Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

RFC: One or Two Articles? Should film series and movement be split?

Should the article on Zeitgeist (film series) continue to also describe the Zeitgeist Movement, or should a separate article on the Zeitgeist Movement be re-created? Currently The Zeitgeist Movement redirects to Zeitgeist (film series). Should the article (the result of a previous merge) be split? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please !vote for One article or Two articles, or, synonymously, for Split or Keep merged. Be civil and concise. Please avoid threaded discussion in the Survey section. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: the last two editors to vote have mentioned a draft article would be desirable, to see if notability can be established. I have knocked one together, though help to improve it would be desirable, see Draft:The Zeitgeist Movement group.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Keep merged There is not enough information in the current Zeitgeist movement section to warrant its own article. It should be developed and further citations added before a new article is created. Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sticking with Keep Merge because I believe this is a Fringe Topic and needs more sources from major publications in order to be notable. Please see my comments below for more information. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - WP:COATRACK complaints currently prevent content expansion. Expanded content exists here, here, and here. The zeitgeist movement topic meets all the notability requirements of WP:GNG. This notability is verified by a rather large #List of sources for The Zeitgeist Movement (roughly 30 reliable sources) and further bolstered by a 2011 AFD discussion that agreed to keep the then separate article on The Zeitgeist Movement. To further the goals of the encyclopedia, restricting appropriate content cannot be allowed. OnlyInYourMindT 08:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC) updated 20:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Split - there is a enough coverage and notability for the group to have its own article (see comment in threaded discussion). Including all the information in the film article upsets its balance, which should be focused on the films. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged Things like WP:RFC are pretty strong guidance for action and there was already one on this article a few months ago and it said 'merge' and that was done then.Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

One article - sources aren't adequate to support two; one article is more resistant to fan's continuing efforts to promote their fringe views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - The most apt description of the article I've seen is "schizophrenic". Most all problems here seem ultimately rooted in the merging of two distinct topics (film and movement). Willondon (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - Additional press mentions of the Zeitgeist Movement:

1. Nicola Sturgeon is backed by Occupy protesters in London The National-May 10, 2015
2. Forest boy "inspired by Zeitgeist movement" Telegraph.co.uk-Jun 17, 2012
3. «Биологически я несу его гены, но это — не самое главное» Yarsk.ru-May 26, 2015
4. Jim Rickards on dollar debasement & Peter Joseph explains Zeitgeist Movement RT-Mar 7, 2014
5. Zeitgeist solutions for the world RT-Sep 15, 2011
6. Zeitgeist a Blend of Skepticism, Metaphysical Spirituality, and Conspiracy Religion Dispatches -Jan 16, 2011
7. Beyond capitalism and socialism: could a new economic approach save the planet? The Guardian-Apr 22, 2015
8. Segment: Peter Joseph on "market paradox" RT December 11, 2014 03:30
9. The Zeitgeist Movement on "Off the Grid Ora.tv-June 08, 2015

• Those editors who want the articles united argue that the films are propaganda. So the result is notable propaganda from a non-notable movement. Not a tenable position. A movement notable for its propaganda is a notable movement. And since the movement did not arise completely from the films (it was a part of the previously existing Venus Movement), it is actually and historically a separate entity. Current page looks like one of those mythical monsters, part goat, part lion, and part eagle. Neither fish nor fowl, but trying to be both. But the editors who lobby for one article argue that this will soon be solved by reducing the Movement portion, and reducing again, -- hey, where'd he go? All mention of Movement removed completely. This is not an accusation -- this is their statement of their intentions. (Sorry for twice voting with these remarks. This is date of combined statement.) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged Those who want to split might consider writing a draft article and see if what can be reliably sourced meets WP:N. Considering the number of clearly unreliable sources mentioned above and below, this would have to be considered carefully. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged for now. After someone creates a draft article that demonstrates notability, that would be a good time to have this conversation again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think the whole structure is a mess. If these films actually meet WP:NF then personally I would split this article into four articles: one for each film and a Zeitgeist Movement article. I would add a section to the Movement article about the films, that would link to the three distinct film articles. The film series article could be retained although it might be a bit redundant, but it certainly should not be retained in the form it is currently i.e. basically three (or four) articles glued together. Betty Logan (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• One article. The Zeitgeist movement has not become any more significant since last time this was debated. Rather the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The films are either notable or they are not. If they are, then each one should have a separate article per the norm on Wikipedia. If the Zeitgeist movement is not notable at all then it shouldn't be covered at all; if it is then it should have its own dedicated article, rather than being shoehorned into a film article. It shouldn't be bunged into a film article to circumvent the notability requirements. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Split. As OnlyInYourMind and Willondon point out, merging two related but different topics into one article is detrimental to the accurate coverage of either. --Waldir ^talk 09:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Split. The first film doesn't seem to have much in common with the second and third films in the "series", so the movies should be split into their separate pages. I am not sure if the Movement has enough notability by itself outside the context of the films. If the Movement isn't split, I would like to see the article be reorganized to resemble the Kony 2012 article. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep merged for now. The draft article doesn't persuade me of the notability of the movement. An editor above speaks of 'mentions', unfortunately that is what so many seem to be, hearsay references to (for example) friends of 'the forest boy' saying he was influenced by the films/movement, Amazon promotional of a book, all with little independent content about the movement itself. I agree that it is anomalous to have a movement 'shoe horned into a film article', but that is a reflection of the dual anomalies of that movement arising from/adopting the name of a film series and that name being 'owned' by the filmmaker. This isn't necessarily 'circumventing notability requirements' since notability requirements for a mention/section are more lenient than those for an article. Though I agree that the main coverage of the movement should go AFTER coverage of the films, or as part of the film which gave rise to the movement, regardless of chronology.Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Split The original merge was not justifiable to begin with. The Zeitgeist Movement has lots of direct, notable press with no relationship to the film series. The group was started to support The Venus Project and is not a "fan" club for the films or anything like that, which is what this current article implies. Today, It has international press as well that also confirms an independent existence from the films. I also agree all three films should be given their own article. The history shows that the entire move to collapse these 4 articles into one really looks like covert vandalism and an attempt to marginalize. JWilson0923 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I would also suggest that the Zeitgeist movement section be placed after Zeitgeist: Moving Forward section. Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720: I invite you to change your !vote. The current merged article has been accused of WP:COATRACK and as a result some editors decided to remove encyclopedic content against WP:PRESERVE policy. As such, attempts to expand the section are currently met with reverts. Rest assured expanded, developed content does exist: Here you will find the text of the movement when it was originally merged into this article. There is also a rewrite underway by Jonpatterns. OnlyInYourMindT 07:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking back through the article history to 2012, we can see that there used to be a considerable amount of expanded content. OnlyInYourMindT 08:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

When I cast my vote, I decided based on the content I saw on the article page. After reading some of the previous RFC and DR, I think this dispute is between those who believe the movement is WP:FRINGE and does not have enough reliable sources (and thus should not get its own article) and those who believe the movement section is off-topic from the article (and thus needs to be split.) Regardless of the decision in this RFC, information about the movement should be included in the film series article because the movement was inspired by the movies and removing this inspiration in the film series article would be removing significant understanding of the topic.

I believe this movement does qualify to be a fringe theory, and WP:NFRINGE says, "A fringe subject...is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (emphasis theirs.) Looking at the links below, most are not major publications and some only mention the movement in one sentence. The only two articles below that I would consider major publications with significant coverage are the New York Times and the Telegraph. I would encourage those who would like a new article to focus on finding more coverage of the movement from major publications to base the new article on. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Important to note that WP:FRINGE is quite different from WP:NFRINGE. The difference is explained under WP:NFRINGE, and I am disappointed that anyone would confuse them. That confusion may, however, be the genesis of the whole disagreement. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I think the above comment could be insightful. Can you expand on what you mean? My interpretation is WP:NFRINGE explains that a WP:FRINGE topic can have its own article page when it is notable (or "receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") Would you agree with this assessment? Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you have said it. For example, Modern flat Earth societies are definitely WP:FRINGE, but look at the size of the page. WP:FRINGE says you do not include the ideas of Modern flat Earth societies when discussing Geography, but that policy has does not remove the page on Modern flat Earth societies. Contrary to what some argue, a subject does not have to pass through the James Randi sieve to appear as a page on Wikipedia. In fact, the WP:FRINGE argument is inapplicable to this discussion. Using the WP:FRINGE argument here is a good example of Sophistry. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - examples of sources, for context see rewrite. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Tom harrison: I've added 10 more sources to the above list. OnlyInYourMindT 20:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720, Tom harrison, and OnlyInYourMind: I've added 6 more to the list above. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I've updated the 60 Minutes source to http://www.cuny.tv/highlight/sp2000039. At first I thought the piece was a spoof, but upon further digging, found that "BROOKLYN COLLEGE 60 MINUTES is a production of Brooklyn College and CBS News," and, "The special is produced by Stephanie Palewski, a veteran 60 MINUTES editor, who was invited to teach a graduate course." It's a very unique situation, but now I'm leaning toward reliable source. OnlyInYourMindT 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Things like WP:RFC are pretty strong guidance for action and there was already one on this article a few months ago and it said 'merge'. If an RFC suggests or encourages a merge and it did and that is why the article was merged, it is generally appropriate to pursue that as an outcome. This previous decision was not made based on article length, but on the underlying connectivity between two issues. I suspect that this film creator and his films, relative to all other artists and films in Wikipedia is a case of "This artist and their films are not notable enough to stand alone as articles, so merge them together" as was decided last time around. If we make this decision based on "words" it becomes who can spend the most time padding an article with words so that it meets some threshold so that it becomes two articles. This does not increase the notability or the distinctiveness of the articles, only creates the illusion of such. There is a terrible problem on this article also of people arriving and editing from the subject itself [1] and yes I have to point out that this is an ongoing problem. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Can those editors against the split please explain why they feel the sources listed above are not enough to establish notability for the movement? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No one said the movement was not notable completely. But, it is owned and operated by the guy that made the movies and announced by him also originally so the very issue is how real is it? There are zero membership numbers anywhere. Is that grassroots,?? as the old article claimed. No way. The citations if needed can be used in the merged article and mostly are. The Huffington post citation was removed previously as a non notable blog arm of that paper so it does not count. Most of the citations are old. Virtually nothing in the media on this group in recent times. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ownership of name is not an element of the WP specification, so let us not invent rules de jour. We have seen enough of that. The movie grew out of the decades-old Venus Movement, and the Zeitgeist Movement grew from both sources. The Huffington Post page states, "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." This is the same that other publications call Editors-at-large and guest editorialists. It is not random user contributions (like Wikipedia). Grammar's Little Helper (talk)

