for the people who subscribe to those ideas?

Can you please answer these questions directly? Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, you write "One more time: Clarifying a falsehood about a quote misattributed to you..." Is it then a falsehood? How do you know that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this. I perused this discussion and have a couple of responses. Yes, the comment in question is self-serving -- and yes, it should be included. We don't leave relevant comments out just because the person who made them was seeking to serve his or herself; most people who comment on their own work are seeking to do just that, and reporting that they've done so is common, because it does not lend Wikipedia's voice to its credibility or lack thereof. The description of this as "clarifying a falsehood" might be a little confusing: We as editors don't seek to clarify anything. We do seek to simply report that Peter sought to clarify it, leaving the validity of his claim up to the reader. The fact that he made the claim is relevant and verifiable, whether or not the claim itself is justified. As for use of a primary source, this is questionable only when an interpretation is involved, but for information about what a person said, there's really no better source than a page written by the person who said it. Primary sources can and are used in plain statements of fact, the fact in this case being that Peter made this particular statement (not that what he said has validity). Equazcion ^(talk) 01:36, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Tom Harrison: "Is it then a falsehood? How do you know that?"

I don't need to. Joseph says they are. Since he is saying he was misquoted in an interview cited as a source in the Wikipedia article, not including it is inappropriate. The question of whether he in fact was misquoted is something we may never know, unless the interview makes public the raw, unedited audio or video footage of the interview. The point is not that I know it's a falsehood. It's that Joesph is saying it is. In any he said/she said conflict related in a WP article, we need to include both what "he" said and what "she" said. Objecting when one is included and the other isn't does not constitute knowledge on the part of the person objecting that they know who is right. Wikipedia must include the positions of both (or all) sides when relating controversial material. It doesn't need to "know" which is right or which is wrong, as since that is not within the site's purview.

Equazcion: "Yes, the comment in question is self-serving". How so? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that you understand that it needs to be included, but what definition of self-serving does it fall under, and how?

Equazcion: "We as editors don't seek to clarify anything. We do seek to simply report that Peter sought to clarify it, leaving the validity of his claim up to the reader." Agreed. That was my point, and I never said otherwise. Sorry if my wording wasn't clear. (Guess I needed you to clarify me. :)) Nightscream (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know it's false, and it doesn't matter to your argument, then don't say it. That way you avoid impugning the reporter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement is self-serving by the simple fact that its author sought to serve his own interests in making it. I can understand feeling compelled to exclude it on those grounds. Tom and Arthur's stance, as I'm reading it, comes down to relevance: They feel the question of whether to include a statement by Joseph should come down to evidence in the form of an existing secondary source that has deemed it relevant enough to comment on. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's current policies make no such distinction: Primary vs. Secondary can answer questions about verifiability, but do not themselves test relevance. If we include the conflict this statement was meant to address (and I'm pretty sure we should), we do need to also include Joseph's response, as without it we would be excluding relevant information, whether or not it's been picked up by secondary sources. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:19, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I too was asked to comment. I feel that opinions expressed by The Marker should be included, but not their interpretation of Joseph's opinion (i.e., the "quotes"). It's too far removed from the source, given the translation, the interviewer's apparent POV, and the fact that Joseph says the quotations are not accurate. If they are included, Joseph in reply should be quoted directly; but I'd prefer avoiding the "he said, he said" business altogether. It's not becoming of the encyclopedia. -Jordgette [talk] 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I as well was asked to comment on this and I must throw my support in with Nightscream, The Devils Advocate, Equazcion and Jordgette after reviewing the articles in question being linked and considering the questions being proposed, I am convinced that if the Marker is being used as a source then the idea of leaving out Joseph's clarification would be a disservice to us as reporting in an objective manner. While I do not agree with that it is "unduly self-serving" as no one has yet to give an indication of how it is based on Wiki policies and until someone does I am not exactly convinced but that is irrelevant to the issue of the relevancy of Joseph's mention until someone can point to me why it is relevant for exclusion. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Having been asked to comment, I would also say that the opinions expressed by The Marker should be included. If somebody has been quoted as saying something, and later that person claims that they were misquoted, it's surely in the interest of neutrality to include all parties' comments. Moreover, using a secondary source (if one exists) in order to quote Peter Joseph (ie, quoting them quoting him) adds nothing in terms of verifiability. He claims that he was misquoted, and whether or not that is true is irrelevant, the comment should be included. Withholding the comment on the basis that it wasn't published by a reliable secondary source is illogical. nagualdesign (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that sock puppets for Mr. Zeitgeist have now made an appearance here. It would be a mistake to use Joseph as a source. He is obviously a biased observer of himself and his group. There are already enough connectors to the Zeitgeist web pages in the article. Better if some news story gave information on this, than Joseph himself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be a problem if we were using him as a source for the article's interpretation of events, ie. if we were to say Peter Joseph was misquoted [source: Peter Joseph], that would definitely be a problem. But we're not. We're using him as a source to quote his response, and nothing more. People's responses to conflicts are generally biased, and yet we do need to report them all the same. Doing so doesn't imbalance an article. As for your sockpuppet claim, I'm not sure if you're talking about this discussion, but all the people who've responded to this discussion thus far are more prominent Wikipedia figures than yourself (aside from the OP). I see no reason to claim sockpuppeting. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:26, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to Equazcion for diplomacy. To Earl King Jr, I'd like to invite you to browse through my contributions and those of the other editors here trying to reach a consensus, and consider the likelihood that we're all actually Peter Joseph, before casting aspersions. Otherwise, I suggest you simply assume good faith and get the point. nagualdesign (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Meat puppet maybe more appropriate then [1] Why didn't the person looking for editorial 'back up' not do a "request for comment" instead of contacting people they know to come and wave a flag for their opinion? The point here is that the page in question is not a platform for Peter Joseph. Earl King Jr. (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

They contacted people who have edited this page, not people they know; which is common and accepted practice. The page describes an exchange, and in that case, both sides of that exchange then need to be represented. This does not make the page a "platform" for anyone. If anything, excluding one side of the exchange could be considered making the page a platform for those supporting the other side. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:36, 22 Jul 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate action to take here is very clear: remove the phrases containing claims TheMarker makes about what Peter Joseph said in his interview with them. WP:BLP clearly says, in bold letters no less, that contentious material should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.

Misquoting someone is one of the most grievous offenses you can make against them. TheMarker has not provided a recording of the interview so their claims about what Peter Joseph said fall in the category of "unreliable source" and "gossip". If someone explicitly says they did not say something, then a phrase saying they did is contentious and therefore should be removed. We SHOULD NOT just add another line saying they said they didn't say it; that leaves the contentious material.

I have immediately removed these phrases, in accordance with Wikipedia's BLP:

"TheMarker further wrote that Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film,"

and this part:

"TheMarker additionally wrote that Joseph said that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect"

If Arthur Rubin or Earl King Jr. take it upon themselves to restore those phrases, they are risking being blocked from future editing, in accordance with WP:BLP's clear warning that "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Dustin184 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is still occuring about the content of this section, characterization of the edits as violating WP:BLP are wildly overstated, in my opinion. If you have such concerns, you might take them to the BLP noticeboard. I am afraid you might be somewhat disappointed, however. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream asked that I come and review this discussion. My thoughts: This site that Joseph responds on is apparently a self-published source. As such we must be extremely wary of using material from it per WP:SPS. I do wonder, however, as to its fundamental reliability. If the Marker reference is correct, Joseph is distancing himself from the film. As this is the official website of the film's owners/distributors are they reliable as to statements by Joseph saying no such distancing is taking place? The fact that this is the official site of the film suggests we can probably use almost nothing of it (whether or not it is reliable as to the statements), but I wonder about its reliability as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where this controversy is coming from about using (or acting on) Peter Joseph's response on Wikipedia. WP:SPS clearly states, again in bold, that self published sources can be used as sources of information about themselves. I can't think of anything more about yourself than clarifying what you did or didn't say. It is not about a third party because he is just clarifying what he said, and it is not self serving because he is just stating a fact.Dustin184 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In that section, how is point 2 ("it does not involve claims about third parties;") not violated by "Peter Joseph later stated that the interview did not accurately translate his words"? Ravensfire (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dustin184, Don't be too hasty! "WP:BLP clearly says, in bold letters no less, that contentious material should be removed immediately without waiting for discussion." - Actually it says contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, and the sources are fine. "Misquoting someone is one of the most grievous offenses you can make against them." - Indeed, but this article doesn't misquote anyone. "TheMarker has not provided a recording of the interview so their claims about what Peter Joseph said fall in the category of "unreliable source" and "gossip"." - It sounds like you are saying that TheMarker has ceased to be a reliable source because they haven't provided a recording (to whom?) of that particular interview, or that this article is misquoting Peter Joseph by proxy. To clarify, WE aren't misquoting anybody, and TheMarker, a well-respected journal, appear to be standing by what they published (have issued no retraction AFAIK). "If someone explicitly says they did not say something, then a phrase saying they did is contentious and therefore should be removed." - Should be removed from TheMarker, perhaps, but not Wikipedia. The 'phrase saying they did' is not written in WP's voice, nor has it been falsified by Peter Joseph's counter claim. Therefore it behooves us to report both sides of the story. nagualdesign (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tom Harrison: "If you don't know it's false, and it doesn't matter to your argument, then don't say it." Wrong. I don't need to know it's false, because the original point to which you responded by quoting me was whether clarifying a falsehood about a quote misattributed to you is a "view". It isn't. Whether someone did or did not say something lies within issues of fact, and not issues of "viewpoint". We can replace the word "falsehood" with the word "statement" and the point remains the same: Including the public statement by a BLP subject that he was misquoted in a source cited in the article does not constitute "presenting a view", or making the article a "forum", and to say that it is indicates an inability to form coherent and intellectually honest reasoning. Moreover, inclusion of material on Wikipedia is not predicated on an editor's personal knowledge, since that's original research, and Wikipedia does not make claims in its own voice (or in its editors') as to what it "knows". It only has to relate what the disputed parties say. Including a citation of a source that quotes a subject who elsewhere says that he did not make the statements in question, but excluding that subject's clarification, is wildly inappropriate. Stating that I have to know personally that Joseph is correct is ridiculous.

Also, please do not insert your messages in the middle of mine. I like my messages to remain coherent and easier to discern at a glance.

