Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Picture

Image:Zeitgest-intro.jpg seems inappropriate. First of all, the event the image depicts is never mentioned in the article — the image is not particularly important to the movie at all. This wouldn't be a problem, but this image is non-free. Non-free images require to be used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. That means that this image must depict something about the movie that we could not depict using text or some other material. Currently, it has no significance to the article, nor am I convinced that a picture of a sad Muslim child is something which "signifigantly increases" understanding of the film. Consequently, I'm removing the image — Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and this image does not meet our content requirements. --Haemo (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The movie employs many similar images, throughout the beginning and later on, to set an emotional tone. As a representation, it is rather difficult to encapsulate in text, and applies as a non-free candidate. I am restoring the image while this discussion is ongoing, since your side of the argument has the advantage of that it gets deleted as soon as it becomes orphaned. El_C 06:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thus, as for the emotional (as opposed to the more textually-encapsulated intellectual) tone, it isn't a random selection. Although it may seem arbitrary to you (and I realize that eventually, it will be deleted because this Bosnian girl will be mistaken for an Iraqi and therefore US-centric political forces are likely to come to your aid, now or later), most of the other images used by the movie in the segments where it protests through images (and the movie is, largely, a protest, an agitprop), were simply too graphic. El_C 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
But it's not discussed anywhere in the article? How does a picture of sad girl add anything to the article? The article, nor any reliable sources make mention of this use of images in this context, so how is it relevant? Is there something about this particular images which we could not describe in text? What is the "emotional tone" it tries to convey — who says it has this emotional tone? You? To put it another way, could someone who is reading this article understand what that image means, and why it is included? Right now, no, they can't. Can you change the article to fix this problem without engaging in original research about how the film uses images? I'm not sure, but unless you can this is still inappropriate. --Haemo (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't demand a reliable source for every image we use, that request betrays, I think, the real, sanitizing thrust behind your effort. From the first few seconds, the movie bombards the viewer with brutal war-torn images (and then later, throughout the movie), I am not making this up. There is nothing original about this fact; an introduction alone is key to any narrative's emphases. El_C 08:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're arguing that the image is significant because of a particular artistic technique used in the film, then you'd better have a reliable source for that artistic technique. Otherwise, yes, it is original research and inappropriate. --Haemo (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What I'm arguing is that we have some editorial freedom in the image depiction, as per the above considerations, we are not drones. The No Original Research policy was not designed to be used so rigidly (I should know, I helped to write it). El_C 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"Editorial freedom" is not the same as making your own judgments about what techniques a film uses, or what are the most important artistic components of a film — editorial freedom is the discretion to choose between different options which are all supported. Here, you are arguing for an image based on a significance which has not been established by any reliable sources. If I was arguing that the blackness following the title screen of Memoirs of Geisha should be included as an image in the article, because it's an important artistic feature of the film, then I'd better have a reliable source for that — otherwise I'm just performing my own research as to what parts of an artistic work are the most important, or relevant. --Haemo (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, linking to the reliable sources guideline once (or more) per comment is not advancing your argument. Now, I have not seen Memoirs of Geisha to know what you're referring to (so as to place it in any sort of a context, whatsoever), but regardless, I reiterate that the image is representative of the intro., at least. There's nothing special about it (I simply chose one that was not as graphic as most of the others), but the overall succession of images, as an artistic device: "While I began my viewing, I was applaud by the absolute invasion of image after image of violence and grotesque bloodshed. Following these exhaustively disturbing images came dialog." [1] El_C 08:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This looks good now; perhaps we could tie the image tighter to this quote to demonstrate how it was used in a review? --Haemo (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

with regards to this edit, which was then reverted, I just want to point out that it wasn't me, you can check the IP address. I saw the change and I then tried to re-establish the NPOV, though evidently it wasn't enough. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed; it was just better to revert the wording entirely. We should stick with what reliable sources say, rather than trying to toe the line with indescisive phrasing like "facts and theories" (isn't that either wrong, or everything?). --Haemo (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, we should stick to the reliable sources. However, to only say conspiracy theory I think it does not reflect the NPOV, we should take a different approach. From an objective POV the film presents true facts and then goes on with disputable theories based on those real facts. I feel like the current version does not really meet the criteria of Wikipedia, I suggest we find together a solution. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that "facts and theories" can be a bit misleading; "facts" are not universally believed to be "facts" and likewise for theories. --Haemo (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

I just wanted to point out that the two cited criticisms come from 1 - (Kessinger, Taylor. (January 28, 2008) Arizona Daily Wildcat Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic ) An article in a college paper written by junior in college. 2 - (Irish Times (August 25, 2007) Zeitgeist: the nonsense Section: Weekend; page 16.) The Irish Times? REALLY? And the link sends you to a 1 sentence snip, and you cannot access the rest of the paper unless you subscribe. I think there must be some more legitimate criticisms out there. Niubrad (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As the author of the aforementioned college newspaper column, I wholeheartedly agree. Surely you guys can find some more interesting and noteworthy examples of criticism than me.Egendomligt (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, the film is so obviously misleading and worthless that not many journalists have bothered to even comment on it. Pdelongchamp (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a college newspaper column seems like a very poor source. To be sure there are more professional sources that offer this standard angle of criticism than an Opinion Piece from a journalism student. We did not give articles from such sources any weight in the notability arguments of six months ago, so why now should we be including student journalism in the entry? Also, the use of the word "bullshit", in my judgement, signals a departure from the factual, neutral tone in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.213.45.125 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Can a criticism be that Jesus wasn't even born on the 25th of December? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.61.26 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully agreed and removing the criticism of The Irish Times. It's a non-accessible resource and cannot be used as reference. ~~MaxGrin (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely no requirement that a reference be freely available online, and the Irish times source was actually one of the references used to establish the notability the finally overturned the original deletion of this page, read by and commented on by dozens of editors. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Read reliable sourcing guidelines. Not everything has to be available at the click of a mouse. If you want to read it, go to a library with a subscription and look it up. There's no difference here between this column, or any book, newspaper, article, or magazine not online. All are acceptable. -Haemo (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, the article has been (probably illegally) copied and pasted elsewhere on the internet. If you google the article name along with the quote you should be able to easily find it. Pdelongchamp (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, but in other articles, you don't see the word "bullshit" under criticism. Please clean the whole criticism bit up. It isn't neutral, professional, appropriate, and some of it isn't relevent. It hinders the flow of the article, and frankly, it doesn't do its job very well. "Bullshit" isn't relevent. If you wanted it to be up to quality standards, an unbiased person would probably just mention that the movie is accused of using scare tactics, poor documentary skill, voice-overs, and information that is not readily verifiable. And THEN cite it by whoever made the mention. Please quit squabbling and clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.22.97 (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a criticism of the movie by Jay Kinney at boingboing.net. If the Arizona Daily Wildcat and the Irish Times are questionable, someone of Kinney's stature is certainly a "more" credible source. There is also a crtique of the film by S. Corey Thomas that is mostly critical; it's available here and also here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.54.31 (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the first section, the film's assertions that many sun gods follow the same general life pattern as Jesus has highly shaky underpinnings. Dionysus is listed as a deity copied by Jesus, even though the two have very little in common. The long string of deities listed later contains many deities whose very existence is unsubstantiated. Horus, in particular, has met with significant scrutiny, and efforts to find primary sources for even the basic assertions about his life have been fruitless. These efforts deserve mention in the Criticism section of this article. In re the WW comment, please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words before deleting on those grounds. While I did use weasel words, they were sourced, which is explicitly acceptable in the banner of that page. At worst, it is a grounds for editing, not deletion. What's up for debate is the reliability of the source, and the blog source is no less reliable a source than the film itself. That blogger justifies his claims by using a checkable primary source to point out that these assertions about Horus' life do not appear in the Book of the Dead. The filmmaker relies on an obscure 19th century self-taught Egyptologist who has received little scholarly treatment. The onus is on the filmmaker to prove that, for example, Horus had 12 disciples. Citation-wise, the blogger does a much better job than the filmmaker of making his point, and anyone who has written a college-level research paper should see that. Using Wikipedia:Reliable_sources' terms, we need a source that is