No. It was already decided here that it is not a reliable source. Look at the archived discussion for the page. It is a blog. A blog is not a news story. It is just a person grinding an ax about something and possibly getting paid several dollars a word in the process if they are looking to fill empty space on the paper. That is very different from a news story. It says in big bold letters before the story it is a blog story. It was already removed from other articles related and will also be removed here if it is used. It is not a reliable source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And only a person with a microscope could tell the difference between that and a NYTimes editorial, where someone is (surprise!) grinding an ax about something. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: Policy states WP:NEWSBLOGs "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". Was the writer not a professional? OnlyInYourMindT 08:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a non notable fluff piece filler piece that has already not passed in archived attempts to gain consensus of using it. It is a blog. I suppose he is a pro. but that just means someone is paying him to write. Mostly this space is for editors to come and write their thoughts. Not discussing minutia about things already well known on the talk page by current editors. The whole point of an RFC is to get new people in here to comment. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the deprecation is dead wrong. Travis Walter Donovan is a former executive editor for the Huffington Post. Here is his web page stating exactly that, and here is a portfolio of his contributions to the Post. The topics are broad and deep. This is not the profile of someone who writes "fluff pieces" or "filler pieces." Donovan is a professional whose choice of topics is guided by the interests of his readers and the editorial policies of his publication -- like any professional. I wish people would do a little research before sounding off with misrepresentations of Wikipedia rules and distortions the real world. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the writer is a professional, WP:NEWSBLOG policy says the HuffPost Blog is an acceptable source. Notability on wikipedia only applies to topics, not sources. Sources are governed by Verifiability, not notability. One editors faith in a vaguely referenced past consensus does not stand up to the current weight of arguments. Consensus can change. OnlyInYourMindT 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:NEWSBLOG clearly does not apply. It might be appropriate under WP:SPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

After "professional", WP:NEWSBLOG goes on to say "but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note, the words "with caution" come after the words, "use them." So, what "caution" would you like to apply to that source? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: I'm confused. Do you think WP:NEWSBLOG applies or not? You have not given a reason why it would not apply. You then quoted it as if it does apply. The quote then continues, "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer" which is policy again telling us to use this source. Yes, with caution, but to use it. OnlyInYourMindT 02:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG suggests that some articles are displayed as if in a blog, and we should consider those as if displayed as a news article if they are subject to editorial review. On the other hand, reliable publications (such as Forbes) host blogs, and those are not subject to editorial review. Function over form. In the specific case mentioned, I believe it is the latter case, and could be used only If attributed to the author and only If the author is a recognized expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no evidence for that belief ("not subject to editorial review"). On the other side, Huffington Post headlines the article with the words, "[one of] HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." And what does "signature" mean? According to the dictionary, Donovan speaks for the Huffington Post like its own signature. Having provided that endorsement and left the article on the web page since May 2010, the Huffington Post editorial staff implicitly and explicitly indicate the article is a welcome Huffington Post statement and not a rogue opinion piece. Whether there has been formal editorial review of the article is pure speculation, and a moot quibble. HP is only one of many web sources testifying to the Movement's notability. There are also many books, pro and con, that have not been listed. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We have no evidence that it is subject to editorial review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted previously, the editorial is presented under a banner of editorial endorsement: "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." I cannot find any legal disclaimers stating that "the opinions expressed here are of the individual writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners or editorial staff of Huffington Post ..." Do you see any? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. A rational person would assume that something attributed to one of "HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors" is credited to that contributor and should be attributed only to that contributor, not to HuffPost. The fact that the contributor is an editor of HuffPost might make it reliable as attributed to him, per WP:SPS. The question of it being in blog format is irrelevant, per WP:NEWSBLOG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: From HuffPost terms & conditions, section 5: "We are an Internet Service Provider, e.g., We are Not Responsible For and Do Not Necessarily Hold the Opinions Expressed by Our Content Contributors: Opinions and other statements expressed by users and third parties (e.g., bloggers) are theirs alone, not opinions of The Huffington Post. Content created by third parties is the sole responsibility of the third parties and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed."[2] OnlyInYourMindT 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Typical lawyerly language reserving the right to drive on both sides of the road. A "signature" is not a signature, and a web site characterized as an "internet provider." You're right. No skin. And it is not the only reference. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Huffington_Post_HuffPost_Green_blog_by_Travis_Walter_Donovan_per_WP:NEWSBLOG OnlyInYourMindT 19:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Good on ya. Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft

• Draft:The Zeitgeist Movement group

As recommended by Arthur Rubin, I have create a draft to give an idea of what a split group article may look like, it includes 'Ref List' for former merged article. Its not very good, it will need additional work. When people criticise sources please be specific on which sources and what issues.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: there is already a draft see above.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)

What proposed version of the lede of Zeitgeist (film series) should be used?

Cast your !votes for A, B, C, or propose another alternative. Be civil and concise. Please avoid threaded discussion in the Survey. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A. Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary-style film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, presenting a number of conspiracy theory ideas. Peter Joseph created all three films. The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph.

B. Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. The series presents a number of ideas and theories that challenge conventional views of historical events, and suggests a radical transformation of the global economy based on available resources, similar to a post-scarcity economy. The films were created and produced by Peter Joseph. The first of the series was released in 2007 and has been distributed through DVD sales and Youtube uploads, as have the sequels. Another in the series is due for release in 2015, titled InterReflections I.

Because of the controversial statements, theories, and proposals in the films, they have met with some negative reviews in the mainstream media, which accuse them of cultivating conspiracy theories. They have also spawned a global movement, The Zeitgeist Movement, with annual conventions in a number of major cities and a following difficult to quantify.

C. Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary-style film presenting a number of conspiracy theory ideas with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. Peter Joseph created all three films. The Zeitgeist Movies are a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph.

D. Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. All three having been created by Peter Joseph. The first film criticised religion and the banking system. It presented certain conspiracy theories about historical events. The second two films also questioned the historical narrative. However, they broadened topics to include psychology. They also looked at solutions to perceived problems with society, these included having a post-scarcity economy and a technocracy.

References

Survey

• D - A, B and C appeared either too negative or too positive, so I have added a fourth one.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• D - Seems to be the least objectionable of the bunch. If the movement is not split, it should also be mentioned in the lede. OnlyInYourMindT 19:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• D Also agree that if the movement isn't split, it should be mentioned in the lede. "The movement is not the movie". The film hardly mentions the movement. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• B is my choice, though it could be improved. My choice is guided by the recurring theme of "conspiracy theory" in all the other definitions. After you get past the neutral lede, the Wikipedia page on conspiracy theory is a lengthy speculation on the causes for the "conspiracy theory" disease among humans. Thus, if the Encyclopedia is consistent (and the link will be direct, of course), we would be defining the Zeitgeist film as a litany of pathological ideas. The language is not a credit to an encyclopedia with WP:NPOV; and Wikipedia becomes more and more like a catechism of the Establishment: "This you are required to believe, that you are forbidden to believe." To an independent thinker, the language is offensive and unnecessary -- adults make up their own minds about that kind of thing. (Also, "conspiracy theory idea" is an ungrammatical redundancy. Not every noun can be adjectiv-ised, and "theory" is one that cannot.) Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• A Which seems to be the current lead on the article. It is closest to the sources we have. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• A, although I have little objection to changing "documentary-style" to "documentary" if reliable sources are found. That may be a matter of definition, but the other choices clearly do not reflect reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• I don't like any of them, but I guess A is the one I favor most. If B replaced "number of ideas and theories" with "conspiracy theories", then I might be able to go for that. D would need to be rewritten from scratch to fix the grammar issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• A, with reservations about the usefulness of voting. The sources say what they say, no matter how us random guys on the internet vote. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• B, it seems the most informational to me. They could all use copyediting, though. Eman235/talk 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• I don't like any of them, but preferB or D though both need editing. No RSs that I could see use 'documentary style', it is 'loaded'. The 'trademark' text should be altered to refer to the production company. I agree with NRP about the need to use "conspiracy theories", rather than 'ideas' in B. Most of the second para in B could go (some criticism? … mainstream media? … global movement? … major cities?, much of this sounds promotional or so vague as to be meaningless).Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• A, with a few changes, such as changing "documentary-style" to "documentary" and adding a mention of "post-modern economy" after conspiracy theories. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• A Seems closest to summarizing the body of the article (perhaps with change to documentary?). Capitalismojo (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Thread one

Why is the trademark info important enough to appear in the first paragraph? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. That it is trademarked is the fact that separates this "Zeitgeist" from all other zeitgeists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It is probably there to promote the conspiracy theory invented by one of the major contributors to the article that the movement is a money-making scam invented by Peter Joseph. For those interested, the evidence for this can be found on the talk page for the now-merged article on TZM - it should be noted that no reliable source considers this trademark relevant - and that no reliable source (or even unreliable one, as far as I'm aware) has made the same 'scam' claim. Describing TZM as a trademark in the lede, rather than as an organisation is of course a violation of WP:NPOV... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