Tom Harrison: "That way you avoid impugning the reporter." We're not impugning the reporter, Joseph is, and there is no reason to "avoid" relating this, since impugning a reporter is a perfectly legitimate act, since they make mistakes all the time, just as any other professional does. You offer no argument at all for why it's okay for a reporter to misquote an interview subject, but not okay for the subject to point out that he didn't say what the interviewer says he did. To say that a subject should not challenge as false something that is attributed to him has no basis in reason.

Equazcion: "The statement is self-serving by the simple fact that its author sought to serve his own interests in making it." One more time for the cheap seats: That is not what the phrase means. Serving one's self-interests and being "self-serving" are not the same thing. Twice above I provided the definition of "self-serving", and you continue to ignore it, without addressing it. According to Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster and The American Heritage Dictionary, to be "self-serving" means to be "preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others." One is not "preoccupied" with their own interests, much less "disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others" simply because they're addressing their own interests. When someone commits an act of libel or slander against you, and you successfully win a lawsuit against them, are you being "self-serving"? Of course not! If, on the other hand, lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc., in the course of your lawsuit, because, according to you, your being defamed justifies it, THEN you're being self-serving. Self-serving refers to a disproportionate preoccupation with your interests, and not a good faith, legitimate act of addressing them. Again, can you falsify this?

Earl King Jr.: "I think it is safe to say that sock puppets for Mr. Zeitgeist have now made an appearance here....Meat puppet maybe more appropriate." Wrong on both counts. All the editors who have commented in previous discussions on this talk page, and it is for that reason that I contacted them to obtain a consensus, and adhered to WP:CANVAS as I did so. This is precisely what we're supposed to do during an editorial conflict, and you yourself made the point that I didn't have consensus for my position. You have no evidence or basis for your meatpuppet accusation, which means you are in violation of WP:AGF. I suggest you cease making such accusations, and while you're at it, familiarize yourself with WP:AGF.

Earl King Jr.: "It would be a mistake to use Joseph as a source. He is obviously a biased observer of himself and his group." Do you even understand what you're saying? How exactly does "bias" play into a situation in which someone says that they didn't say what someone else says they did???

Earl King Jr.: "Why didn't the person looking for editorial 'back up' not do a "request for comment" instead of contacting people they know to come and wave a flag for their opinion?" In the first place, I was not seeking editorial "back up", nor looking for people to wave a flag for my opinion, and you have zero evidence that says otherwise. I contacted people for a consensus discussion, in order to achieve that very think you correctly pointed out that I didn't have, which I've done on many occasions, as this is Wikipedia procedure, which you would know if you bothered to familiarize yourself with the site's policies and guidelines. I have not interacted with any of these other editors prior to now, so I had no idea what their opinions on this matter would be, aside from confidence that they would see through the utter inanity of your arguments and Arthur Rubin's. Moreover, if I contacted people on the basis that I somehow knew how they would respond, then how do you explain Capitalismojo's statements, which are more in line with your position than mine? (Lemme guess--you're not going to answer that one, are you?)

As for a Request for Comment, that is one avenue for dispute resolution, but it is not the only one, and not the first one that should be used. RfC should be used when two editors or two groups of editors simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue. Right now, there are three editors who wish to exclude Joseph's claim that he was misquoted, and six who are for it, and more might show up as well. But if you really want an RfC, I'll call for one.

Earl King Jr.: "The point here is that the page in question is not a platform for Peter Joseph." No, that is not the point here. The point here is that we should be discussing why we feel that the material in question should be included or excluded, and part of that means responding directly to the arguments and counterarguments of those who disagree with you. That is the "point" of discussion, and not dishonestly repeating the same fallacies over and over ad nauseum, doing the Web equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Can't hear you...!"', and then whining and making false accusations in violation of WP:AGF when you see that others aren't buying your poor excuse for sophistry.

Capitalismojo: "As such we must be extremely wary of using material from it per WP:SPS." WP:SPS says we may indeed use self-published circumstances as long as doing so abides by the five criteria listed therein. Which of the criteria would call for that source's exclusion?

Capitalismojo: "If the Marker reference is correct, Joseph is distancing himself from the film. As this is the official website of the film's owners/distributors are they reliable as to statements by Joseph saying no such distancing is taking place?" Joseph IS the owner and distributor of the film. Are you seriously questioning whether a person, on their own website, is less of a reliable source for his own viewpoints than the website of a publication that interviewed him????

Capitalismojo: "The fact that this is the official site of the film suggests we can probably use almost nothing of it (whether or not it is reliable as to the statements), but I wonder about its reliability as well." And what is your basis for these two points? How is Joseph's own website for his film not reliable? How does it being the official site mean we can probably use almost nothing of it? Nightscream (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's true that he was distancing himself from the film, then his quote on the film's website is not reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My observation is that if other's (not Joseph) own the film or site then they may have incentives to walk back Joseph's statement. Joseph himself may have such an incentive, but if he doesn't control the site the it adds another dimension. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, after some searching, the company that apparently owns the "official site" we have been discussing is Gentle Machine Productions LLC:

Gentle Machine Productions LLC is the business entity owned by media producer and activist Peter Joseph. This website is the official point of sale for his work, along with being a portal for free downloading, online viewing and project information. ... Existing and developing projects of Gentle Machine Productions include The Zeitgeist Film Trilogy...

This would suggest that this site belongs to Peter Joseph and thus falls entirely under self-published rules. Under those rules self-serving information is precluded. His response is clearly self-serving. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: "If it's true that he was distancing himself from the film, then his quote on the film's website is not reliable." You have it completely backwards. It's not true, because he himself has said so on his own website. What part of this are you not comprehending? It's HIS film, and HIS website. How can his own website not be reliable for his own statements? Have you even read the article? Have you been unaware, all this time, that he created the film, owns it and distributed it himself? How can you participate in discussions like this when you so ignorant of the most basic facts about the article's topic that are in the Lead section and Infobox?

Capitalismojo: "His response is clearly self-serving." No it's not. Self-serving means to show a disregard for the truth, interests, or well-being of others. Pointing out that you did not say what someone says you did does not do this. Can you respond to this point? Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy over and over? Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, I'm not going to waste time putting too fine a point on the semantics of the term "self-serving", since we appear to be on the same side apart from that bit of trivia. I will respond to Capitalismojo though: WP:ABOUTSELF states that we can use self-published sources for information about a person, so long as it is not unduly self-serving. The policy is meant to prevent us from solely relying on a self-published site to back up positive factual claims about a person, which is pretty logical: ie. "Despite her current public image, Amanda Bynes regularly reads to blind kids. [amandabynes.com]." A public response to an exchange is a different matter. We don't seek to use the source to back up the facts Joseph claims within it; we're rather using it to merely state that he has said those things. That's a very important distinction. The site is a reliable source for what the publishing party said. It is not a reliable source for whether their claim is accurate -- and we don't seek to make such a claim here. Arthur Rubin, this answers your comment as well: If it's true that he was distancing himself from the film, perhaps his quote presents an undue claim, and we can't present it as fact. It's a good thing, then, that we're not seeking to do so. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:04, 23 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;

This material is both self-serving and makes claims about a third party (the reporter)Capitalismojo (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the page itself is self-serving and makes a claim about a third party. We don't seek to use the page to back up such claims though. Our claim is not regarding a third party nor a self-serving fact. Ours is only a quote that someone made such claims. This is the distinction you're failing to grasp. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:04, 23 Jul 2013 (UTC)

As my concluding note in this discussion, I was invited to comment on this disussion thread. I have read the discussion, the article,and the refs. I then shared my opinion. If the opinion was not wanted, it shouldn't have been solicited. That my perception of "self-serving" is consistent with others here should indicate that it may be a common view. I have a real and growing problem with self-published sources (which all agree this is), and what I view as the improper use of such sources. Sorry if you disagree. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

By my count you fall in the minority regarding interpretation of the policy, as far as the discussion on this page goes. My opinion was solicited the same as yours, and I'm sure everyone appreciates your contributions. Whether or not people here agree with you doesn't change that. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:15, 23 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: "That my perception of "self-serving" is consistent with others here should indicate that it may be a common view." It is not "consistent with the others here". It is in agreement with two other people here, Earl King and Arthur Rubin, three if you count Tom Harrison, who I don't believe has weighed in on the matter of the word's definition, but who does agree with you on not using that website. It is not consistent with the seven other editors who disagree with you, and thus, this shis statement of yours shows is demonstrably false, and is an example of the tendency on your part to deliberately ignore facts that do not suit you.

In the second place, we do not implement policy by virtue of our "perception" of words, we should do so according to their definition, as well as the spirit and intent of the policies' language. It was pointed out to you repeatedly that your "perception" of the word was wrong, and the actual definition was provided for you, from three different reliable reference sources, and repeatedly. The fact that you persistently chicken out of responding to that, and pretend instead that your "perception" of the word trumps its actual meaning, just so that you can misuse a guideline in order to get your way, says volumes of about your undisguised dishonesty.

Break

It is helpful in such cases to stand back. Wikipedia should not mislead the reader. If an article says that person X holds or has expressed a certain view, and the person in question disputes that, it misleading not to say so. Even if there are plenty of reliable sources showing that they used a form of words attributed to them, if they say that they were misunderstood, or that it is not their true position, we are not being fair and balanced, nor are we helpful to readers, if we fail to indicate it. If WP policies, exceptionally, seem to conflict with that there will almost invariably be a way around. There is a world of difference between a position which a person says he or she holds and one they currently say they do not, and users need to know which it is. --AJHingston (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Idea. But, using a newspaper or magazine or some media source that is reliable and independent to interview with Joseph would be better than using a contrived vehicle that he runs that is not a real news story, interview, but is just a website where he promotes his business, that being the Zeitgeist ideas which is a commercial enterprise. Why not find some news story or interview where Peter is asked these things and can be questioned and there is some back and forth instead of him after the fact making some accusations against what is considered a reliable source. So, a website that he owns, telling us information that he wants his business promoted with, is not a reliable source for information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not stating any information though, other than the fact that he made a statement. His own website is not a reliable source for stating what he said? He did say it. No one seems to be calling that fact into question. Why would we? After all, we know he controls the site, and we know what is said on it. Unless you have some reason to claim the site is a fake, and someone is attempting to make statements on behalf of Joseph without his consent, there is no reliability issue. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:12, 23 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Earl King jr. apparently made reference to me being a meat puppet to belittle my contribution. The fact of the matter is that I decided against engaging on contributing; but then a half hour later curiosity got the better of me so I poked my nose in the discussion to see whether or not people were linking to policies I could read and weigh their arguments against those policies. As a result, the arguments are what ultimately lead to my decision to cast in my support for the majority opinion thus far. Your response is instead of convincing those that do not find your side convincing, you accuse the contributors here of sock puppetry without any evidence. I asked you and those of your side that if "someone can point to me why it is relevant for exclusion" then I will change my cast to your position. But instead of doing that, you decide to use a derogatory statement to myself. Can you please provide an argument for why it being self-serving should it be the criteria exclusion and if so... then shouldn't all other articles with the same material on Wikipedia be removed as well? Consistency is something that will convince me to change my voting cast so you know as well as appealing to wiki's policy for exclusion of self published sources, so if you can cite that I would greatly appreciate it. And please, no more accusing others of bad faith, this is Wikipedia, not a creationist forum. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Earl King Jr.: "Using a newspaper or magazine or some media source that is reliable and independent to interview with Joseph would be better than using a contrived vehicle that he runs that is not a real news story, interview, but is just a website where he promotes his business, that being the Zeitgeist ideas which is a commercial enterprise."