 1: Reliable
 2: Third-Party
 3: Published
 4: A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

The film itself passes only 2 and 3. The film's main sources pass only 2, and in some cases 3, albeit not on the same level as what's typically thought of as "published." Most of these sources would not pass for scholarly publishing, for example. The blog source passes 2, and by reading the entries and checking his primary sources, you can see that despite his lack of reputation, he has fact-checked and is accurate. Why should the critics of the film be held to a higher standard than the film itself? It's important to remember that this is an article about a feature-length PowerPoint video. Given the Youtube-like nature of the film, the standards for further sources should be relaxed. I invite those who disagree to do so here, and not in an edit war. The-Postman (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to take that blog, turn it into a Power Point, and post it to YouTube, would it be an acceptable source then? The-Postman (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As is mentioned far below, the blog is very plainly not a reliable source. It is self published, and authored by a user using a pseudonym (i.e., we have no idea who he is). Thus, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being considered a reliable source. Further, he doesn't mention Zeitgeist, and so this source simply has no place being used in this article. The purpose of this article is to report what the movie is, and what reliable sources have said about it. This article is not for dissecting claims made within the movie. Doing so with sources that have nothing to do with the movie is a classic example of original synthesis (John says A. Bob says that A is wrong. Therefore, John is wrong.) Put it in powerpoint and you haven't changed anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The movie is available as three separate parts for those who are interested in only one part...

I have added this information to the article, but it has been removed. Here it is for anyone who is interested or has the motivation to maintain it in the face of the vandalism: Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told[1]

Part II: All the World's a Stage[2]

Part III: Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain[3]

I'll try to add them again in a few days. Dscotese (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't add it to the headings per WP:MOS. Add it to the external links, after the first link. Like this: Part I. --Haemo (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed the comparative to Creationists simply because the article listed a number of things that supposedly use those same tactics, so it seems unfair to single one out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimahero (talkcontribs) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For Criticisms - Shouldn't a portion be included that discusses those who have noted some of the false analogies and claims made by the movie? For example, there is a portion of the movie that tries to draw an analogy between Jesus birth on December 25th, and other religions, although the Bible never states that Jesus was born on December 25th, and most all Christian religions admit that he was not born on December 25th? I once saw a page that discusses all of the false analogies that Zeitgeist has. The gist was that it thereby reaches false conclusions because of a faulty logic table. I'll have to research it again. Airelon (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a criticism section, and if you know of a good source of criticism, feel free. However, as most people seeking to add criticism to this article have found out, the vast majority of websites do not qualify as reliable sources, and any content from them will be removed on sight. Sticking to major newspapers/magazines is always safe, but blogs and other websites maintained by private individuals aren't usually good sources of information as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You can also post any links you find right onto this talk page so we can tell you if it's a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Article expansion

Hi, I've been expanding this article, which seemed pretty poor to me. I tried to follow every Wikipedia policy I could think of, by respecting the NPOV, citing the sources, no copyrighted material and so on... if I make any mistake please let me know. :) 4v4l0n42 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question regarding this edit: if I say that topping the Google video charts is "international acclaim" is it considered Original Research, violating Wikipedia's policies? 4v4l0n42 (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To acclaim a movie is to applaud or praise it, so you are assuming something about the millions who viewed the movie, and that assumption is original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You've also added a bunch of source to support claims like "The movies say X", but the sources you've provided do not support this claim; rather, they support X. If you're writing a plot summary, you don't need to try and cite arguments the film makes — that's for the film-makers to do. --Haemo (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the hints. :) 4v4l0n42 (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed sections

The following unsourced paragraph was removed. Please reinclude with a source.

I also removed the following section that doesn't assert it's notability.

