Jump to content

Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 2 October 2013 (Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 30d) to Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie/Archive 6.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Multidel


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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

2) Money as Debt

3) Zeitgeist

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]


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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

«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:


«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 seen 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)[reply]

I have recieved no further replies. Should I assume it's OK to put the links back and they won't be removed? Engranaje (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't put them back in. Someone could just as well add a link to the Wizard of Oz claiming that it is analogous to Zeitgeist because of the Fed being symbolically at issue. (The Capitalist Conspiracy, Money as debt) should not be included. They are of different political orientation to the films, not mentioned in the films. The Federal Reserve link idea was a good idea though. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, whatever floats your boat. Seemengly I was unable to convince you. Though you keep on coming up with weak and flamboyant arguments, and, on top of that, you fail to address mine (Haven't you read the See Also citation?), your tone has convinced me that, no matter what I say, you'll just get away with it. Engranaje (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist Movie in Black Sabbath Video. Huge Press.

I'm surprised the incorporation of Zeitgeist: The Movie into the new Black Sabbath video has not been mentioned... maybe a "Pop Culture" Section?

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/black-sabbath-taps-controversial-filmmaker-peter-joseph-for-god-is-dead-video

JamesB17 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. There may be things in that source that would be appropriate for this Article. -Dustin184 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a simple section, common to other wiki articles of this nature, regarding pop culture influence. JamesB17 (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of veiled anti-semitism?

Okay. So let me see if I understand this. A woman, with a clear bias and hatred of the film, states that it is "anti-semitic"... And you guys make a whole sub section out of it? To post that blog style opinion here is deplorable. How can that be justified as neutral? While it is clear the criticisms sections is about as extreme as can be, with this page run by the worst editors on wikipedia, going so far to call the film racist in the context of extreme fringe reporting is absurd. JamesB17 (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What source are you talking about? What has been written in the Article and attributed to that source? What action are you suggesting? What evidence do you have that she has a conflict of interest, and is thus not a reliable source?-Dustin184 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Goldberg's article, which is sourced on this page like it is only thing ever written about Zeitgeist: The Movie. The severity of her accusation of antisemitism poses bias which is unparalleled by other critics. The notion of "conflict of interest:" is not equal to business context... this pertains to a reporter with a vendetta, working to slander. Antisemitism is a very extreme and "fish out of water" conclusion. It would be equally as relevant of the quality of her reporting if she said " Zeitgeist was about Aliens" when only her lone interpretation arrives at that conclusion. Hence, to actually make a section out of that is simply irresponsible as it is so fringe. I thought wikipedia wasn't an opinion blog and the quality of the notions should be equally as viable as the quality of the sources? Her source as an interpreter of the film is "Questionable" at best. JamesB17 (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that her statements come off as little more than opinion as she offers nothing to support her claims. In favor of rewrite or removal. -Dustin184 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Zeitgeist Source Guide

Give the 200+ page published Source Guide which, according to Joseph, sources "every line" of the film, should this text be given a more prominent position given the large negative slant otherwise noted in this article? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB17 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you suggest and why? -Dustin184 (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this Text be noted in the vast criticism section to show that the author has responded to such allegations of content quality. Or perhaps at the very top, given, for some reason, there is a criticism in the actual Opening statement ( which I don't get either). Why are we pointing out such an issue in the opening statement which should be objective? JamesB17 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In favor. Adding a section about the text somewhere, possibly in the "Critical Reaction" section would help move the Article towards a NPOV, and gives valuable information to the reader that would better equip them to make their own judgments about the validity of the content in the Movie.
As an aside, I find it easier to keep discussions on topic if each talk session is only about one issue. It may be helpful to create separate talk sections for the other issues you bring up. -Dustin184 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proceed with caution you two while editing the article as you might now be viewed as tandem editors. JamesB17 is on vacation currently from the article for making too many reverts but this is just a reminder that the article is contentious and for those of you involved in the actual movement extreme caution must be observed for neutral presentation. Probably your cause is actually served better that way also because accurate information generally elicits more interest. The Companion piece is not the movie and may or may not be notable but putting a self published thing like that on, unless it is cited by journalists or used in some article etc. probably is a non starter. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The companion guide should definitely be noted in the article. It's directly relevant to the movie and the fact that it's a primary source is not an issue as long as attribution is clear. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is just more bulk material from sources too close to the subject that make the article bloated with self sourced stuff. If it is important then look some place where it is reported on or discussed seriously in some academic way or news worthy way. It may be too promotional in nature and it looks like a movie advert. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Goldberg?

Why is Michelle Goldberg given such clout here? Is she an authority on Zeitgeist? She says that it has to do with the "La Rouche" movement" - so therefore it should be posted here?! JamesB17 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She has apparent conflict of interest, since she wrote a book that is pro-christianity and the movie has a section presenting evidence attempting to disprove Christian stories.
She could be an expert on the subject, making her statements worth of inclusion, however, her statements sound more like opinion and she offers no reasoning or evidence for her claims. Thus, her claims don't add much to the article.
I agree they should be reduced or removed. -Dustin184 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful. She is a well known journalist, notable Michelle Goldberg and the source is reliable. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed. The source is RS. The journalist is notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeitgeist:_The_Movie&oldid=575390797"