The fact that the website promotes his business is irrelevant to this discussion, because the discussion isn't about promoting Zeitgeist or its ideas, it's about including his statement that he was misquoted, which has nothing to do with promoting his business. Your argument seems to be that we can't cite his website for Statement A because it's also being used to promote Product B, even though no one here is arguing for making any promotional mention of Product B, merely the Statement A in question. Why can't you comprehend the distinction between these two things? Don't you think that The Marker and The New York Times, which are the two cited sources in question that made the original statement about him, are not "commercial enterprises"? Are you under the impression that they're government entities? Or charitable organizations? Do you not see subscription ads on those sites? Those are private organizations whose intent is to make money too, yet you don't seem to mind that. Your argument that citing a source that says he was misquotes also serves to "promote" the movie, simply because the website does so, is irrational on its face. The Discovery Institute is an organization whose mission is to promote creationism. That does not mean, however, that citing their website to source their date of founding, or citing their About page in order to source who their president is, as the DI article does, serves to "promote" that organization or their mission. To argue that it does is absurd.

Earl King Jr.: "Why not find some news story or interview where Peter is asked these things and can be questioned and there is some back and forth instead of him after the fact making some accusations against what is considered a reliable source."

Because the article is already citing two news stories, and those are the very stories that have attributed statements to him that he states he never made. That's what caused this conflict in the first place. If we had a secondary source for his statement, that would be fine, but if the only one we have is his website, then using it is perfectly fine. To not include his clarification would mean that we cite two sources that claim he said things that he says he didn't, which means we'd be perpetuating a possible libel, which is not acceptable. Including both, by essentially saying, "These guys say he said one thing, but he himself claims he never said that", is the proper, even-handed approach to summarizing the information. Including sources that claim he had distanced himself from the film's content when he says he has done no such thing, is clearly inappropriate.

Earl King Jr.: "Your repeated use of words like inane to describe other editors viewpoints is annoying." If you don't like having it pointed out to you that your statements are irrational, and lack any coherent logic, then the solution is simple:

A. Counter the criticism, by responding to it directly, and falsifying it, thus showing how your arguments are well-reasoned after all.

B. Stop making them.

But if you continue to employ logical fallacies, and persistent in responding to them by simply repeating them over and over ad nauseum, instead of falsifying the counterarguments against them, as you, Arthur, Tom and Capitalismojo have been doing, then I'm going to point it out. You don't get a free pass from having your intellectual dishonesty pointed out simply because you find it "annoying". Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no credible assertion that that Peter Joseph's statement is not unduly self-serving, and that it is not trivial. I find it unlikely that anyone is not misquoted. Use of dictionaries to discredit the clear intent of WP:SPS is intellectually dishonest, to use your term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The talk page discussion, and now ANI, is a great many words for a pretty small content issue. I still say leave it out until a secondary source picks it up, but if the price for further discussion is to continue to read Nightscream's striking and extensive contributions to the talk page, then I simply don't have time to pay it. One last thing though: How do we know that the statement on the movie website attributed to Joseph is really his? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to all - come up with a straight-forward, simple and short summary of the dispute and post it on WP:BLPN and then stay away. Ask only uninvolved editors comment and only respond (succinctly!) to direct questions. Include the various points made by all editors here. It's pretty darn obvious that no consensus will form here. Try the noticeboard and failing that, try and RFC. But please, have and editor or two from each side work together for the text in the BLPN request. Post something skewed or leave something out and I can guarantee you that nothing useful will result. Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tom and Arthur: If you have some reason to doubt the site's authenticity then present it, otherwise this is grasping at straws. No one is ever required to prove a source's credibility before using it. As for waiting for a secondary source, no policy-based reason has been presented for that yet.

I furthermore see no actual response to the policy arguments that have been presented against you, especially since the time that outside opinions were solicited to try and gauge the broader view (which appears to be largely against you). Suggesting that the quote be left out because it is self-serving is frankly ridiculous, as people's responses to conflicts are always self-serving. Policy prevents us from presenting the content of those statements as fact when based solely on self-published sources. It does not prevent us from merely saying that the person responded, and here is their statement.

Peter Joseph said this. That is a reliable fact that no one currently has reason to question. The practical fact is, therefore, that reliability is a non-issue here, and is nothing but lawyering.

The primary vs. secondary source argument does not handle the issue of whether or not to include a statement that we know came reliably from a particular person, much as some might wish it did. That's not part of Wikipedia policy or practice. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:26, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Leave it out until a secondary source picks it up. Joseph's claim may be like Bush claiming there were weapons of mass destruction, or Obama claiming he supports freedom and democracy, or O.J. saying he is innocent in the media. Its a primary self serving commercial website used for the dollar business of Zeitgeist commercial promotion. Why this has brought out such strong emotion from nightscream to the point of a constant barrage of negative comments about the 'quality' and ability of other editors some of them talented senior editors, is beyond me but taking that kind of in your face annoying tact is getting really old. In other words how close can someone curve toward incivility gamesmanship while defending that Joseph is a good source about Joseph on Josephs website, funded by Joesph. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

But the fact that Bush claimed there were no weapons of mass destruction is something that has been included in many articles though :) and you've yet to present a policy-based argument for leaving such a thing out. We're allowed and required to report many things that people say even though those things might be wrong or even downright ridiculous. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:52, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

There has yet to be presented a policy-based argument for inclusion of the self-serving statement, whether or not there is a reliable primary source. Someone saying he his misquoted is not even news, and certainly not encyclopedic. If there were a secondary source, that might not only provide a reliable source, but indication that someone thinks it's notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And here we get to the real issue, which is inclusion. I assume you refer to notability in the non-policy form, since that Wikipedia policy refers to whether or not articles should exist, not whether particular content should be included in an article. There is no policy to answer this question as far as I'm aware, and certainly none stating that only existence of a secondary source makes the content "notable" enough to include. I would however say, as others have, that BLP demands we report if a person claims they were misquoted. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:44, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

There's no right of reply on Wikipedia. That would seem the only justification for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Right of reply is inferred by BLP. The other justification, since you asked, is that it's simply relevant. We have detailed an exchange between two parties in this article and a response to that exchange is significant. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:50, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

break 2

Not really. Its a non event. Its some opinions created by a person that is promoting some movies and some ideas. Someone saying he is misquoted is not even news, and certainly not encyclopedic. En Wikipedia is not a forum for Peter Joseph and his personal musings from his paid webpage, that he uses to promote his products. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is his opinion regarding a matter that he was involved with; if we include that matter then we need to include his response to it. We've been over its self-published nature and it is a non-issue policy wise, regardless of your wanting it to matter. If you have a policy-based argument to make, let's get to it, but frequently repeating your stance as you have been isn't constructive. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:59, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, it IS an issue policy wise. Joseph is making a claim about a third party, that is against SPS. Ravensfire (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Joseph is making a claim about third parties. We are not. We're just saying that he made them. SPS guards against sourcing a statement like The Marker misquoted Joseph using a self-published source, which is obviously a problem. We're not doing anything like that. A self-published source is reliable for his own statement. There is no dispute regarding whether or not he said it, ergo there is no SPS issue. It's just lawyering. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:02, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

It is a self-published source, hence WP:SPS applies. See point #2 there - you cannot use them if it makes claims about a third party. That's exactly what's it's tring to be used for. The lawyering is coming from you trying to ignore a pretty clear point about this. Ravensfire (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No one's saying SPS doesn't apply. It absolutely does. Nevertheless, SPS doesn't state any rule against what we're doing here. In saying SPS is being violated, you're saying we have no reliable source to state that "Peter Joseph said [...]". There is no dispute that this statement is true though -- he did say this, and that is reliably verified by his self-published site. Remember, we're only saying that he said it. This fact is not in dispute. Yet you're still claiming an SPS violation based on technicalities, ignoring the practical (wrong technicalities, nonetheless). That's lawyering. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:14, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree SPS applies. Joseph is saying that the author of the article misquoted/lied. That's a claim about a third party (who is also protected by BLP, even on this article!). Point #2 under SPS says don't use claims about third parties. The technicality being pushed here is the attempt to ignore this little tiny part of self-published sources about BLP's. You cannot publish a claim that's been self-published about someone else. Period. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

...not a claim we're making, though. It's a claim someone else is making. The policy only applies to what Wikipedia claims. As Naualdesign pretty much states below, Wikipedia can and does, and really, must be able to, quote people who say things about others. We don't have to prove these things people say are accurate in order to quote them. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:19, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

And? It's a self-published site. It's making a claim about a third party. It's not allowed. WP can and does quote people who say things about others when they are from secondary sources. ALL of the examples he brought are from secondary sources, NOT from self-published sources. Ravensfire (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it's made a claim about a third party is not an SPS concern though. SPS is a reliability policy. We need to doubt the veracity of the information we're hoping to source with the site in order to say SPS is violated. Do you doubt the veracity of the information we're presenting?

In order to say "yes" to this question, you would have to claim that Wikipedia has a responsibility to prove that the contents of quotes are indeed true. If that's your stance, so be it, but I just want to be clear on that. You can't claim a reliability problem here unless we need to back up claims made in quotes.