Pdelongchamp (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section for a few reasons. First, it is a text-book example of weasel wording ("Some argue"? Who are these people?). Secondly, the source listed is a blog, which does not mention the movie and in fact predates the movie. Using this as a source is a novel synthesis of source material. Please stick to sources that specifically criticize the movie. --Phirazo 19:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The author of the blog is also using a pseudonym only, so it has absolutely no chance of being a reliable source in any event. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the first section, the film's assertions that many sun gods follow the same general life pattern as Jesus has highly shaky underpinnings. Dionysus is listed as a deity copied by Jesus, even though the two have very little in common. The long string of deities listed later contains many deities whose very existence is unsubstantiated. Horus, in particular, has met with significant scrutiny, and efforts to find primary sources for even the basic assertions about his life have been fruitless. These efforts deserve mention in the Criticism section of this article. In re the WW comment, please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words before deleting on those grounds. While I did use weasel words, they were sourced, which is explicitly acceptable in the banner of that page. At worst, it is a grounds for editing, not deletion. What's up for debate is the reliability of the source, and the blog source is no less reliable a source than the film itself. That blogger justifies his claims by using a checkable primary source to point out that these assertions about Horus' life do not appear in the Book of the Dead. The filmmaker relies on an obscure 19th century self-taught Egyptologist who has received little scholarly treatment. The onus is on the filmmaker to prove that, for example, Horus had 12 disciples. Citation-wise, the blogger does a much better job than the filmmaker of making his point, and anyone who has written a college-level research paper should see that. Using Wikipedia:Reliable_sources' terms, we need a source that is

 1: Reliable
 2: Third-Party
 3: Published
 4: A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

The film itself passes only 2 and 3. The film's main sources pass only 2, and in some cases 3, albeit not on the same level as what's typically thought of as "published." Most of these sources would not pass for scholarly publishing, for example. The blog source passes 2, and by reading the entries and checking his primary sources, you can see that despite his lack of reputation, he has fact-checked and is accurate. Why should the critics of the film be held to a higher standard than the film itself? It's important to remember that this is an article about a feature-length PowerPoint video. Given the Youtube-like nature of the film, the standards for further sources should be relaxed. I invite those who disagree to do so here, and not in an edit war. The-Postman (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If I were to take that blog, turn it into a Power Point, and post it to YouTube, would it be an acceptable source then? The-Postman (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE it is perfectly acceptable to use the primary source material to describe the claims of fringe theories. It is not the format that is the problem, it is the source of the information, so simply placing something on YouTube does not make it more reliable. The criticism section should not be bogged down with every Tom, Dick, and Harry's original research. --Phirazo 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Sentence

"It has faced heavy criticism for not having cited sources and when asked about its sources the film makers simply attack on a personal level."

Given that this statement isn't cited and that the movie's website has quite a long list of sources cited, I'm removing this until someone can verify it. Zelbinian (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That appears on the very section of Questions and Answers of the official site for the movie:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm

They criticise their critics for things like:

" They projected their own subjective interpretation of a piece of information by using "semantic manipulation".

If you read the full section of their Questions and Answers, I find a few ad hominem fallacies. However, it's up to you to decide.

What I would write is that the authors (in the same Questions and Answer page) deny the validity of traditional sources, and claim that their documentary can only be criticised by investigating their sources:

"Based on what I have seen, 95% of all "debunkers" who claim the information in Part 1 is unfounded have never opened anything other than the Bible and an Encyclopedia. 10,000 yrs of religious history is not going to be represented in any Encyclopedia beyond the most superficial assessments. (For instance, Horus had many permutations during the thousands of years he was portrayed, as opposed to the singular definitions one would find in an Encyclopedia) The other 5% have blindly read Establishment, Apologist literature on the Internet and nothing more. I have yet to be contacted by a single person who has, for example, read the total works of Egyptologist Gerald Massey or Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge on the subject and can argue any specific point."

I think this paragraph disregards any sources that aren't their very own. If you can only use their own sources for them to accept criticism, no criticism is possible. I don't know if this should be included in the article, though.

Sparrowhawke 17:15, 22 April 2008 (GTM+1)

Chögyam Trungpa

Does anyone know where/when the opening speech is from or where I might be able to find it? Preferably not linked to this video. I finf the sound editing effects and visual effects are annoying and detract from the true power of Chögyam Trungpa's words. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.82.237 (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Another removed section

Yeah, there are plenty of sources, but the authors are all "some blogger" or "some guy on the Internet". Please stick to reliable sources. --Phirazo 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

refs
  1. ^ Zeitgeist(2007) Part I
  2. ^ Zeitgeist(2007) Part II
  3. ^ Zeitgeist(2007), Part III
  4. ^ Z-Day at the official movie website.
  5. ^ http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm
  6. ^ http://www.consider.org/News/2007/12.html
  7. ^ http://www.consider.org/News/2007/13.html
  8. ^ http://www.consider.org/News/2007/14.html
  9. ^ http://zeitgeistchallenge.com/
  10. ^ http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info/
  11. ^ http://www.xanga.com/JB_Fidei_Defensor/638110989/zeitgeist-rebuttal-speech.html
  12. ^ http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeitgeistpartone.shtml

criticism march 27

For what it's worth...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a press release. --Haemo (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The website in question will release any body's "press release" if they come up with enough money. --Phirazo 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary

In response to El C: Considering the film is not very notable and that it is available to watch free online, there isn't much value in having a long summary. Encyclopedias help to understand a film's context. If the reader wants to know what the film is about, they can view the film itself. Since the film's only notable coverage is in the form of criticism, the majority of the article shouldn't consist of a plot summary. The article should consist mostly of the film's context which, in this case, is criticism. If there are any additional plot details you feel would help the reader better understand the context/criticism, I would love to discuss a compromise. As it is, I feel my shortened version does a good job of properly explaining the major plot items without going into too much detail for each item. Pdelongchamp (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In the intro, you remove mention of the person who made the speech and the Maxwell quotation — how does that help? I think readers might be interested in this detail. In the next section, you remove the emphasis about Horus, which leads the reader to useful links (you're arguing the film is misleading; well, then those links help). Next, you remove the bit about banks consolidation and the one about the Federal Reserve, which the film placed an important emphasis on. Finally, you remove the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and other entities, which, according to the film, form the mechanics of the drive toward One World Order. Again, I argue that all these are useful to the reader and, as per the Film guide, shortening to this or that size is not mandated if "there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot." That as per the portions whose removal I take exception to. I also am hoping Pdelongchamp will follow WP:RBI WP:BRD (i.e. his new changes were reverted, he should have waited to discuss, rather than instantly revert). So, I am restoring the selected parts. El_C 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I, however, note that many of the changes were useful and I kept those ones that I felt enhanced the article. El_C 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for working with me on this. I can agree with your changes and reasoning. Pdelongchamp (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A pleasure. Sorry again for WP:RBIWP:BRD confusion on my part. Regards, El_C 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

References


Adding part I quote

In January I asked what people thought about a quote I wanted to add to "Part I" of the article. Since it's been 3 months and no one has said that it is a bad idea, I am going to add this quote to the article. The narrator says this quote at 35 minutes into the film.


