This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 month may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
What is going on with this page? POV, False Claims, Biased sourcing...
I came here a little while back after seeing the film and was astounded (then) at the ideas made up about the film on this page. I came back today and was even more astounded given the vast range of POV and extremely biased sourcing. How do any of you people rationalize the constant vandalism ( which is what it really is ) of this page, knowing that Joseph's film has nothing to do with "New World Order", is entirely not anti-semetic no matter the uber fringe claims and at no time does anything in the film that says "bankers manipulate world events". Can any of you editors here, not referencing right wing hate press full of pure POV, actually defend any of these ideas as sourced in the film itself? Seriously, please show me in the film where any of this stuff is stated. The script is here: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/Zeitgeist,%20The%20Movie-%20Companion%20Guide%20PDF.pdf
Also, what is the story with the constant "conspiracy" theory references in the opening, which, again, is pure POV. Zeitgeist The Movie reports historical events as per the view of the author. Putting the "conspiracy label" only insults. Also, the term "conspiracy theorist" is now common known as a pejorative. It is just like a racist term today. I hope other more mindful people can help bring some honestly here as this is likely the worst, most misrepresented article on Wikipedia. SweetGirlLove (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Any opinions of the film should be expressed in the Reception section - not the opening. I have clean it up as the POV was absurd SweetGirlLove (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's too long Most respondents agree that the section in question is too long. This RfC would have been more productive if there had been some specific proposal or course of action to deal with, but at least the problem's been identified.Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this section of the article detailing Jared Loughner's reported interest in the film unduly long and in need of shortening?
Yes As it stands, the only source we have in the section that devotes more than three sentences to any connection between the movie and Loughner is a single opinion piece by a partisan commentator trying to connect the movie to the right-wing. I believe a single paragraph with a summary of the allegations about the film's influence on Loughner and Joseph's response is sufficient.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 23:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
A request for comment is for finding others opinions plus Wikipedia is not democratic especially on article like this where the 'movements' allies are always willing to throw in. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be covered since it has attracted network media attention. But I would take out the direct quotes and just summarize what was said, which could be done in one or two sentences and would not require a separate section. TFD (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably so, but it was big pop culture news event so a little more info. than that might be good. Probably connect it to the section above it, yes. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems obvious that the film converted a guy who may have only been suffering a mild paranoia and turned him into a murdering sociopath.--MONGO 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like it is that helpful to include a large paragraph that is basically a conclusion between a friend's guess of influence of Zeitgeist the movie and Loughner's behavior. Seems like a not very reliable or helpful inclusion on the article, especially because it doesn't explain how aspects of the film could have influenced Loughner. I wonder if instead, inside the section of proposed negative influences/criticisms of Zeitgeist and this can be just one tiny point. Calling it "Influence" is a bit manipulative, because this one example doesn't categorize the whole influence of the film and to imply so is clearly OR. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's too long, and it's also not very clear. I had never heard of this person before and the article didn't do a good job of explaining why he was supposed to be notable or relevant. I also agree "Influence" is misleading. Popcornduff (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The reason you may not have heard of the person is unknown. He was a huge media blitz for a while for shooting a bunch of people. also not sure if the latest comment read the section. Influence was written out of the heading a few weeks ago so not really relevant to the discussion now. The whole area in question was rewritten several weeks ago and is different from the request for comment era of the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
"The reason you may not have heard of the person is unknown. He was a huge media blitz for a while for shooting a bunch of people." Doesn't matter. I should be able to read this article with no prior knowledge of the person and see why this information is relevant. (And yes, I did read the section.) For example, the first sentence of the section is "Jared Lee Loughner was described in news accounts as "obsessed" with the Zeitgeist film." To which the unenlightened reader responds: "Who the hell is Jared Lee Loughner and why is that important?" Popcornduff (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
As said the average English speaker probably would recognize that name in relation to a spree killer, something popular in the U.S. It was a big ticket news item for a while and it appears that there is a connection according to the big probably dumb news groups that he was somehow influenced by the film of which others call a conspiracy cult film. Look at the section from a month or so ago for a reference point of change though. Jared has his own article also if people are not sure about who he is and why he seems connected to this 'movie' about conspiracy things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Wikipedia articles can't assume knowledge about its readers. Perhaps this person is famous in the US, but I don't live in the US, and neither does most of the world population. What's more, I'm sure there are people in the US who don't know who the person is. I shouldn't have to click on the link to the guy's article to understand why he's relevant to the subject matter. Popcornduff (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
So what are you saying? That you read my comment? Just repeating what you said before though without useful ideas is not constructive. Its been rewritten. Did you see that? For your information almost the whole world lives in the U.S. also or you think otherwise. What has that got to do with anything/ I think the RFC expired a while back. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Forget about the RFC. You and I are now having a (bizarre) conversation about a different issue: whether the section currently makes it sufficiently clear why this person is relevant. It hasn't been rewritten to address that.