Otherwise, what you're referring to is a WP:BLP issue, something regarding possible defamation. That may be a concern too, but again, I just want to be clear on this. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:45, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Stop. Please read WP:SPS. Especially read point #2. Then come back and tell me how it's a claim about a third party is not a SPS concern WHEN THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT #2 IS SAYING. Yes, I'm shouting because I've said this multiple times. Seriously, go and read it. Ravensfire (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've read it several times, I assure you. That second clause, as much as it may sound like a defamation concern, is not (we have BLP for that, while this is a reliability policy). It's merely saying that claims about third parties on an SPS are not reliably true. Are we trying to say those claims are true here? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:58, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Wow. So the phrase "so long as it does not involve claims about third parties" doesn't mean what it says. Tell ya what - never mind. It's at BLPN and will probably go from there to RFC. It's exceedingly obvious there won't be consensus on this via the talk page so really not worth more effort. I've made my point on BLPN and will go from there. Ravensfire (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly does mean what it says; you're just misunderstanding it. You claim you're not lawyering, and I'll grant that I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but you are sticking to (a misinterpretation of) the technical wording of this policy as proof. Let me ask you this: Since you're claiming a reliability policy is being violated, what exactly is do you think might not be true in the statement we want to add? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:19, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

No-one is under any illusion that this isn't a self-published source! And you can quote in a WP article a (defamatory) claim made by a one living person about another living person, even using a primary source (the claim itself) if necessary as a means to verify the quote. Using secondary or tertiary sources only shows that the claim in question is notable. For example, from David Icke; "At the heart of his theories lies the idea that a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian... Reptilian figures include George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." nagualdesign (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That material is cited to two reliable secondary sources, The Guardian and PublicEye.org. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've begun a BLPN discussion here, as someone suggested recently. Feel free to add if you feel my summary is inadequate, but do try to keep it short and let outside parties comment. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:50, 24 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: "I see no credible assertion that that Peter Joseph's statement is not unduly self-serving, and that it is not trivial. I find it unlikely that anyone is not misquoted. Use of dictionaries to discredit the clear intent of WP:SPS is intellectually dishonest, to use your term." I never used a dictionary to "discredit" the intent of any policy. I used them to establish the phrase's definition, which is what dictionaries are for, since you, Earl and Capitalismojo continue to distort that word's meaning. This has nothing to do with "discrediting" the guideline's intent, since establishing the meaning of a word used in one of that guideline's outlined criteria goes directly to that guideline. Only a someone engaging in intellectual debauchery would argue that using three dictionaries to establish a word's meaning is somehow intellectually dishonest. Nightscream (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Earl King Jr.: "Joseph's claim may be like Bush claiming there were weapons of mass destruction, or Obama claiming he supports freedom and democracy, or O.J. saying he is innocent in the media." Precisely! And nobody would argue that they didn't make those claims. To push the analogy further, quoting a lie is a statement of fact. It does not lend credence to the lie.

From Iraq War#Alleged weapons of mass destruction: The Bush administration, however, continued to allege Iraq's attempts to obtain additional yellowcake were a justification for military action, most prominently in the January 2003, State of the Union address, in which President Bush declared that Iraq had sought uranium, citing British intelligence sources. (Note that Wikipedia is not making any claims about WMDs, only that Mr Bush made allegations. With hindsight, we all know he was bullsh*tting, but that doesn't change the facts of what was said.)

From 2009 Nobel Peace Prize: The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to U.S. President Barack Obama for his "extraordinary efforts" to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. (Note that WP is not claming that Obama made "extraordinary efforts", and citing the NNC as a reliable secondary source to back up that 'fact'. It is simply presenting the NNC's reasoning.)

From O. J. Simpson murder case#Arrest and trial: At his arraignment on July 29, when asked how he pleaded to the murders, Simpson, breaking a courtroom practice that says the accused may plead only simple words of "guilty" or "not guilty," firmly stated: "Absolutely, one hundred percent, not guilty." (Well, I think you get the idea with that.) nagualdesign (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's nice. Hmmm, let me guess though, ALL of those have secondary sources, don't they? Yeah ... they do. In other words, lovely examples that simply do not apply here. Look for examples where a self-published source is being used to cite a claim made about a third person. If you find it - remove it. It's a BLP violation. Negative information about a living person especially MUST be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Ravensfire (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You are deliberately missing the point I was making, but perhaps this will satisfy you. From Noam Chomsky#Politics; Regarding the death of Osama bin Laden, Chomsky stated: "We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a 'suspect' but uncontroversially the 'decider' who gave the orders to commit the 'supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole' (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, [and] the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region." Should this quote be removed? I think not. nagualdesign (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Deliberately missing the point? No. He made a point that is well taken. Why say someone is deliberately missing a point anyway? What has Noam Chomsky got to do with anything here? And, A secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity? I guess that idea does 'tie in' for some of the Zeitgeist people. Perhaps we can have them the 'lizard' people, weigh in also if they have accounts here? Too my knowledge reptilians of that type are not excluded from editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay Earl, you're being rather silly now. J'accuse! nagualdesign (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The SPS violation

Since a violation of WP:SPS seems to be the primary concern here, I wanted to ask about this in a more general sense. This is for everyone on the "keep it out" side of the debate.

SPS is a reliability policy, and so, saying that it's being violated must mean you have some issue with the the reliability of the statement we want to add. Forgetting about the specific wording within the policy for a moment, what exactly about the statement do you think is unreliable (ie. possibly not true)? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:30, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

No. Its a primary source from a commercial site run by the person that made the information up. Isn't that enough to say it is not reliable, self serving and not reported in the the 'real' press, but just by the author of a commercial enterprise designed partly to separate people from their money? Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not enough, since you're speaking to people who are saying it is reliable, not self-serving, and doesn't need to be in "real press". So we'll need more than your once again repeated general opinion.

The claim, once again, is that the edit violates Wikipedia:Verifiability (SPS is contained there), meaning that people think the edit is possibly "untrue" in essence. I'm merely asking what, specifically, about our edit are you concerned might not be true? Equazcion ^(talk) 09:35, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

True? That is not the issue at all. The issue is the sourcing and it being self serving. Its a bad source because the person in question is self reporting. Joseph needs someone to interview him and then publish his opinions on the interview. Not use Zeitgeist as a mouthpiece for his business enterprise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In order to claim a violation on the basis of WP:V, you must first doubt that we can prove the factualness of the edit. No one has yet explained what about the edit carries such a doubt for them. That is most certainly the issue. Otherwise, you can't claim a Verifiability violation, no matter how much you focus on the language within the policy. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:57, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are any number of statements made of which we have no doubt, but do not have a verifiable source. As an example, "Alex Jones is a right-wing loon." We can't say that in Wikipedia's voice, but does anyone doubt it is correct? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There is reason to doubt it if there's no source, though. Put in your terms, then, what exactly about the edit do you think requires more verification? Equazcion ^(talk) 16:13, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

More verification? That is not the issue. The issue is the sourcing. There are already self sourced things in the article maybe too many of them. It is a primary source. It can not be included. Period. It is not news. It is self serving. It is making en. Wikipedia a spokesperson for Peter Joseph. So maybe we can drop this issue now. Its a waste of time. Its not going to happen either because you have no consensus for the change you want, which is basically to report on Peter Joseph reporting on himself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Verification means sourcing. If you haven't read the policies yet you might want to drop this yourself... I'll also add that leaving the page the way it is will similarly not happen, as there's definitely no consensus for that. There are twice as many people here for the addition as there are against. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:47, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Luckily Wikipedia is not a democracy. I doubt your head count of voters anyway. Why not do a real request for comment? Even your framing of the issue is not correct. Why have a guy like Peter use Wikipedia for a platform, when he has his own websites for that. Its not going to happen because it is too primary a source, is not news or a news or real interview story. It is just a webpage bought and paid for by a special interest group. It is a promotional, self serving bit of information. It is an advert site. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you doubt my count, but you're welcome to perform one yourself. You're also free to make a request for comment. I myself have found them to be more trouble than they're worth as they don't produce as much participation as contacting previous posters to the page in question, as was done here already.

Your characterization of this as Peter using this page as a forum or platform, as you've now said many times, doesn't really do anything to show a policy violation.

You appear to be sticking with the verifiability issue, so I'll ask again, which fact contained in this edit, specifically, requires further verification? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:44, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I also want to add that I think this is actually the first time the issue has been framed correctly. Until now, people have been pointing out language in the Verifiability policy while forgetting that there must be some specific fact whose verifiability is in question first. If no one can answer this then we're done here. Consensus doesn't come down to a vote, but it certainly doesn't come down on the side of the minority or merely the page's current state. It will change. The question is how. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:55, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be sticking with the verifiability issue, so I'll ask again, which fact contained in this edit, specifically, requires further verification? end quote. What? It has nothing to do with verifiability or so called facts the way Peter Joseph explains them, but has everything to do with it being a primary source so the issue you are trying to frame here is a non starter. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the reason we require sources is to verify facts. Again I think you should familiarize yourself with the basic principles described in WP:V before attempting to argue this. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:48, 25 Jul 2013 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, Peter Joseph is not the publisher, and some people want to use it as a source for a quote attributed to Joseph, favorable to the publisher, and unfavorable to a reporter. That's problematic at best. I think we ought to leave it out until or if it's picked up by a reliable secondary source with some kind of editorial control and fact-checking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is still a rather vague argument. Which fact requires verification here? In this entire discussion that question has never been answered. Without it, I couldn't even begin to try and find these secondary sources you demand in order to back it up.

If you mean attribution alone, that is indeed reliably sourced by the author's own publication, promotional or not. We're quoting his (possibly promotional) publication, without using it to back up his claims (diff).

Are there any other facts here that require verification? Equazcion ^(talk) 05:18, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Possible solution

If we stated within the text that the statement comes from the film's official website, would everyone here find that more acceptable? For example:

The film's official website later contained a statement by Joseph addressing the interview, saying, "At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."

How does this sound? Equazcion ^(talk) 07:03, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using a primary source to give Joseph's viewpoint/reaction as long as there is no interpretation of the material. See WP:Primary. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, can someone summarise the current situation here so I don't have to read the whole argument up there? Judging by the opener I'm guessing this is about Joseph contesting something an interviewer is saying he said? Generally speaking, when the evidence is not really clear cut the Wikipedia format for disputes of this nature should really be 'One source states X, however it is disputed by Y' with equal emphasis. However, from watching his first film and reading through some of the general press and stuff on his website I have come to the conclusion that Joseph is something an evasive and devious little....person....with a past history of saying things and then trying to discredit anyone who repeats them (or remove them and pretend they never happened). Because of this the best way to solve this would be to get a neutral party to translate the original interview, if it is available, and see what it was he actually said and in what tone of voice. Hadashi (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The actual interview transcript is apparently unavailable. Peter Joseph claims on the film's website that the publication misquoted him. The question is whether such a public statement can be quoted and sourced to a person's own self-published website. This is obviously independent of all Wikipedia editors' possibly well-formed opinions of the author's character. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:30, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

He questions the credibility of the article; others question his credibility. Seems a parallel construction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting we attach a question of his credibility to the statement for that reason alone? Equazcion ^(talk) 22:00, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

It's as justified as adding his disclaimer. But I'm not seriously suggesting it; I'm suggesting that the disclaimer cannot remain in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In favour of adding Joseph's statement

I was asked to contribute to this discussion. I tried to read most of it. It seems that the ones who argue against including Joseph's statements invoke WP:SELFPUB and specifically points (1) and (2). In the discussion above, one will find debates regarding the meaning of "self-serving", the reliability of the source, and whether it involves claims about third parties or not.