I originally added the quote back in January, and it was removed 1.5 hours later by Hemlock Martinis who said (The summary is sufficient.\). I later found from Hemlock Martinis that they were not aware that I had been part of a discussion on "Part I" of the article because after the discussion was over it was mistakenly deleted (in this edit) from the talk page by an anonymous user who had been a part of the conversation, without being archived. (Please see the discussion from January about this quote in the archive of this talk page. Skip down to the bottom the the Missing the point section and start reading where it says "VegKilla is reopening the discussion:")

In the last 3 months, no one (including Hemlock Martinis) has said that adding the quote is a bad idea, as far as I am aware.


Please let me know what you think about the quote.

Thanks, VegKilla (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikia

The article seems to be ranking rather high in Wikia, where it went after it was deemed an unnotable topic by wikipedia: wikia most visited 213.211.166.102 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Declassified documents (new primary sources)

I wonder about those criticism on the movie that call it an "internet idiocy" among other things. Recent declassified documents provide evidence that such motives (presented by the movie) are not "unthinkable" but actually have been well thought out. There is a summary and bibliography of such declassified documents. Maybe this might be a section as "criticism against the critics" when/if news creates secondary sources on these documents. — Dzonatas 16:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope; that would be synthesis/OR. The documents are not about the film. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can elaborate your claim. The bibliography points to administrative documents, which aren't considered original research. — Dzonatas 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The source you listed doesn't mention the film. Using it in the article would be synthesis. Read the policy. Pdelongchamp (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be pretty odd for those declassified documents to mention a movie that was created after the events for which both the movie and the documents do related about. The declassified documents were not synthesized for the movie, unless you want to prove a conspiracy on the synthesis (very odd). It is perfectly valid to use the documents to relate to the same historical events to further verify the what happened, but the use of primary source in such a was is not ideal for wikipedia. Since it is not ideal, that is why I left it here on the talk page if someone wants to research it more to find ideal references. — Dzonatas 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

How exactly is mentioning the sequel, with a link to the official website, link spam? Or for that matter, non-notable? I think that merely mentioning the sequel is just fine, there's no valid reason to remove it. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Because all it is doing is advertising the alleged sequel. The subject of an article is not a reliable source for neutral coverage of their own actions. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see how it's "advertising", any more than it is simply informing the viewer that a sequel is in the works. It's no different really than Peter Jackson announcing he's making a film for The Hobbit, and another sequel for that. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless a Reliable Source mentions it, it isn't notable enough to be in an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't Zeitgeist's personal bulletin board. Only reinsert if it gets mentioned by a reliable source. Pdelongchamp (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh no, Pdelongchamp. This is directly relevant to the movie. Sequels are standard encyclopedic information. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But we still need verification from a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
See SELFPUBLISHED. The company itself is a reliable source for this type of information. Do you want me to do a RfC? ImpIn | (t - c) 11:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If their website claims a sequel is in the works, then that should be sufficient to state that simple fact. We generally accept self-published material as sources of non-controversial information about the author/organization. Gamaliel (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I went through a lot to write the article and get the topic unsalted. The film itself is *barely* notable. The sequel is certainly not notable. From SELFPUBLISHED "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable(...). However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." In this case, let's compromise and wait until a third party reliable source mentions the sequel. I think that's a good compromise considering the original film has so few reliable sources showing notability. Pdelongchamp (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not really a compromise since it's what you've wanted to do all along. Just saying. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
True. Perhaps I should have said "I think that's a reasonable thing to do." Considering the fact that the film itself isn't very notable and the article already seems like promotional material for the director, mentioning the sequel without using a single reliable source is *certainly* promotional material for the director. If this sequel is *truly* notable, then a reliable source should appear in a matter of days right? Can we agree to wait for that? If a reliable source doesn't appear, then I think we can all agree that the sequel isn't notable and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Pdelongchamp (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
But notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. The guidelines tell us what is suitable for a stand-alone article, but they don't limit what we can put in it. I don't see any harm in mentioning a sequel, since it certainly is directly relevant. We can put a qualifier like "so and so claims a sequel is in the works". I would also say that it doesn't need its own section either. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
But content must be verifiable and reliably sourced. I came up with a compromise. Until it's mentioned by a reliable source, can we agree to leave it as is? Please see the article for my changes. Pdelongchamp (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. That's exactly what I had in mind. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well, as long as there is some mention of the sequel, I am content. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I have modified the notes because they could give the impression that they were personal commentary, now it is clear that they are instead pertinent further informations on the subject with more internal links as suggested by user Someguy1221:

1. ^ This is observable at late evening in south-east direction or more easily with a computer running sky simulation programs.

2. ^ The ancient Romans already celebrated the Sol invictus on the 25th of December long before the influence of christian Jews spread across the empire.

3. ^ This is still observable in the north hemisphere till latitudes of about 20 degrees (e.g. from Mecca). Indeed the Cross is not only a dual symbol of many countries in the southern hemisphere but also of Malta, where it was observable for thousand of years till the end of the middle ages.

4. ^ Just like a month is the twelfth part of the year, an era is 2147 years long and the twelfth part of a Great year (25765 ys)

5. ^ Moses himself has been respresented with ram horns for centuries; an interpretation of the two ram horn as being a ray of light does not consider that they are two horns not one and refers to a private homepage in turn referring to a webpage in a forum which is not retrivable anymore

This is my third try for an agreement, I hope to reach a consensus on it. Shall some content need a last correction, I hope a fair discussion can take place here. (--Bougainville (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

NPOV and reliable sources

In the section criticism there are two problems:

1) there are only sources severely criticizing the documentary, no fair and analytical critique, resulting in non neutral point of view.

2) no single reported source is reliable (after the wikipedia definition: trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand): no physicists, no civil engineers, no history professors, no not-biased (not working for the USA?) jurists, no not-biased (not US-American? Not NATO?) military experts, in particular no air force experts, no economics-professors, no sociology-professors, …

There is no analytical critique explaining the astronomical, historical, political, social and economical message that can be read (first part) or seen in this documentary. A critique does not mean to rail against something but as neutral as possible to analyze the contents, implications on direct and indirect levels, the direct and indirect messages of a work. Moreover classical propaganda techniques of politicians and mainstream media are being used (e.g. name-calling).