TZM(TM) may be notable, while the Zeitgeist movement might not be. They are not exactly the same thing, although both could be discussed in a single article. (Regardless, describing it as an "organization" is wrong; if it is notable (or even at all important), it's because it isn't organized. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement has had seven years of annual conventions simultaneously in at least a dozen cities. I do not know whether they had monogrammed napkins, and maybe that would be the deciding factor. But otherwise, it sounds pretty organized -- at least as organized as the Rotarians. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, the facts of the matter are that there are multiple secondary sources discussing the movement, and none discussing the trademark. Whether there enough sources to justify an article on the movement is open to debate, but either way, using the lede to assert that the movement is a trademark while omitting to even mention the movement itself is a violation of WP:NPOV - which applies to non-notable subjects as well as notable ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Its just information from the internet that says who owns the Zeitgeist franchise namely Peter Joseph. Its confusing because they stalwartly say in the movement there are no 'leaders' but that obviously is not true. Peter Joseph owns the company and has complete artistic and commercial control of all things Zeitgeist because it is his Gentle Machines Company which he owns that basically is the Zeitgeist movement and movies. He controls their websites. We are just informing our readers of basic information. It is neutral. It certainly is not negative in any way just informative which is what an encyclopedia does. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., repeating your batshit-crazy conspiracy theories won't make them any more true. And please stop pretending to be 'neutral' - it is self evident from the vitriol you have been spewing out that you harbour an intense hatred for TZM. Why, I have no idea - though I do wonder if you are a former member?. You are clearly unfit to edit any article concerning TZM, Joseph, his movies, or any subject remotely touching on them, and since it has been made clear through multiple ANI threads that the community isn't prepared to deal with your repeated violations of Wikipedia policy, I shall be raising the matter at ArbCom, where I shall of course be providing a complete record of your partisan soapboxing, violations of WP:BLP policy, promotion of frankly deranged conspiracy theories, harassment of contributors who dare to challenge your invented claims of 'consensus', and most of all your abject refusal to comply with Wikipedia policy regarding a neutral point of view. Frankly, given that yours is to all intents a SPA account, I would consider an indefinite block to be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You just made a very intense personal attack over a content dispute in what is supposed to be a free ranging discussion. Is a request for comment the right place for unwarranted personal attack? Is Wikipedia in the business of putting up with personal attacks? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump was trying to say that he prefers more neutral language in the article. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well actually he said that Earl is unfit to edit these articles, I think that was pretty clear. He's right about Earl driving away contributors, he's probably the main reason I've stayed away from serious discussions about these pages, even though I can see these articles need attention from neutral editors familiar with policy and standards. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you talking about editors and not content in this RFC? Wikipedia is a voluntary thing. I highly doubt that anyone is driven away that is actually interested. Who says Earl is driving people away? Andy? Not. He said I was bat shit crazy and interpreting that into anything other than a personal attack is ridiculous. Also saying that Earl is unfit to edit these articles even if interpreting something he thinks Andy is saying is also a personal attack and is not called for Jeraphine Gryphon ^{(talk) - Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)}

Thread two

There are no sources (to my knowledge) that use the term 'documentary-style', although there is one that describes the film as a 'pseudo documentary'. There are many sources that use the term 'documentary'. If you take out documentary-style and information about the trademark from option A you are left with:

Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, presenting a number of conspiracy theory ideas. Peter Joseph created all three films.

I have no objection to this lede, although its possibly too short to summarise the article.

@Arthur Rubin: How did you come to the conclusion A reflects source and the others don't? C is just a slightly re-ordered version of A, so therefore must equally well reflect the sources. There is a debate whether to include citations in the lede or not. I can add these to D if required.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT Four sources using the term 'documentary' Jonpatterns (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly it is not a documentary in the ordinary definition of that term. At the very least it is documentary style which is a kind way of explaining it. Pseudo documentary is the reality of what it is and the sources for that far out weigh documentary [3]. Calling the Youtube film a documentary is not really correct. A documentary documents something real. The movie documents the buildings being blown up by the U.s. government with controlled demolition. Hence it is mostly referred to as a pseudo documentary. Pseudo is another word for fake. Lets not mislead Wikipedia readers into thinking as many members of the Zeitgeist movement think that the movie is a real documentary. That would be poor information giving. Conspiracy film pseudo documentary would be the most accurate way to proceed. Other wise the article becomes an arm of the Zeitgeist block of supporters and non neutral. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The ordinary definition of documentary is "Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements"[4]. This applies even if all the facts are wrong. No documentary is without its flaws. To claim a documentary is not a true documentary is the No true Scotsman fallacy. Injecting "-style" or "pseudo" is a pejorative and a POV and not encyclopedic. Such things are fit only for the critical response section, not the lead. If the film style is documentary, then it is a documentary film. OnlyInYourMindT 03:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist cites stand-up routines as evidence. Yeah. Lesson Learned: The Internet sucks [5] Zeitgeist is a Conspiracy theory pseudo documentary if it is a documentary at all. It is not a pejorative at all. That may be the disconnect here. It is described over and over for what it is and that is the meaning of citations and references for the article [6]. The group associated with it is also not notable because it relies on the black hole of the internet social gathering sites for credibility. It does not matter how many people clicked on it on Youtube except as an oddity of clicking culture. Unlike Spinal Tap which is a mockumentary it basically is based on old tropes on a certain group who controls the Fed and the Rothchilds etc. I am not saying it is pure garbage but many of the citations say its crap or nonsense. We have to say what the citations say not whitewash things with Lalalala Zeitgeist cliched material, such as the movie and movement being different from one another. If our citations in the body of the article call it crap, call it pseudo, call it nonsense, conspiracy theory, propaganda, using Jewish conspiracy without naming it like some of the classic hate groups do then why not just mention all that like we have in the article. The argument of saying the citations are somehow not to be used because they are not fair or you do not like them because you perceive them not to be not neutral is not a good argument. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This lead is pretty close to what we have and maybe even more accurate in reflection of the sources in the body of the article

That's quite a source you got there, Earl. It ridicules Zeitgeist for including a George Carlin clip ("as evidence," allegedly), then the reviewer gives his example of how real evidence is gathered: "Example: go to any indie fuck music review. You'll most likely find the word 'zeitgeist' in it." The masthead is even better: "How do you stop a Walker? Gunshot to the head."[7] Here's hoping all your sources are just as good. Or even better! Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie is a conspiracy theory pseudo documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, presenting a number of conspiracy theory ideas. Peter Joseph created all three films. The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark of Gentle Machine Productions which is owned by Joseph.Earl King Jr.

}}

References

Please let's stop this. There is no such film genre as "conspiracy theory pseudo documentary," and I would suggest that this is not the place to invent one. Nor is there a genre called "pseudo documentary." All the recognized film genres are listed on this page. Earl King Jr. is not citing the recognized trade definition of documentary, which can be found here. You can scour that definition at length, and nowhere does it state that all the editors of Wikipedia have to agree that all the statements in the film are true. It does not state that the Academy judges must agree that all the statements in the film are true, and the phrase "something real" is not used. The definition of documentary seems to boil down to one word: nonfiction. Dictionary.com defines that word to mean

the branch of literature comprising works of narrative prose dealing with or offering opinions or conjectures upon facts and reality, including biography, history, and the essay (opposed to fiction and distinguished from poetry and drama ).

Please note that the definition includes "offering opinions or conjectures," which includes even the blackest objections to the Zeitgeist films.

And once again, the presence of a film on youtube is not an indication of its credibility. National Geographic has hundreds of films on Youtube, and so do the Discovery Channel, NPR, BBC, most of the major studios, and many music video producers. The continual description of Zeitgeist as "a Youtube film" is an intentional slur, and not even correct. Zeitgeist was largely distributed through DVD sales. Let's get it right and be neutral, factual, and informative, just like we promised when we took our Wikipedia oaths. This is not a defense of Zeitgeist, but a defense of that lofty goal. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You might be over reacting. Zeitgeist is very documented as being a conspiracy film. Nothing is being made up as to genre. Wikipedia has classifications or categories for subjects at the bottom of article pages. Here they are Categories: 2007 films English-language films2008 films2011 films The Zeitgeist Movement 9/11 conspiracy theories American films Bible conspiracy theories Christ myth American independent films Propaganda films Pseudo history Sequel films Just how can it be that it was categorized like this if there was not some reason to do that, namely the citations that were in the article. Someone added those categories and they have been there a long time. I am not saying to source our article to that, which is not possible. I am saying that the categories are not really to be interpreted as derogatory or pejorative just what some Wikipedia editors, not myself, thought were accurate ways to categorize this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy film"? Nope. Once again, that is not a recognized film genre. All the recognized genres are listed on this page, and "conspiracy film" just ain't there. Try again. Hint: "Conspiracy Theory" is the title of a thriller film (genre: Thriller, subcategory: Action thriller) starring Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts. "Conspiracy Theory" is also not a recognized genre. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• The genre has been extensively discussed in the past. There is absolutely no way we can call these films "documentaries" without violating WP:NPOV. Propaganda or agit-prop is closest, so if we absolutely must stick with (our) list of (arbitrarily restricted) genres then Category:American propaganda films is closest, but documentary-style was a compromise worked out in the past. I presume there is no substantive dispute as to the fact that the films are conspiracist, other than simply not liking the fact. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A link would be good. As for NPOV, 2016: Obama's America is classed as a documentary. Love it or hate it, it just is. Has nothing to do with whether anyone agrees with it, likes it, feels offended by it, or gets a rash. That is what kind of film it is. Same with JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America, Looking for Fidel, Last Days in Vietnam, Knocking, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, The Story of WikiLeaks, Why We Fight, The War on Our Civil Liberties, These Streets are Watching, School of the Americas Assassins, Secrecy, Stealing America, and hundreds of others. The argument is as silly as claiming Love Story is not a drama because you (and a raft of professional film critics) didn't consider it was dramatic. The genre is the genre. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Every source calls these films "documentary" (in some form). And yet you call usage of this term a(n) NPOV violation. Which means you must believe these films are less than documentaries, and that claiming documentary is an attempt to put them on an undue pedestal. The opposite perspective also exists: that these films are clearly documentaries, and that calling them anything less is an attempt to unduely discredit them (as if they need help with that ;-).