I think that the reasons provided for not including Joseph's comments are inadequate. I explain myself:

Firstly, WP:SELFPUB clearly states that "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", therefore any discussion about the reliability of the source based on the fact that it is published by the person making the statements is irrelevant. Wikipedia says that we can use it as a source "of information about themselves" and I think we can consider Joseph's own opinions and beliefs as information about himself.

Secondly, according to a definition of self-serving provided in the discussion above (a definition that wasn't challenged by anyone and that comes from a reliable source, [www.dictionary.com]) the material in question is not "self-serving" (if it is self-anything this would be self-defending since he is claiming that he was misinterpreted). It is important to notice that clause (1) of WP:SELFPUB refers to "the material" used, NOT to the entirety of the source. In this case the material is this:

"At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."

Thirdly, this material does not involve any claims about other parties whatsoever. Once again, it is important to notice that clause (1) of WP:SELFPUB refers to "the material" used, not to the entirety of the source. After and before the quoted statement, Joseph does refer to the interviewer, speculating on why he (in Joseph's opinion) could have misinterpreted him. We could have a discussion over a cup of tea on whether he is making claims about the interviewer in these sections. But the material that we are using, the one to which he is referring to himself ("at no time did I say", "nor did I state") and would therefore fall under the WP:SELFPUB description ("used as sources of information about themselves"), does not include claims about anyone other than himself.

Concluding, I think that the "theMarker" paragraph under the section Conspiracy theory and propaganda needs to be updated. Instead of repeating all the time "TheMarker said" and "TheMarker wrote" the paragraph should be rephrased to something like: "On a 2012 article in TheMarker, Asher Schechter characterized... He also wrote..." Then the part that refers to the Irish Times criticism is not needed because it has been mentioned before. Finally the last sentence, quoting Joseph in saying that he has to make the information compelling, is irrelevant to the section "criticism" and should be put elsewhere or taken out and replaced by the something like: "However, Joseph has denied these claims with a statement published in the Zeitgeist's official website: At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."Elmerfadd (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In consideration of further dialogue between the only three advocates of removing the statement made by Joseph after asking for an appeal to wiki policies, consistency and argumentation, I can safely say that I will be keeping my vote the same as the arguments presented has yet to convince; and the sloppy misuse of the WP:SPS by Raven and others here to convince those of the opposite position here of their's, I am probably safe in assuming that these individual's will not convince me.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The only way I can see to include Joseph's statement without violating WP:NPOV is to violate WP:CLAIM; the proper phrasing and weight can only be met by "Joseph claims he was misquoted, etc." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering that at no point did anyone advocate saying anything more than that, I think we're good to go. Any further objections? I misread Arthur's comment, apologies. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:53, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, neither of those are an issue. It would look something like: "In response to.... Joseph stated that 'At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style.'" -- In fact, not to include his response is a clear BLP violation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur, if you're really suggesting the proper weight can only be met by using loaded terminology that slants the phrase against its author's credibility (per the MOS you linked), then I dare suggest you yourself have personal NPOV issues at this article. "stated" is the objective NPOV terminology. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:14, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are reliable sources which question Joseph's credibility. It becomes an interesting question as to where they could be placed to avoid WP:SYNTH problems. I would have little objection if Joseph's claim were placed here, provided that it is noted that some of his claims are unfounded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be pretty much the definition of an NPOV violation. Tacking on a judgment to his statement based on nothing more than the fact that his credibility has been questioned in the past (even if that is true) is not NPOV. I'm very surprised that you think something like that would ever be justified in a Wikipedia article and I think you need to take a step back from this topic. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:49, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

As far as giving Peter Josephs response/defence quoting from his personal website with him disclaiming the interview, with him representing a special interest business group, no. Its a primary source with no real news or interview content value in it but perhaps his personal opinion. Get another source for that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You can repeat that again and again but it has no basis in policy. As far as ElmerFadd (a comment you now removed), he's been here for 5 and a half years and made 139 edits to several different areas: Special:Contributions/Elmerfadd. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:47, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Break N

Since User:Arthur Rubin appears to have lost his mind, I'm going to attempt to move on here. We have 11 users in favor of the addition and 5 against. This does include Arthur Rubin, and also includes one user at WP:RS/N (User:The Four Deuces), where I quietly asked about this issue in order to garner a purely outside take. While voting to determine consensus is to be avoided, even though it does often come down to that, consensus in this case surely doesn't favor the current state of the article. I propose one of the following two options be implemented:

• Peter Joseph's response is edited in as it appears below, or
• Mention of the interview is removed entirely.

Draft of the addition (feel free to suggest changes):

The film's official website later contained a statement by Joseph addressing the interview, saying, "At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."

I guess cast your vote, since that seems to be where this is headed. I'm not sure how else to end this. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:58, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Support Although I have no doubt that the passage will be spirited away at a later date by Arthur or Earl while nobody is looking, as happened with the section about Zeitgeist: Final Edition. nagualdesign (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

While it appears obvious which option you're supporting I'd just like to remind everyone to state which of the two presented above you prefer :) Equazcion ^(talk) 23:08, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I support the inclusion of the paragraph above in the form that you have written it. nagualdesign (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been three options discussed:

1. Removing the comment entirely.
2. Adding the "distancing" comment but not including Joseph's "refutation"
3. Including both the "distancing" and the "refutation".

I consider 1 and 2 acceptable (with 2 preferred), but not 3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We already have 11 people who've demonstrated they're against your option 2 and only 5 for it. It seems doubtful we could get everyone back here to (superfluously) restate that in the form of a vote, not that that's necessary. This vote is to determine which remedy to apply now that we know consensus is definitely not in favor of your option 2: ie. inclusion or removal of all. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:27, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to pretend this is a vote, then you need to go back and run all of options 1, 2, and 3 under some sort of voting regime. It's likely that item 2 would not be the final outcome of the three, but it's not guaranteed, even if the (miscounted) 11-5 vote were considered to be examples of item 3 preferred to item 2., but it's possible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Against your option 2: JamesB17, Nightscream, nagualdesign, The Devil's Advocate, Equazcion, Voiceofreason467, Dustin184, Jordgette, AJHingston, Somedifferentstuff, The Four Deuces (RS/N), Elmerfadd.

For your Option 2: Arthur Rubin, Earl King Jr., Tom Harrison, Capitalismojo, Ravensfire.

Feel free to post your list if you think mine is wrong. It seems unlikely that your Option 2 would come out the victor, since a clear majority have stated they're against it, unless my count is wildly inaccurate. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:52, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Has this been taken up at the blp notice board? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a post there where several involved editors have rehashed the discussion appearing here. No one uninvolved has responded. So basically it was a bust. I then posted to WP:RS/N, here, without advertising it on this talk page, and got an outside opinion that supported the addition. Not that I expect the entrenched characterizations of our article's topic to be swayed by such things. I'm not even sure if taking more steps to get further outside opinions is even worth it. What would happen if we got another 5 people who supported the addition? "It's not a vote" again? I'm not sure what it would take to get you (your side) to stop reverting the addition that most people here want. Would we be soliciting outside opinions in perpetuity until you get the majority? Equazcion ^(talk) 00:16, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

It's not helpful to cast the discussion as a conflict between opposing sides. I'd like to know more clearly your view on why adding this material about a third-party from a self-published source is allowed under our blp policy. It's a misunderstanding of blp to say that we can include material about a living third-party based on a self-published source, as long as the quote is attributed. That is simply not the case, and the only thing that can change that is a change to the blp policy. Also, when did I revert? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what it has become, but you're right, let's stay positive. I'm not suggesting BLP allows us to do it ("it" being something different than you've described above, which I'll get back to). I'm saying BLP conveys us to do it out of consideration for a person who has stated they were misquoted regarding a publication we have thus far included in the article. What allows us to do it is WP:Primary and WP:ABOUTSELF. We're not using the source to back up a claim about third parties, because that would mean we're attempting to source the contents of the quote, which we're not doing and don't have to do. The source is given merely for attribution. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:38, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

And I didn't say you personally reverted, but those on "your side" of this debate. I haven't attempted an edit in this debacle thus far, just FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:40, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It's still the case that blp does not allow us to include self-published material about a third party and there's really no ambiguity in the policy, nor any exception that allows us to retail gossip or pursue he-said-she-said dialogues as long as they're attributed to someone's website. The material should have a reliable secondary source before it's added. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Stating that one has been misquoted is not inherently disparaging. Publications sometimes simply get things wrong. In any event, BLP is referring to claims edited into articles as sourced facts, the only one of which we're including here is the attribution and not the claim about third parties. You clearly have a different interpretation but thus far you're in the minority and we're once again left with the question, given that, of what happens now. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:02, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

"BLP is referring to claims edited into articles as sourced facts" No, that's not the case. For example, blp prevents us from writing "Paul says on his website, 'Peter stole that money.'" But that's a more general (and more important) point that could be taken up on the blp talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Mmm yes. Violating BLP would be a problem. Or was it an NPOV issue, something to do with preventing the page from being a platform for Zeitgeist supporters? How about this. Since all other attempts at gaining outside views have not turned out in your favor, I'll let you go to the BLP talk page to see what they tell you. I'm going to hope you get shot down again, and then we can see what your next rationale will be for trying to keep this statement out. I'm getting a little tired of this pro-vs-anti Joseph fight I stepped into instead of working with people who want to simply craft a good article. As far as I'm concerned, everyone who has strong feelings for or against Peter Joseph needs to take five steps back and let others edit it for a while. I'm not altogether far from an ANI attempt at making that official. Biased people should simply not be here, and I don't care how much you think you're ignoring those instincts. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:08, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