We have Mr.Constant, editing for an alternative newspaper called “The stranger”, saying that the documentary be “based solely on anecdotal evidence”.

We have Mr. Frauenfelder, editing and drawing for a magazine called “Boing boing”, Mr.Tossell, editing for a mainstream-newspaper called “The globe and mail”(whose linked article is not accessible, and who’s after the wikipedia article neither senior editor nor staff columnist of his newspaper, despite this not being relevant for authoritativeness on mentioned subjects) and Mr.Jordyn, editing for a campus tabloid called “Gauntlet” all three reported of criticizing the documentary “for using unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and book citations without page numbers”.

Well while it is mortifying to discuss about the “analysis” journalists can make of such subjects, Mr. Jordyn at least reports his one: of the first part (religion) he mainly laments that the documentary be “presenting something in such a shallow manner without further corroboration or scholarly evidence”, although firstly the reference list is in the website and the sources can be retrieved in the own city or university library and secondly although it is impossible to work out the huge amount of concerned facts within 20 minutes nor a professor could really explain all details within a single lesson, it’s just clear that the documentary is only intended to be as a thought-provoking impulse; about the second part he laments “an amalgamation of many different 9/11 Truth Movement films like Loose Change and the Alex Jones Prison Planet series” insinuating, that those films were unreliable, as if a campus editor could prove the unreliability of such sources, and criticizes the "circular method of research", as if recursive references were no references. They do in every scientific field. That's research. About the third part (bank system) he comments “the idea that bankers are controlling the world” complaining “that the quotes seemingly have no sources to them outside of a list of books”; it’s not a coincidence that he writes "seemingly"; western financial system is still the old one where States are in debt with private central banks, most big corporations or small companies and many citizens are being persuaded that they should apply for bank credits. And who is providing the money other than the banks? Doesn’t everybody know, that private central banks create money and are said to destroy it in order to control money inflation and exchange rate. If they really did, there would have never been any currency speculations. And where is the evidence that they would control the inflationary process? About the film's viewers he also states that “many have blindly followed the documentary without doing their own research"; either he is omniscient or such a statement needs no comments. He also writes about "deceptive filmmaking" referring to a film transition, which is not in the final edition of the documentary. Of the following “sources” the first, a newspaper called “The Arizona wild cat” is not worth to be mentioned not even fulfilling basic net etiquette, the second being an article in a mainstream newspaper called “Irish times” is not even free accessible.

This section does therefore neither fulfil the policy on the neutral point of view (NPOV) nor the policy on reliable sources. --Bougainville (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bougainville (talkcontribs) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstand the concept of neutral point of view. It is not up to us to decide what a neutral criticism of the movie is; reporting all significant opinions of reliable sources is necessarily neutral. Further, per parity of sources there is no requirement for the critics to be academic experts in the specific subjects the movie covers, as the movie itself is a fringe work and so is not itself a reliable source on those subjects. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. NPOV says that if there is significant positive feedback and negative feedback we must report both. However, if there is only significant negative feedback and no positive feedback it would violate NPOV to create our own positive feedback in order to create a fabricated "neutral" point of view.Pdelongchamp (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

After wikipedia an article is written from a neutral point of view if it “represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources“. So if an editor does not recognize what a “neutral criticism is”, he cannot write a section about criticism, because the npov is a fundamental principle of this lexicon. It is indeed up to the editor to have a feeling for a npov. And if he cannot recognize the npov, other editors after him will integrate the passage so that a npov is restored. In the section Criticism in this article none of the prerequisites for npov are fulfilled because

1) it is not a critique at all, because it just reports comments, gossip, no deep analysis

2) it is not a fair representation, because it only reports negative comments. It’s not an “analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate”

3) the comments reported are not even significant, because the enormous success of the film is a fact documented by the reported sources themselves and therefore a positive or at least neutral analytical criticism would be a significant view.

4) the reported sources are not reliable

a) because they are all journalistic commentaries and therefore they have no reliable peer-reviewed publication process: information mainstream media authors are paid to present only those facts suiting and never in contrast with the publisher's and owner's opinion and interests. It is a plain economic principle that mainstream media information cannot be but biased. Information media are not honorary offices, they are business. They are not reliable as an unbiased source for any controversial topic. So reporting comments of mainstream media for the critique to a controversial topic as those of this documentary is just as reliable as reporting the homepage of a fanatic creationist sect explaining the existence of dinosaurs.

b) and because their authors are not “generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.” :

b1) firstly being the subjects of this documentary way too many for a single person to provide a well founded critique for all of them.

b2) secondly being the subjects at the hand of such a nature, for which newspapers, television news or suchlike are not considered the reliable sources for proper information about them; journalistic comments cannot be reported as reliable unbiased sources for a critique about a documentary on astronomy, religion mystifications, political propaganda, …less than ever about misinformation which is the main subject of the documentary. Journalists are not authoritative sources in relation to those subjects, not at all about misinformation. The reported journalistic sources of this article section also do not distinguish themselves for “fairness of tone”. For instance a review or a critique about a document explaining the effect of earth axis precession on the climate is of little value if provided by a gossip magazine: a physicist is needed in that case and similarly it is mostly scientists or students of science who write articles about physics or related scientific subjects. On the other side there is no need of an academic expert if the article is about basic school knowledge of history, geography, science or literature. The important thing is that authors are appropriate and using reliable sources.

c) The most unreliable sources one could propose for the critique to a document against misinformation (e.g. this documentary film) , are exactly those people which could be involved in the process of misinformation, they are no third party.