The solution here is not to pick a side or create a SYN compromise, but to characterize the controversy. So I propose we increase our neutrality, call the films films in the lead, and then each film section, where applicable, can have a sentence on The Great Genre Disagreement of 2015. :-) OnlyInYourMindT 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

the solution is not to pretend that there is any actual problem, because anybody who thinks the Zeitgeist series are documentaries, has no place on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"...anybody who thinks the Zeitgeist series are documentaries, has no place on Wikipedia." So much for cooperation and consensus. Now it gets back to pushing and shoving. @Robert McClenon: It ain't workin' boss. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, anybody who genuinely believes these are documentaries is so far down the conspiracist rabbit hole that they lack the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. The Zeitgeist movies are paranoid conspiracist nonsense, as our articles on the subjects they cover makes absolutely clear. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, WP:THOUGHTCRIME isn't policy as yet. Feel free to propose it at WP:VPP... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No it does not get back to pushing and shoving and Robert who has been kind enough to help us is just going to point that out also. Jzg is correct. For what ever reason a group of editors have recently pushed the idea of a second RFC on this subject after the other pretty clearly said combine the article. Also why violate neutral presentation that our citations give us? It is purely a propaganda film. The movies are not documentaries. I said at the onset that we are really being kind and compromising in the extreme to call the movies documentary like. We could just as well call them propaganda like or using agit-prop techniques etc. etc. Cooperation and consensus. Listening to experienced editors might have a good effect. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sauce, goose, gander. Just a day or two ago, someone wrote, "... saying that Earl is unfit to edit these articles ... is also a personal attack." But now that others are similarly attacked and same writer defends the attacker, we see the author of those words was not principle, but only personal pique masquerading in princely robes. I myself did not defend Earl when Andy attacked. I should have ... in this way, a discussion descends to debate, and from debate to quarrel. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The above is also a personal attack. Assume good faith, Avoid personal attacks. Do not encourage others to make personal attacks. Comment on content not editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't, of course. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

we are really being kind and compromising in the extreme to call the movies documentary like

An encyclopedia that is kind or compromising is a corrupt encyclopedia. To avoid corruption is to uncompromisingly characterize what sources say. And EVERY source in the world that mentions a genre says documentary. Every movie website. Every review. Every news story. Only a few sources like The Irish Times and The Socialist Party of Great Britain avoid mentioning a genre altogether. The third film in the series even won AOF's award for Best Political Documentary. All the evidence is on the side of documentary. One source calling the genre a "pseudo-documentary" is a huge lack of evidence to support your position. Let's not create a corrupt encyclopedia. OnlyInYourMindT 07:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@OnlyInYourMind: some of these editors seem to assume that every view of the subject is partisan. To run a dangerous parallel, I offer you the assertion that Adolph Hitler never set himself on fire and ran through the streets naked waving his junk at old ladies and young girls. That is not a defense of Hitler -- that is no more than a defense of history. And that defense, my friends, is not partisan. Similarly, this discussion is not about attacking or defending or "being kind" to the Zeitgeist films. This is about the integrity and dignity of the Encyclopedia. People are not going to run out and buy DVDs and watch them hypnotically, believing every word, as a result of reading "documentary" on Wikipedia instead of "documentary-like" or "so-called documentary." It just ain't gonna happen. We don't hold the world's sanity in our hands. But we would cheapen the Encyclopedia if we referred to corporate employees as "capitalist running dog lackeys" (like the old Worker's Daily) or otherwise let personal opinions/attitudes taint our statements of fact. And frankly, it doesn't matter whether our opinions/attitudes are staining the page or the those of some professional film critic. Crudding up the intro (which should be a simple statement of fact) with personal opinion simply cheapens the Encyclopedia -- just like it did the Worker's Daily. People don't come here for opinions or to be told how to think or feel about stuff. They come here for facts, and "documentary-like" is just plain WP:WEASEL. We might as well say, "Well, it sorta is and sorta isn't, y'know?" And it doesn't help if some big-shot reviewer from the Globe & Mail said exactly that. It still makes us look weak and weaselly. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Civility

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is way off topic. Civility should be cultivated on an article like this. It is controversial and with the multitude of editors called here from the Zeitgeist movement editing the article is not a pick-nick [8] and [9]. There are a few other links to Zeitgeist pages that also call for people to show up here and edit the Zeitgeist pov. Its probably true, our sources say that another editor here Jzg is correct about the basic content of the Zeitgeist information These are, after all, paranoid conspiracist propaganda movies, and anybody who thinks they are a genuine reflection of reality is destined to have a turbulent time on Wikipedia. Saying these movies are documentary like might be a stretch of good will that is not exactly following our sources in the body of the article. I suggest parties take it easy and not get off the topic with tits for tats of examples that are not related to the subject we are discussing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility again

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

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

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

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

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

A Third RFC?

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

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

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

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

RfC

The lede has described the Zeitgeist films as "documentary-style" since November 2014, immediately after the merger of the three individual titles. Some editors dislike this characterisation. there are a number of options:

1. Documentary - preferred by fans of the film and followers of the Zeitgeist movement some editors, disliked by others as the essential character of a documentary (that it is factual) clearly does not apply.
2. Documentary-style - a compromise but one that entirely fails to placate the pro-Zeitgeist editors. not found in any RS
3. Propaganda film - factually correct but a minority view wording among reliable independent sources , which tend to steer clear of such labels.
4. Film - avoids the drama but satisfies pretty much nobody.

(The RfC statement has been edited to bring it into conformance with WP:RFC.) ~ Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There's then the problem of categories, since both documentary and propaganda are candidate categories.

Please state your preferences and reasoning. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinions

• Oppose 1 per WP:FRINGE; weak Support 2 as a mealy-mouthed compromise; Support 3 per WP:SPADE; Support 4 as the only one realistically likely to succeed. Support Category:American propaganda films, Oppose Category:American documentary films, again per WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!)

Support 2 as a mealy-mouthed compromise. It is obviously not a real documentary. The current Categories of what it is on the article page now are adequate as far as describing what it is. The only category it really is not is documentary unless pseudo. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC) But would also support Propaganda film in a documentary style, works for me or just propaganda film would also be o.k. That would be closer and more to the point than documentary-style.Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Support 3 as the best choice. 1 is acceptable only with caveats; perhaps "conspiracist documentary" or together with 3. I agree with the Zeitgeist movement members that "conspiracy-style" is not common usage in the real world, so it would be inappropriate here unless linked. Categories should be both "documentary" and "propaganda". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• 1. Documentary [SUPPORT] - Preferred by neutral editors who care what 90% of sources say. The essential character of a documentary has nothing to do with being factual. Terrible documentary filmmakers can produce terrible documentaries with terrible sourcing that are still documentaries. This film documents conspiracy theories from the perspective of a conspiracy believer. Please let's not inject our personal missions into this. Stick to policy. WP:NPOV demands we include this majority view.

2. Documentary-style - A WP:WEASEL word, and a WP:SYN violating compromise with zero support from any reliable source. This is an attempt by some editors to push the minority view that this is not a "true" documentary (No true Scotsman fallacy) despite what 90% of sources say.

3. Propaganda film - I agree this is "factually correct but a minority view among reliable independent sources". In addition, it is also factually correct that nearly every documentary can be labelled a Propaganda film because nearly every documentary pushes the author's point of view. ("Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.") Being a propaganda film does not stop it from being a documentary. This label can only be mentioned in articles if it is a majority or significant minority viewpoint, and it cannot replace another majority viewpoint. The WP:SPADE essay applies to user conduct, not article content. WP:NPOV policy applies to article content.

4. Film - Neutral, but lacks descriptiveness.

I support all categories that naturally follow the majority and significant minority viewpoints.

Side note: this exact RfC was posted a month ago, but apparently got auto-archived and forgotten. OnlyInYourMindT 20:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC), updated 07:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1 Documentary is clearly what these films are, there is nothing that says the content of the documentary has to be true, we just tend to assume they are. Michael Moore is infamous for exaggerating certain "facts" in order to push his POV onto viewers, this doesn't mean that the films he makes are not documentaries. Also, notice in the lead of the Michael Moore article it calls him a "documentary" film-maker, not a propaganda film-maker. Although the arguments used to call Zeitgeist propaganda could all be said about any of Moore's documentaries. As for the other 3 options, I completely agree with OnlyInYourMind. Don't refer to this as something it isn't just because you don't agree with the viewpoint of the film, you still have to keep Wikipedia's description of the series neutral. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• 1 Documentary -- support - Wikipedia should dispense facts, not attitudes. The objective, informative term is preferred, and it has the majority of RS support. (Unaware that this Rfc is still active, I changed the lede two days ago in conformance with what I read as the consensus. Apologies for misunderstanding.)

2 Documentary-style is wp:weasel wording and has no RS support. Spaghetti-tree hoax is documenary-style, but it is not a documentary.

3 Propaganda film (and all other variations) is not supported by RS. It is clearly POV, even if supported by multiple editors.

4 Film is not in conformance with any RS Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• #1 Documentary -- support - Documentary is RS supported and neutral name for genre. 2&3 aren't RS supported. 4 is unnecessarily unspecific of genre. Kinda surprised that this has been fought against so fiercely. People, "documentary" doesn't mean true anymore than "non-fiction" means true. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• 1 Documentary, as this is what the large majority of RSes describe the film as. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment, this RfC is at least arguably entirely invalid - it singularly fails to provide a neutral statement of the issue, but instead tells us what is "factually correct", and otherwise directs those responding towards a particular response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I will not play billiards on a tilted table. Here is a more neutral statement:

1. Documentary - preferred by fans of the film and followers of the film and followers of the Zeitgeist movement some editors.
2. Documentary-style - a compromise but one that entirely fails to placate the pro-Zeitgeist supported by some editors and used in the current version
3. Propaganda film - factually correct but a minority view wording among reliable independent sources
4. Film - Avoids some drama but satisfies pretty much nobody. Has not been previously discussed in this forum