If you've decided I'm arguing in bad faith, there's little point in our continuing to discuss this. Take it to ANI if you like. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've decided that. (Correction: I don't believe this is a conscious act but an underlying POV issue is still my contention). I've assumed otherwise until this jumping between different arguments for the same bit of content became apparent. But if it helps, I'm sure if we were arguing for some bit of positive Joseph content that policy didn't support, there would be just as much inappropriate behavior coming from the other side of the fence. But let's assume for the moment that neither of those things are true. How about this: Let's include Joseph's statement because it's good for the reader. Fuck policy. Common sense demands that if we've reported that someone said something, and we're aware of them having denied it, the reader should know that rather relevant fact? Otherwise the reader is denied an important piece of information. Making mention that they've said it does not lend credence to it. Want to say that BLP concerns trump common sense? BLP concerns for an individual trump those of a news organization, if you ask me. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:44, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

This vote seems phony. And I protest characterizing another editor as being Since User:Arthur Rubin appears to have lost his mind, I'm going to attempt to move on here. That sucks User Equazcion. You are using the same tactics of trash talking that Nightscream has used of demeaning language and intimidation. Something is really wrong here also with dredging up people, from who knows where, to throw in some vote when they are not even involved, that would be o.k. in a request for comment but not the way it was done here and now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No one dredged anything up. Opinions were solicited from public forums and from previous posters to this page without any selectivity, as far as I'm aware. On Wikipedia, uninvolved participation is the most important kind because it is the least biased. You were free to make a request for comment if you wanted at any point, but you chose to demand it from others instead. We chose other means since we know from experience that RFC has become somewhat less effective. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:24, 27 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion in regards to the addition of a response from Joseph and I support using the entire quote. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please vote so that the issue is resolved

You can read above my position in favour of adding Joseph's statement in the respective paragraph. There I summarize and refute the arguments put forward by Earl King Jr. and others. I also propose specific changes to the text. Following my proposal Arthur Rubin attempted to argue that using the word "claim" is the only way to meet "the proper phrasing and weight" (???) which would violate WP:CLAIM. Equazcion then demonstrated that this is not the case because the phrasing would be such: "In response to.... Joseph stated that: [quote]". Thereafter, Earl King Jr., Arthur Rubin, and Tom Harrison have not been able to refute my argumentation or argue against Equazcion's proposed solution. They either repeated arguments I (and others before me) have already refuted or diverted the discussion to other irrelevant issues.

In order to end this issue Equazcion suggested a vote on whether the interview paragraph be completely removed or updated as suggested by him. This vote was characterized as "phony" based on the assertion that "Something is really wrong here also with dredging up people, from who knows where". Despite the irrationality and ambiguity of that statement Equazcion provided an answer. On that note I call on people to continue voting by clearly stating their preference so that we resolve this as soon as possible. I also repost the voting choices. Which of the following two options are to be implemented:

1. Peter Joseph's response is edited in as it appears below, or
2. Mention of the interview is removed entirely.

Draft of the addition (feel free to suggest changes):

The film's official website later contained a statement by Joseph addressing the interview, saying, "At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."

I make clear that I am in favour of option 1, that the above draft be added to the text.

Elmerfadd (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Still false, and even less sourced than the article, which isn't much. It's closer to being an accurate statement if you replace

1. "Equazcion then demonstrated" by "Equazcion then claimed", although "Equazcion then asserted" might be more neutral.
2. "Thereafter, Earl King Jr., Arthur Rubin, and Tom Harrison have not been able to refute my argumentation or argue against Equazcion's proposed solution." by Thereafter, Earl King Jr., Arthur Rubin, and Tom Harrison have refuted my argumentation (which is an echo of others' previously refuted arguments.)"

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

By that rationale (talk pages must be NPOV) perhaps you shouldn't be here at all, Arthur. Just cut the crap and place your vote. Consensus has already been reached for the inclusion of the passage if the section from TheMarker remains, now you are simply being asked whether you prefer option A or option B. There's really nothing you could change about the proposed wording of the paragraph unless you believe the statement wasn't by Peter Joseph. nagualdesign (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I vote in favor of option #1 as well.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, although talk pages do not have to fully satisfy WP:NPOV, RFCs are required to meet NPOV, so the first !vote fails, also. In any case option #1 violates WP:BLP, so will not remain. I'm not entirely happy with TheMarker being a reliable source, so perhaps the entire paragraph should be removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're lucky that talk pages do not have to satisfy NPOV in any way actually, or else god knows what sort of sanctions you'd have to impose on yourself at this point. As far as input requests went for this discussion, instead of making vague accusations please bluntly state the problem you have with the manner in which those were solicited, if indeed you have one. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:09, 28 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in here. I am in favor of including Joseph's clarification, obviously. The above proposed passage is fine. I would also not be opposed to something like "Joseph subsequently stated on his website that he had not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in the film, as had been reported."

I also don't buy the false idea that the only way to convey this is to use the word "claim", since there is nothing wrong with "stated" or "said", as is required by WP:CLAIM. Nightscream (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I support Nightscream's advice here, particularly his suggestion for a simple statement saying that Joseph stood by his ideas, which gets us right away from the problematic who said what and why question. --AJHingston (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached for the inclusion of the passage if the section from TheMarker remains, now you are simply being asked whether you prefer option A or option B. There's really nothing you could change about the proposed wording of the paragraph unless you believe the statement wasn't by Peter Joseph. End quote nagualdesign.

I doubt that. Consensus has happened? Not hardly. Not written by Peter Joseph? This is confusing the situation even more. Why would we include Peter Joseph commenting on his pay website about himself? It is not a reliable source for this. It is too primary. Why believe that guy? No reason to. No one over see's what he says. It is a self promotional Advert site you want to take a quote from. No way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't believe him. Who said we did? Equazcion ^(talk) 16:52, 29 Jul 2013 (UTC)

• Love seeing the slightly biased list of options there. Good job! Well done! I'll go with option 3 please, leave comments from TheMarker, exclude the self-published remarks from Joseph critical of a third party per WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS. See all previous remarks as the arguments put forth by various SPA's on this have been extremely unpersuasive that we should either white-wash the article or give Joseph his own personal soapbox. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Something to consider about this (and illustrating why an SPS is an extremely poor source for something like this). Let's say a reputable journalist took note and decided to cover this. Something they would immediately do is contact TheMarker and try to get the view of the author/editor of the original piece. Do they stand by it? Why? If the interview was taped, try to get a copy of it. That's obviously not going to happen here - we've got a purely partisan self-published source that is not interested at all in "good journalism". Think about that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to leave out the individual's statement that they were misquoted just because the publication hasn't been explicitly contacted for a further response. Investigating the validity of the claim has no bearing on whether we can post the quoted claim itself. Consensus was determined to be against you on that question and this new set of options is presented purely to determine how to move forward given that. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:52, 29 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Given the highly divided nature of this dispute, I don't think any involved editor here can declare a consensus. Please ask for someone uninvolved to review and determine if a consensus has been determined. You can ask at WP:AN for that. Honestly, this really needs a RFC. This isn't something determined by counting heads, especially with WP:SPA's involved, it's by weight of argument, hence the need to an uninvolved admin. Ravensfire (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Positive consensus notwithstanding, consensus surely doesn't favor the current state of the article, with 12 against the current state and only 5 for it. I can't see any possible justification for leaving the article in this state, uninvolved closure or not. My count, by the way, has always excluded the original poster, who is the only one I can see reason to say might be an SPA. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:10, 29 Jul 2013 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, "consensus" to violate WP:BLP should be disregarded, and those !votes which are specifically in favor of violating WP:BLP (as opposed to arguing that the addition doesn't violate BLP) should also be disregarded, even if we were to count votes. I'm not sure that the "include SPS" even has the majority view, in that interpretation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't personally subscribe to BLP as a trump card the way some on Wikipedia do, but even if we were to go under that assumption, we have a conflict here that can't be solved that way. We have two opposing viewpoints: One that exclusion of this material violates BLP, and one that inclusion violates BLP. Given that, obviously each side will claim theirs is correct and the other should be disregarded on BLP grounds. Apologies for being blunt here but you can be a child and say all opinions that don't agree with yours should be disregarded, claiming BLP gives you such a right regardless, or you can be an adult and accept that this discussion did not turn out in your favor. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:48, 29 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Gratuitous insults not helpful, kindly stop. BLP is damn serious policy, you do not violate it. You skipped over that I did suggest a way to go forward which is to request an uninvolved admin review the situation and offer their view on it. You've got two arguments, both based on strong policies with strong reasoning behind them. The request on BLPN didn't offer much direction with uninvolved posts supporting both views. Ravensfire (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Everyone agrees BLP is serious and each side claims theirs upholds it. I'm not even entirely sure admin closures are ordinarily sought in talk page discussions. We tend to subscribe to the notion that even people in an argument can determine for themselves how the discussion turned out. Were the discussion too close to call I might agree that some sort of official closure might be warranted, but this discussion appears to be anything but close. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:10, 29 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: "RFCs are required to meet NPOV..."
A fabrication on your part. RfCs are an informal process for requesting outside input into disputes and other matters, and and are only one of the ones available on Wikipedia. They certainly can be used in a dispute regarding NPOV, but they are not a "requirement", except in your imagination.

Arthur Rubin: "...so the first !vote fails, also."
Putting aside the fact that WP:CONSENSUS is not achieved through a "vote" (which, as an admin, you should know), what "vote" are you referring to, and how or why has it "failed"? Nightscream (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Arthur is correct that !votes to violate blp "(as opposed to arguing that the addition doesn't violate BLP)" should be ignored, and their misunderstanding about blp corrected. Consensus, when it developes, should be evaluated by an uninvolved editor (no particular reason why it should be an admin). It seems like an RfC would be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Votes to violate BLP should indeed be ignored, which means Tom and Arthur's votes should be ignored (see? I can play that game too, if you want). Notwithstanding that utterly useless argument, the count, by the way, is now 13 to 5 for the addition, with the second uninvolved BLPN response coming from Seraphimblade (the first was also for it, as was the sole uninvolved response at RS/N). Just, you know, thought I'd mention that. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:06, 30 Jul 2013 (UTC)

13 to 5. That is funny. Lucky we are not a democratic organization because that would probably destroy en. Wikipedia. The original contacting of people to vote was like stuffing the ballot box. People contacting friends and others that seems to be sympathetic. It is not going to fly. No doubt opposing opinions cold contact endless numbers also to come and 'vote' but did not do that. Its not a good idea to use Peter Joseph to negate another news story just because he posted something on one of his personal primary websites. That is pretty simple. find another source of Peter's rebuttal. Is there one out there? Or is it totally not news or interview worthy, so why use him for a source? Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

:The fact you can count past ten, Earl King, only adds to my list of questions about the Universe and the people in it: "How?" sabine antelope 01:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to keep replying to these general accusations even though they'll always be reruns. No one contacted friends. They contacted past participants of this page, posted to public forums, and now there is an RfC below (as you've so politely demanded previously). As for your arguments, most others have seen fit to at least point out where policy supports their views, rather than repeat their general stance 10 times. Lucky the number of times an opinion is repeated doesn't add weight to it, because that would probably destroy Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:57, 31 Jul 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Peter Joseph's self-published claim that he was misquoted be included?