I agree with you (151.152.101.44/City of Hope Medical Center) that we need no academic experts with regard to the critique of some astronomical evidence, because it is just all happening in front of us up in the sky and with the same means of observation people observed the stars in ancient times. Moreover everybody in this world with a basis computer can verify every single astronomic phenomenon reported by the first part of the documentary with free sky simulation programs. But for a critique of the rest of this subjects, journalists or similar writers just do not fit. At least not for the wikipedia policy on source reliability. They have no time and are not paid for good research in those subjects, which is “a vital component” of wikipedia (“Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available.”). Concerning the significant negative feedback I have already shown, that it's not a matter of feedback but of reliable sources. A comment of a journalist is so worth as a comment in a moderated forum. Concerning a fabricated "neutral" point of view please consider the sources (first part) reported by the documentary. Those are much more reliable than any journalist gossip. So if we want to have neutral point of view, we should report analyse and report the references of the documentary and or any other reliable source of the same level or better, in order to support or reject any single concept the documentary states. Currently reported sources are just no feedback for this lexicon.--Bougainville (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please try to use the previous button instead of submitting and correcting typos multiple times. Thanks! Pdelongchamp (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I usually correct typos at once, yeasterday it was only a one-off, so there is no need to worry. --Bougainville (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
You still don't seem to quite get it. Presenting a positive reception of the film cannot be neutral because no reliable sources received it so. Indeed, the film was received negatively by reliable sources. And those sources, although journalistic in nature, exceed the reliability of film in addition to being reliable sources in general. And so while they would not be acceptable in an article on a historical or scientific topic where they clearly contradict academic sources, Wikipedia policy and guidelines say they're just fine here. You may want to read some of the links that have been politely provided to you in response to your comments. But I'll sum it up again, anyway: These sources are reliable (WP:RS and WP:PARITY); presenting a neutral point of view necessarily involves citing reliable sources; opinions that do not appear in either the movie or the reliable sources are almost uniformly non-neutral to even mention (WP:UNDUE); and such opinions are absolutely unacceptable anyway(WP:OR). That includes "positive feedback," unless you can find it in a reliable source. You can keep arguing along this line, but you should be aware that you have very little chance of swaying anyone from what I've just summed up. If you feel the article is too critical of the movie, the best thing you could try to do is find reliable sources that have something remotely nice to say about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem in presenting negative reception of the documentary, but it must be an analytical critique not a gossip. There is also a problem if the npov is not respected and if unreliable sources are used, like in the critique section at the moment: now it only presents poor comments of simple journalists. Journalism is not a reliable source: journalism is not intended to serve the truth but the publisher, it is just work for money; the more you please your publisher, the better chances you have to get and maintain the job. No articles will ever be published by any journalist on earth, which are against the opinion and the interests of the publisher, and even less those which are against that of the owner of the medium. It’s just a matter of money and propaganda. For wikipedia money and propaganda do not count, there is no publisher we must please (I hope so); for wikipedia it is not just a matter of truth, but of reliability of the sources, they must be “authoritative and trustworthy in the subject they are used for”: those journalists are not authoritative and trustworthy in astronomy, religion history, military defence, macroeconomical theories, misinformation, jurisprudence and sociology; nor in all of them (it’s not their job) nor the ones mentioned are widely accepted to be authoritative on one single of those subject. That’s all. The sources used are not reliable after the wikipedia principles. Wikipedia needs reliable sources because one aim of wikipedia is to be considered a reliable lexicon. And so this article should not compromise the reliability of wikipedia. Wikipedia policy and guidelines make clear that exactly such sources are not suitable at all, at least not for this article: an article dealing with misinformation of religious, political and financial institutions as well as mass media cannot rely upon assessment of those who are involved and addressed by the document being discussed (the documentary film here), because there would be a conflict of interests. Only third party critiques should be used here: Mass media are being addressed by the documentary as involved in the propaganda of political and financial institutions, so they are no third party. We cannot report comments of such opinion makers (journalists and writers working for the mass media) because they are no third party. Secondly they are not competent in all issues addressed by the documentary, and they are not supposed to be for their work, they just must report what the owner, the publisher and the editor of the mass medium think it should be reported; and while the publisher’s opinion might be irrelevant in reporting daily news [1], that’s not necessarily the case in religious, political, economical and social issues. I did read the policies and I think I cite them properly in my reasoning (if not please show it punctually), please argue with facts, not just inserting an interlink; I am directly citing those policies. After all the documentary itself provides the sources supporting what it presents, so this it is just full of prejudices if an article backbites the authors of a document, without having read their sources; and if the editors of a critique section of an article did read at least one of the document sources but do not argue about a single fact argued by the authors of the documentary, as well as every time critiques are superficial and not analytical, such critiques are not worth to be read. To complain without arguing is plainly propaganda. Beside this, nobody can disagree with astronomic facts being told in the first part, just because everybody can prove them, now at home with a free computer star simulation (e.g. KStars or Stellarium) [2].

I agree with you about “presenting a neutral point of view necessarily involves citing reliable sources;” I am only trying to make clear that the current sources of the Critique to the documentary are not reliable and not neutral. Even if they were reliable (and they are not after wikipedia principles), there were no balance and so no npov (as it is now), because positive sources are directly available from the authors of the documentary. Moreover this documentary addresses so many and vast subjects, that there should be a source for each subject and most of all arguing to the point, not with coffee klatsch. How can we ignore the sources of the documentary itself? That’s like a critique of a documentary about the features of vegetal cells and we just present the comments of Mr.Bean about the documentary. After all some issues like the astronomical facts are not controversial at all. Nobody can deny them, because they are observable. You wrote me that you consider this documentary to be a fringe theory, so would you at least help to find real good and reliable negative sources about the single aspects the documentary addresses you don’t agree with?

You also write about opinions: you may refer to the further information I have given to explain the astronomical aspects. They are not opinions or original work, they are explanations of the concepts stated in the documentary, with some quotes and they’re also sourced with many interlinks. Every concept explained in the articles in this lexicon is in some way original work in the sense that they are no cut and copy from right protected sources. We should not misunderstand the policy about OR, and anyway there is no problem in modifying that further information all together so that we reach a consensus: Would you help in this regard? I could reduce the explanations and propose the changes in a next section, wherein I would shift my previous section “Notes”, so that the issue can be evaluated by all without jumping from one section to the other; now there are two fronts of disputation and I would like to work just on one at one time: so now I am concerned about the Critique and I hope its quality will get a very high standard hopefully also in style. At least source [15] should be immediately removed because of vulgar language used (internet bull…). Concerning your comment on the positive source, I have already proposed those of the documentary referring to the first part. There is no reason not to use them, despite this the critique section ignore them and only reports poor journalistic gossip.--Bougainville (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC) (small changes --Bougainville (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

Notes

[1] apart from the fact that even daily news and information can be systematic selected out of gut-wrenching, heart-rendering or any other information appealing to basic instincts, thus easily resulting in distracting people from real important politics