"For your information almost the whole world lives in the U.S. also or you think otherwise." ???? I have no idea what this means or how to respond to it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Look. I wrote that to let you know that when you write something like What's more, I'm sure there are people in the US who don't know who the person is. end quote, that others are equally adept at writing things that do not make sense also like what I wrote. It was just a reflection of your non starter way of making a point which is weird rhetoric. For instance that not everyone lives in the U.S.- Can you see where that is not the kind of comment that goes anywhere or does anything in this discussion? Just a rhetoric question, no need to reply. Any suggestion of improving the article? Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion of improving the article. Again. Rewrite the section about Jared Lee Loughner so it's clear to all readers who Loughner is and why he's relevant to the subject matter.Popcornduff (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Its pretty clear who he is and what he did and where his influence came from. I am not living in the U.S. either, but that is not criteria of looking at the citations. I added more information and subtracted a lot, because probably the section carried on too much about Peter Josephs reaction to the news reports. Also added the Alex Jones stuff which is important. The article had nothing on Jones previously and now the conspiracy angle and the Jared angle might be more clear . The first movie was made up of clips partly from A. Jones media things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Your arguments are aggressive and very difficult to follow. I sense that English might not be your first language?
I've copy-edited the section to try to make Loughner's relevance more clear. I now don't understand why this and Jones are in the same section. Popcornduff (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you do not understand American culture. Most people there believe that angels are real. Many believe that the moon shot was faked. Many believe that the Jews control the inner actions of the banking system, etc. etc.. Alex Jones is a king of conspiracy stuff. The movie is a conspiracy idea based movie, Zeitgeist is, that borrowed footage from Jones media. Jared believed in all that stuff of international conspiracy. Apparently, according to news reports on him being highly energized in a negative way he struck out at a politician especially Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor keeps removing references to cited material 'One world government' or New world order references. Zeitgeist the movie is referring to a conspiracy of people involved in just that. The first 45 minutes of it explain in detail why Christianity is a sham and Jesus Christ is not the messiah. Besides some not-well-documented dabbling into astrology, it's fairly well argued and revolves around commonly known facts: Many early religions had messianic stories involving virgin births, crucifixions, celebrations on December 25th, etc. The second part of Zeitgeist is devoted to 9/11 Truth, and it's probably the most clearly stated case I've seen, in part because of its brevity; it covers the "facts" as concisely as possible. The third part of Zeitgeist lost me entirely—it's a screed about how everything has always been a part of a master plan to create a New World Order, and the film's emotional climax involves a documentary filmmaker befriending a loose-lipped Rockefeller family member who blurts out the events of 9/11... nearly one year before they happened! end quote from citation . Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is you are adding this to the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the article based on the reliable sources in the article body. Only one reliable source provided actually references the term New World Order and the movie itself never uses the term.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 17:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
One reliable source is enough for anything and the movie is not reliable in and of itself for mentioning New World Order or not, especially since most sources say the movie is written in right wing anti Semitic code language to appeal to unknowing left wingers. I know you were topic banned previously from Truth-er articles and 911 things and broke your topic ban twice and were further blocked T.D.A. so why are you continuing to remove information that is sourced from this article? Maybe only a further topic ban can prevent you from your edit war on Zeitgeist information which is ongoing? Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
A single reliable source making a single mention of a term is not enough to warrant including the term in the lede of the article. The version of the lede you keep undoing does mention their claims of a conspiracy to institute a one-world government, it just does not include the phrase New World Order because it isn't commonly mentioned in reliable sources discussing the film. Not being discussed in the film itself only reinforces that it does not belong in the lede. Both versions of the article note Constant's use of the term to describe the film's ideas. Your specific edit actually claims the film says New World Order forces were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, when the film only really implicates elements of the U.S. government as verified by multiple reliable sources. You and MONGO are also reverting my clean-up of the reference section as well because neither you are apparently willing to do the small amount of work required to restore the version of the lede you want without undoing completely appropriate edits.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 07:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Doubtful. You did not address the issues of your being blocked on this type of article previously for doing exactly what you are doing now, tendentious editing and warring over cited information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think I got all the clean-up of the reference section in after MONGO's hasty revert, so there is only the material in the lede at issue now, providing MONGO doesn't go and revert again. Here are the issues with your edits Eark:
The Third Estate is not a reliable source and should not be provided here. It appears to be a blog run by three people, only one of whom is stated to be a professional journalist. What is cited is a piece marked as a "guest post" with no further mention of authorship.