The RfC definition indicates that the author either does not read the discussion or does not credit the statements of the other editors, who have all indicated they are neither members of the Movement nor fans of the film. The inability to be neutral and impartial, to credit the statements of the other editors and/or failure to read the discussion is a serious indictment and disqualification for writing an RfC. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The careful reader will be amused if the "propaganda" option is chosen. Then Wikipedia will be stuck in the amusing oxymoron of endorsing the notability of propaganda from a movement that is not notable enough to mention, except as a footnote. He he. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to the editors very intensely involved here that they let the new RFC try to work. Throwing a monkey wrench into the works destroys the process. Assuming some good faith would indicate that an experienced editor has chosen to help us sort this out. New voices need to be heard. The purpose of the RFC is to get comments from people we have not heard before called here to deliberate ideas about this. Andy please stop asserting that the whole process was not done right. Gram's helper, please stop long blog like speculations about all kinds of issues not related. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, the 'experienced editor' has already chosen to 'help out' by arguing that people who don't share his opinion on the subject of this RfC have "no place on Wikipedia" [10][11] - a suggestion that appears not to be based on policy, unless WP:THOUGHTCRIME has been snuck through without anyone noticing, and not exactly compatible with WP:AGF... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A pseudoscience book can be notable without its author being notable, so why couldn't a propaganda film be notable without its author or targeted belief being notable? And, although I do not fully agree with Earl, I will assert that anyone who believes the film to be based in fact has no business acting on that belief on Wikipedia, as it is a WP:FRINGE position. Exactly how that affects characterization of the film is unclear to me. "Conspiratist (sp?) documentary" seems the most representative characterization we can find, although I don't think anyone disagrees that "propaganda film" is accurate, and it does appear in some reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

First: A pseudoscience book can be notable without its author being notable, ... uh, we weren't discussing pseudoscience, authors, or books, but please list the first half dozen examples you have in mind. Help me out here. And then, if you don't mind, give us a few examples that are on point. Second: anyone who believes the film to be based in fact: If you are trying to prove that you have not read the discussion or looked up any of the references, congratulations, you have just done it. Once again, the word "documentary" does not mean "fact," and the Academy of Motion Pictures does not grade or qualify documentaries on the fact value of the content, as shown by these "documentary" nominations: Naked Yoga (1972, as "factual" as reality TeeVee), Terminus (1963, known to be a mixture of fact and fiction), The Finest Hours (1964, actors doing reenactments of allegedly historical events of Churchill's life). All of those and dozens more fail to fit your definition of "documentary." Looking for Richard (1996) is classed by Wikipedia as a documentary, synopsised by IMDB as "Al Pacino's deeply-felt rumination on Shakespeare's significance and relevance to the modern world through interviews and an in-depth analysis of Richard III." That is, Looking for Richard is not "fact," but opinion and artistic interpretation of a fictional play that was written as propaganda to show the evil of the Lancasters, rivals of Elizabeth I (the reigning queen)'s family, and now known to be a tissue of lies. Your definition of "documentary" is an invented definition that does not conform to the real world where people live and classify films. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm arguing that, although "documentary" is technically correct, and "docunentary-style" is a minority view (although denied by none), "propaganda" is probably the best description for the lead. It's a recognized gendre, supported by a minority of reliable sources, and denied by no independent reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Technically correct is all that we ever asked for. When we are technically correct and in agreement with the majority of our sources (as the word is), we have eliminated all POV. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a recognized term for a documentary with no accurate assertions. It's a common enough type of film that there should be, but Wikipedia should not be the first to use it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda film in a documentary style, works for me or just propaganda film would also be o.k. That would be closer and more to the point than documentary-style. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A notable propaganda film propagandizing a movement that is not notable enough to mention?? That is not intellectually consistent. Obviously, if there is no movement, the propaganda is not working, and if it is not working, obviously it's not notable or not propaganda. But I'll be you can't even say in 40 words or less what the propaganda message is, because it sure as heck is not on the existing page. The page is more like, wow, WTF was that? Did that man just say something about my mother? I mean, oh yeah, it must be a conspiracy cult.

I think we should tell a story more together than that. Any movement that can put together notable propaganda is a notable movement and deserves its own page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Which source calls them propaganda movies? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Meta sub thread

For reference there has already been an RfC on which term to use to characterise the film, see here.

Simply using the term 'film' is probably for most neutral, though, not very descriptive. The article on America: Freedom to Fascism may be a useful example. It does not use the term documentary in the body of the article, apart from once in a quotation. However, it includes the film in both 'Category:Documentary_films_about_conspiracy_theories' and 'Category:2000s documentary films'.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

According to one editor here who has apparently seen them all, only the first in the series has any conspiracy theory material in it. The characterization would not be correct for all three. The weird thing about that phrase "conspiracy theory", though, is the where it is used and by whom. A bunch of Arabs living in caves, secretly plotting to attack the World Trade Center -- is that not a "conspiracy theory?" The Nazi Holocaust was the consequence of a "conspiracy" called the "Wannsee Conference." In the last few years, America has just been waking up to the fact that thousands of people have been helping the government to illegally spy on domestic phone traffic -- A conspiracy of pretty good size. We are drowning in "secret" "confidential" "classified" "compartmentalized" operations -- what's the big deal about acknowledging government conspiracies? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(sorry, couldn't figure out where to place this or where to indent)
Responding to the request for comments from editors with little or no participation to date: mine is not a single purpose account (contributions), and shows involvement on WP before the film was released. I have seen only the first movie, and know nothing about the movement beyond what I've read on Wikipedia. I personally found Zeitgeist: The Movie to be a very interesting and entertaining two hours of complete bullshit. That said:

"Propaganda" promotes a cause or view, which seems an inapt label if the Zeitgeist movement is not notable. I would accept "film" as a less informative but less objectionable description. But I prefer "documentary", and I think the conversation has been bogged down by failure to accept that term for something on the extreme edge of its definition. Sure, it's a burlap sack that used to hold manure, but if it has a hole for the neck, two arm-holes, and covers the legs, it's still a dress.

That a conversation is impeded by incivility goes without saying. Here, I see extra hinderance that is off-putting: imputing motives to editors when they express their views. It really is important to separate the edits from the editors. My tuppence. Willondon (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Like Willondon, I am responding to the request for comments from outside editors. Like him (having attempted to read the above 'discussion'), the level not just of incivility above, but of fallacious arguments, seemingly determined to 'slap down' discussion is depressing, (particularly, though not exclusively, from 'friends of the film'(Grammar'sLittleHelper do you really want to know why 'Looking for Richard' is a documentary, do you really want to know the difference between a 'conspiracy' and a 'conspiracy theory'?)).

Like Willondon my knowledge of the films is limited, however, unlike him, I personally found the bits I have seen of the various Zeitgeist movies to be a headache-inducing few hours of complete and utter dull, manipulative, bullshit.

BUT, if the form of the film is (even loosely) 'documentary', that should be the term used, that it does not qualitatively conform to the values associated with 'good' documentaries is irrelevant. Criticism should not be achieved by using 'loaded' descriptors. IF the film has been widely described as propagands, that should also be included in the lead, in the article and reflected in categories. My halfpence!Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC) … … ps almost all reviews/articles (including the most critical) use the term 'documentary', almost all the critical articles refer to 'conspiracy theories' within the film. Shouldn't that end the discussion about which labels to use? Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Shouldn't that end the discussion about which labels to use?". I heartily agree. Willondon (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I know the difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy (why do you ask?). A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit some act in violation of a law or otherwise generally considered evil. The perpetrators need not all know each other, but they must have some idea of the general purpose. The agreement need not be kept secret, as in the case of the American Revolution, which the British characterized as a "conspiracy" -- but it usually is to maximize success of the act. Many criminal prosecutions, both federal and state, allege and prosecute conspiracy as a separate criminal charge. We might imagine a conversation in the prosecutor's office: "What is your theory of this case?" "Oh, I expect to charge them with kidnapping and rape, and because we are not sure whether Jones was part of the rape scene, and Mrs. Jones certainly not, I think we can get them for conspiracy." Thus, conspiracy theory is an important part of every prosecutor's profession; conspiracy is the action of criminals, and conspiracy theory is the action of law and order.

In other realms, however, "conspiracy theory" is a term of utmost contempt. It is a statement that the idea so characterized is beneath consideration, and implies that the one suggesting the idea is mentally deranged. For example, until five years ago, any public suggestion that the US Government was collecting all telephone and internet traffic and poking through it for possible anti-government activity (like the Czar's Secret Police) would be met with derisive laughter and hoots of "conspiracy theory!" However, when undeniable documentation surfaced that the US government was doing exactly that, the prominent columnists in our major newspapers argued that the goernment was only doing what was necessary to prevent terrorism, and revealing the operation was a criminal act. Subsequently, a court ruled that the wiretapping was not authorized by law, so the operation was essentially illegal. For the operation to succeed on that scale, thousands of IT people must have partaken in the illegal conspiracy.

Similarly with Operation Mockingbird from decades ago. If you are unaware of that gig, the CIA planted scores of agents on the staffs of major networks and newspapers, and fed them stories to shape national politics. Until the Church Committee exposed the illegal operation, anyone who suggested the plot would be accused of harboring conspiracy theories, and possible committed to a mental hospital -- only for his own good, of course (and maybe for the good of Operation Mockingbird).

If you look at the topic conspiracy theory, you will see it starts out in the lede with a innocent definition, as technical as the first paragraph in this post. The article then proceeds to cite a dozen psychologists speculating on why people's minds malfunction so that they come to believe in conspiracy theories. The article is dishonest in that way, but it mirrors the dishonesty of the term itself. Or perhaps the article is simply mirroring the division in the population; some people use the term to deprecate other people's and their ideas, and other people never find occasion to use it.

It is inappropriate to define any documentary film as a "conspiracy theory" because it is a WP:POV term. It is an evaluation, not a definition. No one would characterize their own documentary as a "conspiracy theory," so what is happening is WP:UNDUE weight is being accorded to the critics -- and the negative attitudes of the editor, who cherry-picks such statements from the reviews.

I am not by any means a "friend of the film," -- though I should not have to say that. Only a person unfamiliar with encyclopedias would consider putting such language in the lede. My issue is the quality of the Wikipedia. Like you, I would like it to grow up and quit loading the articles with this kind of value language. Just leave the attitudes home and tell it like it is, good clean facts. Instead of this baggage, we should expect the readers to be adults who can derive their own values. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have a better label, conspiracy theory seems like an accurate term supported by sources. Though, it may impart the POV that these theories are unproven and those who believe them are doing so with credulity. Any honest filmmaker documenting unproven theories concerning conspiracies should readily label the content in their film "conspiracy theories"... if they're being honest. This label has a bad name because people so often slide from theory (or rather, hypothesis) to full religious believer. This human willingness to believe stories without adequate evidence is why we have things like the Innocence Project. I like the label "conspiracy theory" for being concise, but I admit I am biased against credulity. I think a good encyclopedia should share this bias. OnlyInYourMindT 05:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, really? Like, a documentary producer should announce to the audience, "Here's a conspiracy theory I'd like you all to consider -- carefully"? I don't recall Irving Stone including that in JFK (1991). That would be as honest as Gandhi describing himself as a "religious fanatic." I can't quite put my finger on it, but there may be something wrong with that approach. ;-) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, since you know the difference(' between a 'conspiracy' and a 'conspiracy theory'?)), why are you 'muddying the waters' with walls of text with examples of or rhetorical questions about one or the other? The fact that there have been BOTH in the past, (or that one MAY sometimes have turned out to be the other), has little bearing on this instance (There have been medical breakthroughs and have been 'false dawns' and 'quack-cures', but which is drug XXX?)).