[2] Actually some of the religion demystifications the documentary presents, can represent indeed a disillusionment for many. But for those, who are not subject to “excessive enthusiasm and intense uncritical devotion” (fanatic, and they are not supposed to gain and consolidate their knowledge about such issues in an independent scientifical lexicon), it may be consolatory to recognize, that the film is not criticizing the moral and ethic principles of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any other religion, in no way; the documentary just disputes their mystifying features, like the abuse of astronomic metaphors; quite the contrary this documentary is criticizing the few people possibly abusing their positions in the social institutions (religion, politics, media, financial system, …). (small changes --Bougainville (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC) )

Please consider WP:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice where it says Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out. I don't feel I can properly respond to your messages above unless you can summarize them. Sorry. There's just too much there. If your argument is valid, simply make the argument then direct us to the supporting Wikipedia policy or guideline. Pdelongchamp (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sir, but I had to explain my position in details, because I had the impression of being repeatedly misunderstood. I would summarize so: At the beginning of this disputation I pointed out two main problems (

1) no npov, despite the positive sources provided by the documentary concerning the first part (religion mystifications);

2) non reliable journalistic sources , not being the reported authors arguing specifically and not being they authoritative in relation to all (any?) single subjects at hand, for sure no acclaimed experts in any of the issues they criticize about the documentary, like religion versus astronomy, historical sources, ..., military defence, economics, misinformation,...); I'll just finally add

3) the problem of not having third party sources, because mass-media themselves are addressed by the documentary for being involved through misinformation: we cannot report the opinion of journalists or opinion makers working for the mass-media about a documentary criticizing them. We need third party sources and

4) we need well founded and well argued specific critique about the single issues in details not just generic gossip: if one criticizes, than with arguments.

I hope I have not forgotten any argument, but I may consider to mark bold vital points of the disputation above. If some parts of my arguments are not clear or could be misunderstood, please indicate them specifically and I will try to use better arguments. If someone thinks that any single issue in this documentary is false or misleading, than he or she could easily report sources which prove it in those single points (point by point) arguing dialectically. The Critique section at the moment presents only negative critiques (and no critique is analytically disputed). If they were the only relevant and significant positions (e.g. of public opinion), than it should not be difficult to find experts arguing against the film (it must not be necessarily doctors with multiple honoris causa doctorates) (this would be a 5th point). I thank you for your understanding. --Bougainville (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bougain, you've actually run yourself into a Catch-22. Either the journalistic sources are reliable, or they're not. If they're reliable, then their viewpoint is significant. If they are not reliable, then the movie fails the notability requirement and this article has to be deleted. As to the specific points, 1) I don't even know what you're saying here; 2) As I've explained twice, Wikipedia guidelines, specifically parity of sources eliminates the requirement that the author of a source be an expert in a subject when critiquing the work of another non-expert. The general requirement for reliability still remains, but that is achieved by be published by a reliable publisher. And I have to say, it would be rather rediculous if the parity section did not exist; very rarely do experts bother to respond to crackpots, and if you threw out journalistic sources, which are more likely to report, there wouldn't be any sources to use at all! 3) Saying that the entire news media is no longer third-party because the movie criticised it is pretty bad. But even if it's not, it would put you in the exact same Catch-22 described previously, and we'd have to delete the article. 4) That would be great, but it doesn't seem to exist. Anyway, the crux of your entire argument seems to be that you think the sources for the critique are unreliable (correct me if I'm wrong). If you check the links to the various deletion discussions provided at the top of this page (particularly the most recent ones) you'll find an overwhelming consensus that the sources given are reliable, and keep in mind this is a consensus formed by no less than several dozen individuals over the coures of many weeks. I followed them at the time and don't recall a single person raising the issues you have been raising. Given all that, I'll again warn you (for the sake of your own time and effort) that you are extremely unlikely to find a consensus for the changes you wish to make. But then again, you are free to pursue dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Bougainville, if you felt you were being misunderstood it is probably because your messages were too long. You'll need to focus your arguments in order to participate in constructive discussions (in life and on Wikipedia). Regarding your points: 1. The article is currently neutral as it accurately reflects the feedback the film has received. i.e. negative feedback. Neutral doesn't mean equally negative/positive. Please read the policy. 2. According to Wikipedia policy, these are reliable sources. Your arguments are not backed up by any WP policy so I really can't respond to them. 3. Third party sources aren't necessary but if they exist, please include them. If they don't exist, then there's no point in discussing it. 4. Once again, the criticism you're looking for doesn't exist. If you can find notable and reliably sourced criticism, please include it. Otherwise, there's no point in discussing this. I'm not sure why you're arguing that we need to include third party sources when you haven't provided any to include. Pdelongchamp (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir, there was some scrambled word in my previous contributions, I wonder if they were the cause of some ongoing misunderstanding, if that was the case, I am sorry for that; I’m correcting them with this contribution and try here again to explain as clear as I can my position. Hoping we can soon understand us and go on with factual changes.

Concerning the first assertion of your reply, if it is a contradiction in my argument what you meant, it were only an apparent contradiction: I only assert that such journalistic information and sources are inappropriate for an analytical critique of the many specific issues addressed in this documentary. There would also be no contradiction if I wrote that journalistic information and sources might be considered reliable sources when they report simple direct observable facts (and this is their precious, valuable and indispensable job, e.g. “Mr. Johnson has run the 200 m race in 19.32 seconds”, “The Movie … has attracted massive interest since it premiered in June”, as long as they are well documented - official time measures/download rates), because this does not mean that journalists are reliable sources in any subject they write about. So one cannot simply assume “If they are reliable, then their viewpoint is significant.” It depends on the context. In deed I am affirming that mass media are addressed by the documentary for being involved in misinformation, so we should avoid journalists and opinion makers paid from a mass-media-publisher and his owner to report a “suitable” opinion; we should report third party sources which do an analytical critique; those journalists are not authoritative in all the subjects they criticize: to be authoritative in a subject necessarily means to be competent in the subject, and therefore experts. If they were authoritative they had argued with factual argumentation, what they did not (as you can read in the reported sources). And they are also not expected to do a sharp analysis of the documentary, their work time is not paid to be spent to investigate things to such an extent as required for a lexicon; mass media have no time and space for it (wikipedia do), and if they were experts in so many fields, they were surely not working for a newspaper. So they are non reliable “trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand” sources after the wikipedia policy. The policy is clear. The documentary reports its references to the point (for instance the first part about the mystifications of religion institutions; other references can be read as text or heard from the recorded statements in the documentary itself); so if this article must have a critique, than a rational, logical, well founded, well argued one. For instance we could not just report detractors, who evidently make use of a propaganda technique, as those who state that being the figure of Jesus in many (or even if in most) aspects different from the deities the documentary compares him to, this would invalidate the comparison or even the documentary altogether: that would be poor propaganda, because the comparison is just done in order to show that they all have characteristics in common, which can (could, if you please) be deduced from natural phenomena: it is than up to the readers/viewers to evaluate them or not and, if they consider them relevant, to draw their conclusions. Even worst are those sources, where the author does not even make any profound analysis but just use the propaganda technique of glittering generalities. If the author cannot do any better, not being competent in the subject (and it is not easy to find competent people in so many subjects), than no bad faith can be automatically imputed to the author, nor we should use such comments as a reliable source.