News One is being cited here for several details in the current lede. The problem is the piece is loaded with grammatical errors and makes some factually inaccurate statements. Seems rather obvious there was either no editorial review of the piece or it was so lacking that it cannot possibly be taken as sufficient to make the piece a reliable source. On his LinkedIn page the author gives his title as "lead blogger" and we see no other evidence of writing experience. Many of the details backed by this source are present in no reliable source and include some of the inaccurate statements from the piece.
Constant is being cited for the statement that 9/11 was "pre-arranged by New World Order forces", but he never actually says this is in the article. In fact, he devotes a total of three paragraphs to the movie in total, but is being cited more than any other source. His quotes already appear in two parts of the article, yet Earl wants to include one of those quotes in the lede as well. This is seriously giving Constant undue weight and it appears in this case to be because he is the only reliable source to bring up the New World Order idea in connection with the movie.
Earl's editing on this article is showing no real respect for our sourcing or neutrality policies. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article based on reliable sources. It is not a place to fill up with whatever claims you think are valid.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts. Those sources have been in the article for years. They have already undergone scrutiny. There is a notice board for sources if you care to bring your ideas there, but right now it is just a case of your making revisions against consensus. Your history of edit warring on 'conspiracy' related things does not bode well for the article under your edits. Earl King Jr. (talk)!
You added The Third Estate and News One just a few days ago. They were not used in the article prior to that. Constant was used already, but my concern there is you misrepresenting the source and giving his article undue emphasis in the lede.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 02:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Almost all the critical sources say the same thing. A group of people, one world government people, NWO people according to the movie, want to implant a chip in you and turn you into a kind of zombie for the bankers. They want it world wide and they have been working on it for decades and decades? Maybe watch the movie sometime and see for yourself just to have some kind of reference point for your edits. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not denying that Zeitgeist talks about elite forces plotting to institute a one world government and tried to include that in the lede, but the term "New World Order" is never used in the film and the only reliable source making mention of this specific term is Constant. You are using that one reliable source's three paragraphs on Zeitgeist and another horrifically unreliable two-paragraph piece to shove that particular term into the lede as many times as possible. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and, by extension, a summary of the reliable sources. No summary demands repeated use of the term "New World Order" as only one reliable source even uses that term.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 21:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it can be prominent in the lead because that is what the movie is about and a cursory search finds references to that as one of the main stepping stones of the movies brisk walk down conspiracy lane. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That source states its theories "show a certain closeness" to New World Order conspiracy theories rather than saying it is about that and this in a work that devotes a single paragraph to the film. It is still a reliable source, so I guess that is two. Still not enough to warrant mentioning in the lede.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 06:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This film says nothing about NWO and any connections drawn are done artificially by the viewer.SweetGirlLove (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What former user are you a sock for S.G.L.? I assume it was the last one that was blocked from editing fairly recently. About your comment it does not matter what the film says except explaining the story line. Maybe you do not understand that it is what reliable sources say that counts, so your comment is a non-starter. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of Alex Jones and did you know that most of the Zeitgeist movie is based on his interpretation of the New World Order??? and also that reliable sources point out that one world government and new world order are the same thing? Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Because the film clips the movie uses are mostly Loose Change Alex Jones types of things that make claims of that kind of thing. Chips implanted. Secret, not so secret, special interest groups. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the film has maybe 2 clips of alex jones and maybe 5 of Loose Change with 40-50 clips of many other films and sources. At no time is "New World Order" ever talked about. This is one massive POV insertion that has no basis in anything. SweetGirlLove (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that you are a member of the movement S.G.L. that has edited here in many guises in the more recently blocked group of socks and meat puppets that tried to highjack the articles to sound like the Zeitgeist Faq's page. The movie can not be presented as story line by Peter Joseph, if you know what I mean. Some sources say it is a cult of people that are involved and it seems a few of the members, like yourself feel obligated to come to preach. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)