An Israeli news service called TheMarker interviewed Peter Joseph, maker of Zeitgeist: The Movie. They report that Joseph said he is now "distancing himself" from the movie. Peter Joseph responded to this via the film's website, saying that he was misquoted and denying that he is distancing himself from the movie.

The possible addition of Joseph's self-published response is the subject of an edit war and prolonged discussion here. Each side in this discussion has claimed the other side is advocating a WP:BLP violation.

The content being disputed:

The film's official website later contained a statement by Joseph addressing the interview, saying, "At no time did I say anything about 'distancing myself' from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."

• Those for excluding the response claim that including it would constitute a BLP violation on the news organization for being accused of a misquote. They say WP:SPS prevents the self-published source from being used in this case, as Joseph's website and the statement in question are unduly self-serving and promotional. They further say the statement makes claims about third parties (TheMarker), which SPS and BLP prohibit when a self-published source is being used, and that a secondary source must pick up Joseph's response before it is added to the article.

• Those for including the response claim that excluding it would constitute a BLP violation on Peter Joseph for presenting the interviewer's claim as though it were not in dispute. They say exclusion violates WP:NPOV by presenting only one side of the story. They further say inclusion of the response doesn't violate SPS or BLP since a self-published source is being used only for attribution of the publisher's claim, rather than to demonstrate the claim's validity.

Equazcion ^(talk) 13:37, 30 Jul 2013 (UTC)

• No There is the clause about third parties, though--a self-published source can't be used if it makes claims about third parties. Claiming that he was misquoted is a statement that a third party lied or erred, and as such cannot be used if you literally go by policy at en Wikipedia. A primary source controlled by Joseph and a mouthpiece for his commercial enterprises is a good source? No its not. Any serious thing like that must be more independent and not self sourced to the subject itself. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Firstly, the passage in question does not include any claims or statements about third parties. You are concluding that it does when you say that "[c]laiming that he was misquoted is a statement that a third party lied or erred". If we omit this statement based on your interpretation then we would directly violate WP:ORIGINAL. It's up to the readers to decide how to interpret this, not up to the editors. Secondly, we are interested in the reliability of the source regarding only Joseph's statement and nothing else. There are no universally good or bad sources, it depends on what you use them for. The movie's website is a reliable source for the director/producer's statements. Elmerfadd (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why use a primary source for something? Find an interview of him saying something from a secondary source that is a good viable news or magazine link site. That would be good. As is, too self serving and commercial to the subject for a source here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Since we all love playing Devil's advocate, I will expand on Earl King's request just so you don't get the meaning wrong. What he means by "good viable news or magazine link site" is "a Jewish columnist who openly derides the film as Anti-Semitic, despicable or otherwise invoking notions of global control by Jewry." That's the kind of source he would call five-star, so if you want to appease him, find one and use it. sabine antelope 01:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Earl King: No There is the clause about third parties..."
Sigh. Please read WP:RfC in order to familiarize yourself with what RfC is. RfC is a process for requesting outside input for disputes, not for the same involved editors to rehash the same things they've been saying for the past two weeks. Nightscream (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

While it's always helpful to my side of this debate whenever Earl King says things, it would indeed be great if this RfC didn't become a mere rehash of the existing debate between involved editors. If someone wanted to collapse all of this I wouldn't complain. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:07, 31 Jul 2013 (UTC)

RfC discussion

• Oppose inclusion It can not be a BLP violation for us to contain what a reliable source says, and when attributed such as with [2]. WP:NPOV never requires "both sides of the story" in some sort of false balance. The WP:BALANCE part of WP:NPOV is only required when two equally reliable sources make opposing claims (or a rough equality of all reliable sources make two claims). The material is unduly self serving since it is an effort to to counter an unflattering piece in a secondary source. Using a self published primary source to rebut a secondary source is undue (and undesirable considering it claims defamation). If you want to say that Peter Joseph addressed the issue or some such, a secondary source should be used, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • On a procedural note, I do not see why comments from involved parties are being hatted. Let everyone comment and then ask an uninvolved admin at ANI/AN to close the discussion. On another note, I was asked to comment. Can people desist from asking people to comment, this is borderline canvassing, and I'm surprised an admin (Nightscream) was doing it as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • User:Nightscream contacted previous participants of this talk page indiscriminately as far as I'm aware, though he might be able to better explain. User:Earl King Jr. contacted only you, I'm sure because he felt you would help to... "balance" the discussion, so to speak. Now that the RfC is here I do hope everyone will heed WP:CANVASS and let the RfC do the attracting. I collapsed the banter between involved parties because I wanted to encourage outside input -- something that tends to become hindered when uninvolved parties come to find involved ones merely using the opportunity to restate their already well-known opinions, for which there is really no need. If one involved party does it, the others tend to feel they need to, and the RfC becomes a mere repeat performance. We already had this happen at WP:BLP/N, and it would be wonderful if it didn't happen again. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:38, 31 Jul 2013 (UTC)
  • "I do not see why comments from involved parties are being hatted. Let everyone comment and then ask an uninvolved admin at ANI/AN to close the discussion." - Yes. It would be better for the involved parties to avoid trying to manage the RfC, or trying to judge consensus. Just let it happen, and then let an uninvolved editor evaluate the result. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree now but Equazcion is now overtly manipulating the debate by posting his opinions on other editors and removing others opinions. So the debate is still being skewed. I say then collapse his statement opinion also above for fairness sake, why is he giving his opinions on editors behavior again and removing others. That is not fair. That is leading the debate in his direction. Collapse the extraneous comments from him also or include other comments. Can not have that both ways here. Why is Equazcion being allowed to direct and guide the debate? That is blatantly unfair. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If someone wants to un-collapse the exchange above I'm fine with that. As I said though, I don't think it helps anyone. The point of an RfC is to get outside input, not to provide another section for involved editors to repeat themselves, as occurred at WP:BLP/N. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:24, 1 Aug 2013 (UTC)

There is a major disconnect from what you are saying to what you are doing Equazcion making comments and still trying to direct the debate from your viewpoint as you did above... could you remove that? Lets leave Tom's comment and remove other things now. Other wise the debate is just skewing opinions. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Whenever we comment we seek to influence other people's opinions and express our viewpoints. I'm not seeing any particular reason to remove mine. If you want to discuss that further please take it to my talk page and let's allow this RfC to serve its purpose. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:51, 1 Aug 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. TheMarker says he's distancing himself from the conspiracy theories, and he says he isn't. So why not just remove the comment entirely? Is the article measurably improved by its inclusion? Second, has TheMarker posted any retractions, updates, or corrections? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I have to agree with NinjaRobotPirate for removing the comment about the filmmaker allegedly distancing himself from the film. I don't see how that statement adds value to the article, and the removal would help the article be neutral as well as negating the argument for including the filmaker's statement that he isn't or didn't distance himself from the film. Wickedlizzie (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per IRWolfie. I received an FRS request to comment here, and have never been previously involved in editing this article or any conspiracy theory articles on Wikipedia. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite section

If we were to rewrite this section TheMarker[12] characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by The Irish Times[15] (See above). TheMarker further wrote that Joseph is now trying to distance himself as far as possible from the conspiracy claims of the first film, and that an updated version of the film, released in 2010, dropped the claim on the unification of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. TheMarker additionally wrote that Joseph said that not all of the claims made in the first film should be taken very seriously, because the claims are designed to create a dramatic effect. In addition, TheMarker also quotes Joseph as saying: "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do."[12][23]

What would it look like? Say for instance if the contentious aspect of the Marker story of Joseph distancing himself and the Marker report of that were removed, meaning those lines of the Marker, making the claims and Joesph's counter claims were removed? I assume other aspects of the Marker reporting would still exist as they are? Right now it appears few have weighed in on the RFC issue, but the drift is for removing claims from Marker and Joseph on the issue. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the most relevant and important part is: TheMarker characterized Joseph's evidence as, for the most part, incomplete at best and speculative at worst. They called the film "an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis", and quoted Joseph as saying, "You need to make the information you present compelling, otherwise people get bored to death. So some people think I'm extreme, what can I do." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise edit. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the Critical reaction section as it violates the neutrality of the article.

The size of this section violates the neutrality of the article. It needs to be substantially trimmed down. See WP:Weight for more info. TheMarker carries little weight as does Filipe Feio or Jane Chapman. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no basis for this, or for selectively removing negative material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The section is in clear violation of WP:Weight which compromises the neutrality of the article. And don't make blanket reversions. The Globe and Mail carries more weight than The Irish Times. Filipe Feio shouldn't be in the section. The Marker carries little weight as does Jane Chapman. The material from Dr. Mark Foreman comes from a primary source which I have removed, etc. - Address each one of my edits separately and why you think it should be changed back to the original. Make your case for how the previous bloated section was more neutral than the current version. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have twice reverted your POV pushing...you do not have consensus for the massive removal of the material nor is it up to others to argue about each one of your edits.--MONGO 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the changes made - the film has been widely criticized for inaccuracies, conspiracy theories and for having elements of propaganda. These aren't just mentioned in one or two reviews, but many of them and that weight needs to be accurately demonstrated in the article. Summarizing it better and noting that multiple sources hold similar views is something that may be beneficial.