I have already said that the main point is that almost ALL RSs describe the films as documentaries, almost all describe much of the content as 'consp. theories', they also use other very critical descriptors of the remaining content. Why are acres of text being expended on what you or I or any other editor thinks about these films, when sources are fairly clear? That these films evoke strong pro/anti reactions should be reflected in the article (majority of RS are anti, I would say), but it isn't our job to legitimate or disparage either position.Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC) … … ( ps, 'Friends of the film' was shorthand.))

Expressions of affection or antipathy are not fact. "Conspiracy theory" pretends to be an expression of fact, but in reality is an expression of contempt and POV. You would never hear the "19 suicidal hijackers" scenario described as a "conspiracy theory" but is exactly what it is. Osama bin Laden and the boys conspired to commit a crime against America. It was a conspiracy, and the story is a conspiracy theory. So you tell me why the major news media never mention the "bin Laden conspiracy theory," and you will have the answer to why we should not use the term in the lede. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict Grammar'sLittleHelper, a "conspiracy theory" is like any other theory, it becomes generally accepted as fact, becomes disproved or disappears into the ether. Most RSs believe that ObL WAS responsible, why should they use 'theory'? What you appear to be suggesting is a nominal 'equality' between all accounts of an event, which is a false neutrality. Who burned down the Reichstag? Who shot JFK ? ( The man, not the film!)) Who murdered the Princes in the Tower? We may never know with certainty the answers, that doesn't mean that ANY theory has equal credibility (either privately or in WP terms). I draw a distinction between 'is' a con.th. and 'presents'/'advances' con.th.s, as that IS how RSs describe parts of the content, and yes, they mean that these accounts have little credibility to them. I agree with you to this extent, that these negative opinions should not be put in 'our' voice.(ps I didn't mean to single you out for criticism, discourtesy seems to characterise all the above 'discussions', and is very counter-productive.))Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out the Wikipedia policy for the definition and usage of a conspiracy theory in the 9/11 conspiracy theories talk page, particularly Q4 and Q5. To quote Q4:

Wikipedia refers to reliable mainstream sources when determining appropriate descriptions. As such sources do not commonly refer to the official account as a "conspiracy theory" neither do articles here. The term conspiracy theory is typically used for claims that an event is "the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." Although the version in government reports would fit the literal meaning of the term, conspiracy theories are generally viewed as theories that "read between the lines," and assume a hidden motive & massive manipulation of evidence to deceive the public. By nature, conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated and intended to question the official or scientific explanation.

Due to this common mainstream usage of "conspiracy theory", it is appropriate to use this definition, rather than the literal definition of a "theory that involves a conspiracy". For example, "gay" is used in the mainstream to describe a homosexual, rather than the literal definition of a happy person. In addition, as long as reliable sources describes it as such, we should reflect the viewpoints of such. From Q5:

Titles are typically chosen based on whether it is the common name used for the subject in reliable sources. While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms. It is not universally considered pejorative. There have been numerous discussions about the title of the article since the attacks occurred. After several debates, "conspiracy theory" has been judged to be the most common, accurate, and neutral term to describe the subject this article covers.

By this policy, due to the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describing the films as promoting conspiracy theories, the lede should reflect this viewpoint. Similarly, since the sources also describe it as a documentary, the lede should also describe it as such. Kage Acheron (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kage Acheron's final para I endorse both points. Only proviso is that an accurate form of words should be found for many/most reviews describe the films as promoting conspiracy theories. That they thus describe it is verifiable fact, that it does is not.Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the synopsis of the film, the film promotes alternate 9/11 theories, which are by definition considered "conspiracy theories". Therefore, by definition, it promotes conspiracy theories (unless if someone disputes that the film doesn't contain this content). Kage Acheron (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I also endorse both of Kage Acheron's points. With a note that it does not appear the other two films concern themselves with conspiracy theories. OnlyInYourMindT 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kage Acheron, a quibble perhaps but 'alternate theories' of ANYTHING are not 'by definition considered conspiracy theories.' THESE theories are widely considered thus, and that is all that needs to concern us. OnlyInYourMind, I spent quite a long time today reading reviews/articles, I don't recall whether comments about the later films used the specific term 'conspiracy theories', I do recall the films being highly disparaged for various forms of intellectual dishonesty and lack of evidence or rational argument or coherence. Therefore it is not a case of the later films being given 'a clean bill of health', rather a question of what descriptor is generally employed by the articles for those films.

I am still of the opinion that some neutral, factual way of phrasing (eg widely described as … ) is preferable to saying IS. Even if this film were a notoriously bad drama/CD/book we would not say 'this is a crock of shit', we would probably say 'poorly received by critics, who described it as …'. I don't think we should put opinions in 'our voice', regardless of how widely held they are.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear in my previous statement. I was saying that these alternate theories of 9/11 are conspiracy theories by definition. As the first film promotes those alternate theories, it promotes conspiracy theories by definition. I think this is an indisputable fact. Besides, remember that Wikipedia considers "conspiracy theory" to be a neutral phrase, as per above. I agree with you that matters of opinion should remain neutral, but matters of fact should be described as IS. Otherwise we end up with "this was widely described as a film", "sources said it was ... minutes long", etc., which is obviously ridiculous. Kage Acheron (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not treat "conspiracy theory" as a neutral phrase. A careful read of that page indicates that conspiracy theory-ism is pretty much a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, discussed by a dozen psychologists and psychiatrists commenting on the reasons a person might fall into such a plight that he is in disagreement with the opinions of his neighbors and the government orthodoctors. According to those good doctors, the majority is always factually right, and the minority is sick in the head. When rubber meets road, the term "conspiracy theory" has a lot in common with the term "heresy," which derives from the Greek word for "choose." A heretic a person who chooses an opinion at odds with the prevailing opinion. If you recall your history, it was the custom in European countries to arrest and torture heretics until they stopped saying things that offend against the prevailing opinion.

As you have defined it, a conspiracy theory is simply an idea or explanation for events that stands at odds with the prevailing opinion. The conspiracy theorist is subject to arrest, commitment to an institution, and forcible dosing with drugs until the conspiracy theorist stops saying things that offend against the prevailing opinion.

As I have said, I do not think it appropriate for an encyclopedia to concern itself with deliberately bolstering the orthodox opinions and attitudes of the day. An Encyclopedia should stick to the facts, and leave the grooming of opinions and attitudes to the government propagandists at the Ministry of Truth. However, you might observe that my edit of the Zeitgeist lede paragraph left that phrase intact in accordance with the consensus of this group of editors, correcting only the grammar so that it no longer suffers from the grammatical redundancy, "conspiracy theory ideas," as it once did.[12] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies,[1] it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate." Think you're off base Sfarney. Until an alleged conspiracy gains scholarly consensus as accepted history it remains a conspiracy theory. Term may have developed a negative connotation, but it remains the neutral term for alleging the existence of a conspiracy. Like film being labeled documentary, "conspiracy theory" isn't a judgement on veracity. That and RS are clear film features conspiracy theories. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions of this nature can easily be solved by examples from popular and scholarly media -- the fodder of Wikipedia. I would be happy to learn I am wrong, but I have not been able to prove it. Can you show me what you mean with examples of text that are not your own? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Perhaps you missed the Wikipedia policy that I quoted in the posts above, which I copied from 9/11 conspiracy theories talk page. Q5 states:

Titles are typically chosen based on whether it is the common name used for the subject in reliable sources. While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms. It is not universally considered pejorative. There have been numerous discussions about the title of the article since the attacks occurred. After several debates, "conspiracy theory" has been judged to be the most common, accurate, and neutral term to describe the subject this article covers.

Kage Acheron (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kage Acheron:, thank you. I saw that a few days ago, but this page is getting so long, I could not locate it again. I didn't know what a "Q5" is, so the applicability was lost on me. I see it in the talk page template, but who wrote it? In any case, I consider that statement is pure wp:weasel. "Conspiracy theory" is rarely (extremely rarely) used in any sense BUT the pejorative. I have invited another editor to find an RS who uses it to mean anything credible or complimentary. Just as an exercise, since you are citing the statement again, I invite you also to find any RS (more than one would be preferred, of course) that uses the term with non-pejorative intent. I would be grateful. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Q5 in this case referred to Question 5 in the FAQ section on that page, which was reached via consensus. That statement is also repeated in the Wiktionary definition of "conspiracy theory". Although you may personally disagree with this consensus that "conspiracy theory" is neutral, we should abide by this consensus of the Wikipedia community. You can see that all the other articles on Wikipedia that deal with conspiracy theory topics use it in the lede, without any negative connotations associated with it: ie. Loose Change (film series), New World Order (conspiracy theory), etc. There are many uses of conspiracy theory in a neutral context, here are just two I found after a quick search.1 2 Kage Acheron (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on that page does not govern all other pages. It represents only a general agreement among the editors participating in that discussion at that time. Also, Q5 is specifically limited to titles, not to body, and not to the lede. As I said earlier, I would be interested in seeing some instances of RSes using "conspiracy theory" as a neutral or credible term. In all my research, I have not found any. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This consensus appears to go across the entire Wikipedia project, as shown by the links in my previous post. The statement that "conspiracy theory" is neutral applies to all the sections of an article. I have also posted RSes with using "conspiracy theory" as a neutral term in my last post, I suggest you go back and read it more carefully. Kage Acheron (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeating a comment I made earlier almost all the articles refer to 'conspiracy theories' within the film. Shouldn't that end the discussion about which labels to use?. What I or Grammar (or the WP article) think about the term is irrelevant to this discussion. I happen to agree with Grammar, that when the writers use this term they mean something like 'theories for which no credible evidence is offered', but that IS how they describe the theories proffered. Grammar seems to be asking for a spurious equality. 'Noted for its innovative lighting/filming/editing' of Citizen Kane or Potemkin is not 'un-neutral' in WP terms, nor inappropriate for the lead if that's how the films are widely regarded by most RSs.Pincrete (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what is going on here now because the threads are too hard to follow at least for me but I get the impression that conspiracy theory is still being debated. Consensus appears to go across the entire Wikipedia project that "conspiracy theory" is neutral. Another editor says I have also posted RSes with using "conspiracy theory" as a neutral term in my last post, I suggest you go back and read it more carefully. The movie is using conspiracy theory as its underpinning and that should show in the lead. It does not examine conspiracy theory ideas but it is based on conspiracy theory ideas from classic conspiracy theory. There is no shortage of citations that show that. I wish this debate was more centered around new people coming here to comment and suggest the article should not be edited by editors here while comments are still going on. Using these RFC as proving some kind of consensus is probably not a good idea until they are closed. Even in the lead using documentary film is still being debated while this discussion goes on. Conspiracy theory based documentary, would have been appropriated also with the reliable sources so lets not change the article till more people weigh in or there is some real support for doing so. New people comment please called to comment on the RFC. Thanks Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Kage gave two examples of RS supposedly using the phrase in a neutral tone. I do not agree those links prove Kage's thesis. The first link is a newspaper from India. Though it is written idiomatic English, the grammar is strange and the proof reading is flawed (E.g. "Firing salvo at the Centre;" "multi-crore industry;" key points of the speech are in first person but not in quotes; "The AAP got a landslide victory and was voted to power"). I cannot agree that this is an RS for the usage of the American idiom. The second link was about an unsuccessful pro se criminal defendant who said the witnesses against him had been suborned by the prosecution. The prosecutor characterized the defendant's allegation as a "conspiracy theory." The phrase is not used in the extreme pejorative of the usual connotation of paranoia, but it is still pejorative. The defendant is not even alleged to have used the word "conspiracy," yet the prosecutor uses the phrase to discredit him in front of the jury. (The irony of that usage is that the defendant was charged and convicted for conspiracy, while the secret deals whereby prosecutors buy testimony from convicts is notorious in America's corrupt justice system. Still, the prosecutor managed to discredit the defendant with the phrase "conspiracy theory" and get him convicted.) This link actually shows awesome pejorative power of the phase when used strategically, rather than illustrating neutral usage. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The term IS used by the majority of sources. Why is anyone discussing whether an Indian newspaper properly understood its meaning or whether a US prosecutor MAY have used the term manipulatively, or conjecturing about what impact that MAY have had on a jury? The sources appear to be articulate professional writers, the term is not inherently pejorative in WP terms. I opposed 'documentary style' and 'propaganda' because sources did not widely use these descriptors, I defend 'conspiracy theory' on the same grounds. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer to question 1: Those questions are being discussed because those are examples offered to show that "conspiracy theory" is a neutral term. Answer to question 2: We may find a RS that says, "X film is awful." Nevertheless, we do not lede the article with the statement that "X is an awful film." Fact is different from attitude. Fact we take from RS. Attitude, regardless of source, is still POV and a violation of the centuries old encyclopedic tradition of NPOV; it is a policy much older in the culture that Wikipedia. POV cheapens an encyclopedia. ~ Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney, just because the term conspiracy theory has a negative connotation doesn't change the fact that 1) this documentary proposes a conspiracy, which, as yet, is not widely accepted or supported by relevant scholarly consensus and 2) RS use the term for this and other documentaries that propose conspiracies, which, as yet, are not widely accepted or supported by relevant scholarly consensus. You are stuck on the colloquial use of the term. I think there is value in distinguishing conspiracies which have been substantiated and those that have not. Isn't a statement on whether they are or are not true, but that they are not acknowledged by RS as substantiated. I don't get the run around. What do you want to call a documentary that proposes a conspiracy, which, as yet, is not widely accepted or supported by relevant scholarly consensus? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And just because nobody has made a really good exaggerated comparison lately, your argument sounds like not wanting to reference the Third Reich as "a fascist totalitarian state" because "fascist totalitarian state" can be used as an insult. I get your point, but it isn't a good one. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You have cited to the neutral denotation, just like the lede in conspiracy theory. But the body of conspiracy theory proceeds immediately to the highly pejorative connotation, just as is intended in this article. From conspiracy theory we can see that "proposing a conspiracy" that as yet is not widely accepted (as you so gently term it) is posting an invitation to have one's head candled, which a dozen psychologists and psychiatrists quoted on that page are eager to do. Question: What do you call a documentary about horses? Hint: Not a horse-documentary. Answer: A documentary about horses. Question: What do you call a documentary about building a house? Hint: Not a building-a-house-documentary. Answer: A documentary about building a house. Question: What do you call a documentary that presents some unconventional explanations for a number of historical events, sometimes proposing that conspiracies are involved? Hint: not a conspiracy-theory-documentary. Zeitgeist touches on UFOs for example. To characterize that as a "conspiracy theory" is to wave the magical panacea that makes all such suggestions discreditable. No one minds if a writer waves the conspiracy-theory-go-away wand in a movie review or opinion essay -- by convention, we know we are reading opinion. However, people read the Wikipedia for fact, not opinion. Wikipedia should therefore not become a compendium of opinion and should peal away POV rhetoric to deal with fact. Do you get the difference?

I have asked for RS that use "conspiracy theory" as a neutral term. It appears the term is never neutral. It is always used as a term of contempt and dismissal. In that way, "conspiracy theory" is much like the word "heretic" from a few hundred years ago. The parallels are chilling in a democratic society among a group of Wikipedia editors. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Then your argument is with the conspiracy theory article. The Watergate Scandal was a conspiracy theory then when it was substantiated it was just a conspiracy. With the way you are interpreting the term no evidence will meet your criteria of neutrality because you can always infer it's being used to discredit the theory. You've set an impossible standard. I could try to provide proof "fascist totalitarian state" isn't just a mean phrase used to discredit the Nazis, but if the only context you've ever assumed exists for the term is as an insult then I'm going to fail to change your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Merriam and Webster secretly run the world's taco supply by manipulating the brain waves of television talk show hosts. Sorry, can't help myself. Dictionary doesn't define the term as "never neutral" and according to the thesaurus it isn't synonymous with the word heretic. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

nb Edit Conflict, responding to a previous post.Grammar, I've already said that I don't think that "conspiracy theory" is a neutral term in the sense that you appear to want, but I think you are confusing neutrality with neutral-ised. WP neutrality and non-POV does not demand that only sources which use wholly neutral terms are acceptable, (ie that those sources do not have opinions, or do not articulate them clearly). It does (broadly) mean we are not selective in only using sources we like and that we do not impose OUR PoVs on those sources. You seem to be saying not that WP editors should be non-POV, but that the sources must be.

I return to the question, since the sources widely use "conspiracy theory", (not one source as in your analogy), what are the grounds for imposing a different terminology on those sources?Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer to the 'What do you call a documentary about … …?' question. If the answer is difficult/not obvious you refer to it using the terminology principally used by RSs. You don't try to rewrite that into something more derogatory, more laudatory or more sanitized. By the way I don't think anybody has proposed '"conspiracy theory documentary", I think they have said "documentary that advances/contains etc". Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Viaduct? Vi not a chicken? The horse/house argument was nice and all, but I still don't know what Sfarney'd prefer. Was that seriously a call for it to be labeled documentary about "unconventional explanations that sometimes have conspiracies"? I have to agree with Pincrete. Because this is kinda FRINGE stuff on top of it, that's all the more reason to stick to mainstream RS for the labeling. If mainstream RS called this one of the worst films ever made, neutral or not, we'd still be obliged to put that in there too. List of films considered the worst 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Some RS is fact, some is opinion. The term "conspiracy theory" masquerades as fact but in actuality conveys opinion. It is not neutral, and I proved it. The term is always used as an expression of contempt. Contempt is not fact -- it is just attitude and opinion. A real encyclopedia does not dabble in opinion. That is the way it is. Maybe you are too young to recall real encyclopedias, or maybe you never used one, or maybe you just don't remember. But that is the way it is. And when you flog opinion through the Wikipedia, you cheapen it.

There are three ways to inject opinion into the article. (A) You can use it as part of the definition, as the editors did before this dust-up, calling it "propaganda" and "pseudo-documentary." (B) You can use it as a descriptor in Wikipedia's own voice, as the page does now. (C) You can say that reviewer Grimey Sleezeball of the Globe & Mail called the film "full of conspiracy theory." The third way is best because it removes any mixing of attitudes and facts. You may not know it, but the Wikipedia cannot tell people what to think. If we try, people will not believe us, and we introduce doubt between us and the reader. The result is, we cheapen the Encyclopedia. This is not sanitizing the subject. This is sanitizing the Encyclopedia. Believe it or not, dirty words get the speaker dirty. Contemptuous words cast contempt on the speaker. If we wish to be respected as dispensers of fact, we take care not to confuse opinions and facts. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which does not state the films support conspiracy theories? If so, I would like to see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I will look around, but this is not normally my field. The opinions of the opinionators are often dictated by Operation Mockingbird, and hardly fit for a healthy diet. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

'Maybe you are too young to recall real encyclopedias' . Oh how kind of you to think so! I agree with SOME of what you say, but it leads me to a different conclusion. If we follow your logic, we should not say that 'Creationism' is widely dismissed as 'unscientific' by mainstream scientists, that it is thus dismissed is a fact, that C-ism IS 'unscientific', is an opinion, regardless of how widespead that opinion may be. To that extent I agree with you, some form of words that accurately reflects 'widely criticised for promoting etc' should be found. I take a homeopathic 'medicine' sometimes, I know full well that the science behind homeopathy is (at best) not understood and may be nothing more than placebo. I have no objection to WP informing me that this is majority opinion. I am an adult, I can make my own assessment, but am glad to be informed as to what most RSs say. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney:You have not "proved" anything regarding the neutrality of "conspiracy theory". You are merely stating your own opinion, and disregarding the opinions of everyone else. I have referred you to Wikipedia policy and other articles on WP that demonstrate the neutrality of the phrase, and you seemed to have ignored them all. On the topic of "real encyclopedias", let's refer to the article on Encyclopeadia Britannica about the assassination of JFK. 1 It clearly uses "conspiracy theory" in a neutral tone, and doesn't use any other phrase like "alternate theories" to describe those theories. Why should Wikipedia be different?