I did not revert the section tag however. I think the overall length could be reduced somewhat, but in no way should be weight of the critical reaction be reduced. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You provide a textbook example of how to not get your way on an article....edit warring against three other editors, calling their edits vandalism, placing warning boilerplates on their usertalk and then demanded they explain their edits over yours. Good luck with that.--MONGO 19:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I called one editor's revert vandalism (which it was and it was yours) and placed one edit warring warning (on your talk page). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only was your warning preposterous since you're the one edit warring, but my edits were not vandalism by any definition.--MONGO 04:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in here. Neutrality is not "violated" by mere the size of a section. Neutrality is violated when material indicates an editor's POV, or conveys a POV or appearance of a POV in Wikipedia's voice. One could argue that all material must be summarized in proportion to its relevance, but that's more of a writing and composition issue than a neutrality one. One could argue that NPOV can be violated by putting too much detail of either positive or negative reaction to a film in an article, but that does not appear to me to be the case in this one. The section appears to summarize the different types of critical reaction to the film, which isn't just a matter of aesthetics, as the material in most film articles are, but of the validity of its factual and historical content, which is in keeping with other articles on films, particularly documentaries, that are socially, historically or politically controversial. See Bowling for Columbine and Sicko for examples of articles on films with sections on reception that are more extensive than typical films, and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as an example of an article whose content is mostly about the controversy over the film's content. See also Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy for an example of an entire article devoted to controversy over reactions to a film, and Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code for a similar article on a book. Nightscream (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, I assume you're not familiar with WP:Weight as the size of a section (in this case Critical reaction) is directed related to the overall neutrality of an article. From WP:Weight: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For those editors involved, please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality is not "violated" by the size of a section. Neutrality is violated when material indicates an editor's POV, or conveys a POV or appearance of a POV in Wikipedia's voice. Also it is not a good idea to bandy around the term vandal in regard to your fellow editors unless a clear case is at hand and that is not the case. I understand you are asking questions above but do not see how getting bogged down in your questions which seem rhetorical, will shed any light or make any difference argument wise. The film is well known in conspiracy circles. Maybe you can find counter weighted arguments that it is not a conspiracy movie. Care was given in the beginning section giving Zeitgeist Joseph person the opportunity to refute, so it is balanced. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'll post it again for you. From WP:Weight: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." -- Undue weight is a neutrality violation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nightscream, I assume you're not familiar with WP:Weight as the size of a section..." I am indeed familiar with WP:WEIGHT, and I stand by my previous statement. The size of a section, in and of itself, is not a violation of NPOV. It can be if if material is given space that is disproportionate. That's what WP:WEIGHT says, and it's what I said above. If you want to argue that the material is disproportionate to extant critical reaction to the film, or that something about the material's presentation conveys a POV, then you should've made your case to that point. But you didn't. Instead you simply said, "the size of this section violates the neutrality of the article." Without any explanation of what "POV" is being conveyed, what the POV is, whose it is, etc. I'm am left to conclude that you have not met the burden of proving POV. I see no POV in that section, and its size is in keeping the Critical reaction sections in other articles on controversial documentaries. Nightscream (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Nightscream stated, "Without any explanation of what "POV" is being conveyed..." -- Were you really not aware that the section is predominantly negative??? Are you familiar with this article??? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And still no response for the reverts so I'll post it again. For those editors involved, please address the content/layout changes you reverted. For example, why did you put back in place the material from Dr. Mark Foreman which comes from a primary source? Why did you put the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? Why did you remove the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response at the beginning of the section? Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If the section is predominantly negative, that may be because critical reaction to the film has been predominantly negative. The critical reception section in the Jack and Jill (film) article is predominantly negative. Is that in violation of NPOV, or just an accurate reflection of critical reaction to the film? And if this is not the case with Zeitgeist, if you feel that critical reaction to the film has been mixed or mixed-to-positive, then you can fix it by adding positive reviews from reliable sources. Nightscream (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems to sum things up...if there are positive reviews then they can be added.--MONGO 04:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Given how old the film is I assume all reviews for it have already been published, so it would take some investigative work. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed links

I would like to know why the links I contributed to section 'See Also' were removed twice for being allegedly "unhelpul"

• The Capitalist Conspiracy
• Money as debt

Anyone who have seen the three documentaries (the two I cited plus Zeitgeist), cannot help to realise their common background: They denounce a Conspiracy led by international bankers in order to enslave the people all, in which the management of money: its creation by Central Banks in particular plays a central role. The Second Zeitgeist Movie practically retells the plot of "The Capitalism Conspiracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engranaje (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you have strong opinions about the movie and the links. If you can find some citation that ties all of those together maybe you can use it to make a point. As it is though it is just an opinion which you hold. People could endlessly put their un-cited opinions on the article so extraneous links like you posted that do not tie in really have to be avoided. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I will try to prove my point by citing the current articles on English wikipedia, which I didn't write, in case anyone has't seen all three films [bold emphasis mine]:

1) The capitalist conspiracy

“ There is a conspiracy among some of the richest people in the non-communist nations and that its power is protected by their respective governments, and it is perpetuating its wealth by creating money out of nothing.

In the USA it is perpetuated through the Federal Reserve system. That although it appears that the executive branch controls them it is in fact the other way around.(...) That the root of the evil is that money is created out of nothing. The solution is to reduce the power of the Federal Reserve and return to the gold and silver standards, thus preventing anyone, in or out of government, from manipulating the money supply.

”

2) Money as Debt

“ Much of the film presents the filmmaker's understanding of modern money creation in a fractional-reserve banking system. New money enters the economy through the indebtedness of borrowers, thus not only obligating the public to the money-issuing private banks but also creating an endless and self-escalating debt that is to eventually outgrow all other forms of wealth generation. The film claims that this ever-increasing gravitation of money to banks is capable of impoverishing any nation. ”

3) Zeitgeist

“ This section also claims the Federal Reserve System is in fact controlled by a small cabal of international bankers ('the ethnicity of these money-lenders goes undisclosed') who then stage global calamities to spur federal spending and enrich themselves. ”

As can be seen, these similarities I found are well beyond my own opinions.

May I add another quote, this time from Wikipedia Manual of Style [Bold emphasis mine]

“ Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.

(...) The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

”

Engranaje (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the links could be worked into the article as article links if they are relevant, but I doubt it they are. There is no corollary to them in the film. It is just more fringe conspiracy theory opinionated backing up the conspiracy aspect of the movie. The implication is that something dark and sinister is happening. It might be noxious also to imply a racial religious group is behind the "system" Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should probably link to criticism of the Federal Reserve, not to either of the other <redacted> movies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That makes sense. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The two links in question (The Capitalist Conspiracy, Money as debt) should be included in the "See Also" section. Engranaje has shown that the three articles are related. Also, as Engranaje pointed out, it is a matter of judgement and common sense whether or not link should be in the "See Also" section; Earl King Jr. is incorrect in saying that some citation is needed for their inclusion. Also, it makes sense to also include a link to criticism of the Federal Reserve.—Dustin184 (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

«Maybe the links could be worked into the article as article links if they are relevant, but I doubt it they are» If you doubt it, you should watch the films. The similarities among them are even stronger than what can be read from the wikipedia articles. The truth is, Zeitgeist didn't say anything new on this matter.

«There is no corollary to them in the film. It is just more fringe conspiracy theory opinionated backing up the conspiracy aspect of the movie.» There's no conspiracy "aspect" of the movie. The whole movie revolves around conspiracies. May I cite Wikipedia again:

“ Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary-style film by Peter Joseph. It presents a number of conspiracy theory-based ideas, including a version of the Christ myth theory, conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and the claim that bankers manipulate both the media and the international monetary system. ”

«The implication is that something dark and sinister is happening.» That's what the three movies (Zeitgeist, Money as debt, the capitalist conspiracy) are all about.

«It might be noxious also to imply a racial religious group is behind the "system"» Again, if you had sen the films, you would have found no antisemitism claims at all. And if there were, what's the big deal? Each article shouldn't reflect our own opinions, but mainly that of the movies/film/books/people they are based upon. Would you delete the entry The Protocols of the Elders of Zion because the book's noxious?

I think a link to criticism of the Federal Reserve is also a good idea, why not include the movies too? if you don't believe they are similar, just watch them. The analogies are very hard to ignore. And finally may I point out that I am not giving any opinion wheter the conspiracies denounced are true or not. That's not the issue here.

Engranaje (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions

I posted some questions previously regarding changes made to the Critical reaction section. I understand that the current consensus is to keep that section as it is, so I'm not editing the article, but the questions remain relevant and unanswered. They're open to all editors.

1) Why was the material from Dr. Mark Foreman, which comes from a primary source, put back in place? 2) Why is the Irish Times above The Globe and Mail when TGaM carries more weight? 3) Why was the separation between the material from Goldberg and the Zeitgeist response removed at the beginning of the section? 4) Why is Filipe Feio's opinion worthy of inclusion? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you ask this two sections up?--MONGO 18:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I started the section, "I posted some questions previously". --- Did you come across an answer for the Filipe Feio question? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure...so you think if you asked the same question twice that you'll get a different or even any answer on the second go. How's this....the Feio ref can go...the rest look fine. Have you found any references that are more favorable for the article or is that too much work?--MONGO 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So your answers for questions 2 & 3 are, they "look fine". Explain to me how that's an adequate answer to detailed questions, I don't understand your train of thought. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No offense here S.D.S. but if you continue to ask the same question which seems rhetorical or without significance then probably you will be ignored, no matter how many emphasis points you put on it. If you can find interesting positive citable reference then by all means add them or post them here on the talk page for discussion to add. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Acharya source called into question

The source for the statement "Acharya also acted as consultant for Part I of the movie." has been called into question by Arthur Rubin. The source is <http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/376-zeitgeist-sourcebook-part-1-the-greatest-story-ever-told.html>

I think this source is reliable and should be kept because:

• 1. The website is clearly from Acharya.
• 2. In the source it states "This collaborative effort between Peter Joseph and D.M. Murdock/Acharya S ...", showing that indeed she acted as a consultant.
• 3. WP:Verifiability states that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..."

—Dustin184 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

... provided that they are not unduly self-serving. I don't see how her claim (yes, I said "claim") that she was a consultant for the movie would not be self-serving, even if posted on the movie's web site. You remove my clause "she said that ...", which would be an appropriate statement as to what was sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be disagreement over the meaning of the phrase "unduly self-serving". To help clarify your interpretation of the phrase, could you provide and example (hypothetical is fine) of something in a self published source that is not unduly self serving.—Dustin184 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Source for Acharya's reponse to Callahan critque called into question

The source for the statement in the article , "Acharya also responded to Forbes's statements, insisting that the primary sources used in her research support the ideas in her writings." has been called into question by Arthur Rubin. The source is <http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html>.

The source should be considered reliable and kept because:

• 1. It is clearly a response to Forbes's statements.
• 2. It is clearly by Archaya.
• 3. WP:Verifiability states that, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..."

—Dustin184 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Its not remotely a reliable source. It is a self published blog of some kind. It is not a news or information story or a reported story. Just a person claiming one thing or another. Even the title is pretentious and without merit. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This one is closer to meeting WP:SELFPUB, but I don't think it's there. I'm not sure that http://truthbeknown.com even meets our standards for courtesy copies, though. How do we know that it's Acharya posting the entry? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This source does not look reliable to me. It appears to be a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)