Also, I wouldn't bother looking for an alternate RS if I were you. Even if you do find an RS that says it doesn't support conspiracy theories, it would fall under WP:FRINGE, and shouldn't be accorded equal weight with the vast majority of the other RSes that say that it does. For example, there are clearly RSes saying that the Earth isn't round, yet we don't say that "Most scientists consider the Earth to be round". Likewise, we should not say that "Most reviews consider the film to promote conspiracy theories". Kage Acheron (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Until just now, no one was able to provide an example from a native English RS where "Conspiracy theory" was used in anything like the neutral sense. All uses are in the extreme pejorative. "Conspiracy theory" is as neutral as "heretic," and serves just about the same function in modern day. Previously, the citizens worshiped a complex theology defined by conflicting documents and papal decrees; any disagreement was labeled heresy and punished. In modern day, citizens worship the government and the official versions of history planted in news organs by various government agencies; any disagreement is labeled "conspiracy theory" and punished through various mechanisms, not the least of which is psychiatric commitment. The Wikipedia "policy" (as you call it) is applicable on the page it appears, and only to titles. There is no statement or representation (except yours) that it applies to the Wikipedia generally or to text. But just now, you found ONE RS that uses the term in neutral tone. Well done. The score moves was about 1,000 to zero. It is now 1,000 to one. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's cut out the hyperbole: it is not helping advance your argument any. What makes you think that the statement on the 9/11 page that "While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms. It is not universally considered pejorative" doesn't apply here? What makes you think that the usage of conspiracy theory in the lede of Loose Change (film series), New World Order (conspiracy theory), etc. should not be used here as well? What makes you think that even though the "real encyclopedia" of Encyclopeadia Britannica uses "conspiracy theory" in a neutral way (which even you admit), it can not be used in a neutral way on Wikipedia as well? What makes you think this page is so special to ignore all the previous precedents? Kage Acheron (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms ... Not true. There is no general pejorative connotation when using "scientist" or "American." That is simply a fantasy. You have to look long and hard to find those last two terms used by an RS with pejorative intent. On the contrary, you have to have to look very long and hard to find "conspiracy theory" used by an RS without pejorative intent. What makes you think that the statement on the 9/11 page that "..." doesn't apply here? It was written for that page, not for this page. A consensus on this page does not rule that page or vice versa. The Wikipedia general policies can be found on WP: pages. Can you find that policy on a WP: page? No? Then I rest my case. If you can persuade the editors on the conspiracy theory page that your neutral definition is correct, by all means, go ahead. In the meantime, we have it on good authority that:

*--Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s, in the aftermath of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, it has acquired a derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events. The term is often used to dismiss claims that the critic deems ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational.

*--Assessing the prevalent use of the term to ridicule or dismiss, Professor Rebecca Moore observes, "The word 'conspiracy' works much the same way the word 'cult' does to discredit advocates of a certain view or persuasion. Historians do not use the word 'conspiracy' to describe accurate historical reports. On the contrary, they use it to indicate a lack of veracity and objectivity."

*--Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia, asserts that strong supporters of conspiracy theories usually experience a feeling of lack of control. A theory can help a believer regain a sense of order explaining some extraordinary events. Knowing some facts can even bring the feeling of power. Lewandowsky states that belief in conspiracies can be a protective mechanism against the horror of possible disasters.

*--Academic work in conspiracy theories and conspiracism (a world view that places conspiracy theories centrally in the unfolding of history) presents a range of hypotheses as a basis of studying the genre. According to Berlet and Lyons, "Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm".

*--The historian Richard Hofstadter addressed the role of paranoia and conspiracism throughout American history in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, published in 1964. Bernard Bailyn's classic The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967) notes that a similar phenomenon could be found in America during the time preceding the American Revolution. Conspiracism labels people's attitudes as well as the type of conspiracy theories that are more global and historical in proportion.

And so on, and on, and on. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the weirdest discussions I've had in a long time. The term has a negative connotation, so does "Nazi", but that doesn't make the term non-neutral when applied to members of the Nazi party. Grab a dictionary. Websters' Conspiracy Theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" Oxford's Conspiracy Theory: "A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event." Dictionary's Conspiracy Theory: "1) a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group. 2) the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." And so on and so on.

The term can be used disparagingly, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an otherwise neutral term. Just because there are instances where people apply the term flippantly or sarcastically shouldn't change how we use it. There's that argument on neutrality, then there's the RS angle. Neutral or not, opinion or not, super majority of mainstream RS note film contains conspiracy theories. If mainstream RS held this was a propaganda film, which is very loaded language, it still ought to be applied just like in Triumph of the Will. To use FRINGE terminology/phraseology to describe film differently from mainstream RS would be UNDUE. I would imagine the first argument should be sufficient, if not then the second should be a slam dunk. This is exactly like the debate on using "documentary", some people believe documentary means true and conspiracy theory means false, but that just isn't the case for either. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I challenged someone to come up with an example of "conspiracy theory" used as neutral term by some English-speaking RSes, and only one was found - the Britannica. Challenge and response (or failed response) is about the only way to prove a negative. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of argument from ignorance. You can never prove a negative; you can only say that it has not yet been disproven yet. However, your claim that "conspiracy theory" "is always used as a term of contempt and dismissal" has been disproven, by the existence of the Britannica as a counter-example. I will make my point again, since you failed to respond to it: what makes you think that even though the "real encyclopedia" of Encyclopeadia Britannica uses "conspiracy theory" in a neutral way (which even you admit), it can not be used in a neutral way on Wikipedia as well? Kage Acheron (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is your opposition just coming from the wiki article on conspiracy theory, Sfarney? Because it looks like the scope of that article also delves into Conspiracism, which appears to be where you're deriving most of your criticism against the term conspiracy theory. Terms seem related, but do not seem to be synonymous. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Whilst I defend the use of 'conspiracy theory' above. I think the pudding is in danger of being over-egged at present. Yesterday I pruned 1 use in 3 consecutive sentences, each of which used the term (removing the middle sentence). The term should be stated clearly and attached to those films which have been widely described thus. It also belongs in critical response where apt, but it doesn't need to be re-inserted at every opportunity, otherwise the article becomes unreadable.Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the Zeitgeist films and Movement seems to be a critique the current forms of government and economies, with a proposal for a different strategy, a "post scarcity economy." To define the Zeitgeist films in the lede as presenting "conspiracy theories" really misses their intended purpose (a) because it misses the real point, and (2) because apparently there is no conspiracy theory in the third DVD. It's like ignoring the whole Nazi war on Europe and mentioning only how badly the Nazis treated homosexuals. Some people might think that the most important point, but it does not accomplish "neutral." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see in the synopses, the first film in the series exclusively contains conspiracy theories, while the second and third ones focuses on the post scarcity economy and the origin of the movement. I wouldn't be opposed to included "also proposes a post scarcity economy" in the lede, but omitting mentioning conspiracy theories altogether would be ignoring a whole third of the series. This is an unfortunate byproduct of merging the films into one article, but also the fact that the second and third movies cover completely different topics from the first movie, almost as if they weren't part of the same series. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And every second orbit of Pluto, we agree. The regularity is starting to wear me down. ;-) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I started the Nazi analogy, my bad. I only saw the first film, so if it is accurate that the others in the series don't feature conspiracy theories then it's fine to include what those films cover. It doesn't really matter what the intended purpose of the series is so much as describing what they are and what they present. From a really cursory search it appears Zeitgeist is most notable for, or most known for, its first film featuring conspiracy theories. Maybe something more like:Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film featuring a number of conspiracy theories that was followed by two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, which each promote a post scarcity economic model. It is a bit wordy, but I don't imagine I could get away with shorting it to Zeitgeist: The Movie is a conspiracy theory documentary without starting WWIII. Though I would call a documentary about horses a horse documentary, so what do I know, amirite? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, calling it a "conspiracy documentary" would be unfair and dishonest. After arguing that the world is run by rich people (no one could disagree with that) and that the rich people of the world are mostly a twisted, selfish, and evil lot (many people could agree with that), the film advocates for a new post-scarcity economic system in which the differences between rich and poor was not so obscenely exaggerated (or so I've been told). Saying the film is about bashing rich people would be telling a deceptive half-truth. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And who could argue that the rich do not conspire against the poor, using harmful and illegal methods to maintain their positions? The whopping great bank, HSBC, has recently been prosecuted by the Swiss government for laundering money[13] -- as though HSBC does not have enough. Obscene wealth (effectively, hoarding goods in a world of destitution) is obtained and maintained by obscene activity. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Did I lose my mind and put "Zeitgeist: The Movie is a bashing rich people documentary"? Reflecting on my previous post, it appears I didn't. I don't care about the rich, the poor, or any injustices. I am just tinkering with a couple words in a sentence to get to a compromise. I'm not even pushing for "conspiracy theory documentary", if only because it doesn't appear among Documentary film genres. I think it accurately describes the film though. And for that I guess I'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes? Chill out, Sfarney. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Walk softly. It was a parallel example. The movies are not about conspiracy, though conspiracies among the rich and powerful are a premise. Saying the films are "about conspiracy" would be a dishonest Metonymy. Equally, saying the films are about the greedy rich and powerful would be a dishonest Metonymy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think conspiracy theory documentary is just a concise way to describe first film, but I'm not married to that. How about: "Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film featuring a number of conspiracy theories that was followed by two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, which each promote a post scarcity economic model."? I suppose it wouldn't hurt to dig up a reference that differentiates subject matter between the first and two subsequent documentaries. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Peter Joseph article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eustace Mullins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editing the article currently

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synopsis first movie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zeitgeist Movement Trademark

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

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

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

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

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