The documentary does not fail the notability requirements because this article still reports (only) journalistic comments, instead of analytical analysis of experts for those controversial issues. It is just necessary to add good critique. I am sure, we can agree about appropriate ones.

With regards to parity of sources, you are assuming that the reported journalists have studied the referenced sources of the authors of the documentary and argued after their analysis. That is evidently not the case.

It is also not true that the journalists are the only ones, who would report about this subject, just quite the contrary many subjects are not being reported at all from journalists or at least they are not the sources one usually first looks for (e.g. mathematics or the relationship between religions and between religions and astronomy). And it is not true that scholars do not care this subject: As can be deduced from many articles in this lexicon (e.g. ancient religions, the historicity of Jesus on the one side and on the other side), there are hundreds of scholars who have studied those issues. Experts do have not necessarily to respond to all new contributions to this subject, as well as there is not a public debate for every new novel (except perhaps for those, whose publishers can afford costly promotions through mass media). Experts do not have to respond immediately (within few years), because the subject is not new, the documentary is just another contribution, maybe the difference is a certain success in making the discussion more public. This is due to many factors not necessarily regarding the contents of the documentary, as for instance some factors which constrains it in a time frame (in order to be diffused via cd) but also have some advantages like being a film and therefore more direct than a treatise, and it is a film supported with certain cinematographic backgrounds and effects, linguistic style and a certain cogency (those may be good issues for journalism: the critique about how those aspects are received from the viewers, as long as they interview with fair statistical methods). If you refer to this documentary by meaning that “very rarely do experts bother to respond to crackpots”, it is your opinion, which I respect. After all a good critique can be based upon good previous studies about exactly the same issues.

Concerning the consensus about the reliability of the sources and the neutral point of view, we should not consider them a matter of consensus. They are not. A matter of consensus could be the choice of reliable sources better explaining the meaning and tenability of the documentary, as unprejudiced minds would do for every subject of an article in a lexicon. If some reliable well founded analysis shall not support one or more concepts of the documentary (and they will never be all, because some are not questionable, being observable phenomena, proven knowledge and/or documented facts) they should be reported, no doubt about it.

Moreover it is not a sign of consensus if there seem to be no dissent about an article. It could happen, that the behaviour of some editors, uninhibited in the use of the revert button instead of being fond of factual discussion, who see vandalism in every editing which alters the status quo of “their” articles, that this behaviour could rapidly alienate many willing editors with a different opinion. Many of them could cede and renounce to contribute as soon as they scent arrogance in the article-talk. So it is generally not necessarily a sign of consensus if people working at an article seem to agree that a documentary is “a crackpot” and as such should be reported by the “reliable sources”. It could be possible in deed, that people interested in this subject renounce just by perceiving intolerance of people proud of articles edited “by moi” or observe a stalemate position about the aspects the article should deal and how much; it is clear that if dissent is deterred with more or less deliberate reverts, the “consensus” of remaining editors show a perfect harmony. Don’t you think that it could be difficult to keep neutrality for people that are manifestly against the subject of the article (“we'd have to delete the article. That would be great, but it doesn't seem to exist.”)? Don’t you think, that it would be better to explain in this article all positions analytically? I mean nobody forces anybody to change his/her mind, but why should the article influence negatively the minds of readers, if positive sources are available as repeatedly mentioned?

After all it is not true that all involved editors till now agree with the sources used in the critique of the documentary as I summarize in the next section:

Finally it is not a matter of changes that one or more persons want but a matter of neutrality, reliability and fairness. I think there is no dispute to be resolved out of our fair discussion: we should only possibly consider the good faith principle. We will certainly reach a good compromise, some could look for well founded reliable negative critiques of single aspects (would you help?), some for the positive ones. I would personally star with well founded reliable sources positively supporting the documentary, because I think it is necessary at the moment. I hope is ok for you.--Bougainville (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary of previous disagreements about the reliability of current journalistic sources

1) Niubrad - 10:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC) wrote: “I just wanted to point out that the two cited criticisms come from ...Kessinger, Taylor … An article in a college paper written by junior in college. … I think there must be some more legitimate criticisms out there.”

2) IP 207.213.45.125 - 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC) wrote: “I agree that a college newspaper column seems like a very poor source. To be sure there are more professional sources that offer this standard angle of criticism than an Opinion Piece from a journalism student. We did not give articles from such sources any weight in the notability arguments of six months ago, so why now should we be including student journalism in the entry? Also, the use of the word "bullshit", in my judgement, signals a departure from the factual, neutral tone in the article”

3) MaxGrin - 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC) wrote: “Fully agreed and removing the criticism of The Irish Times. It's a non-accessible resource and cannot be used as reference. “

4) IP 74.137.22.97 - 10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC) wrote: “No, it doesn't, but in other articles, you don't see the word "bullshit" under criticism. Please clean the whole criticism bit up. It isn't neutral, professional, appropriate, and some of it isn't relevent. It hinders the flow of the article, and frankly, it doesn't do its job very well. "Bullshit" isn't relevent. If you wanted it to be up to quality standards, an unbiased person would probably just mention that the movie is accused of using scare tactics, poor documentary skill, voice-overs, and information that is not readily verifiable. And THEN cite it by whoever made the mention. Please quit squabbling and clean it up.”

Opinions in student newspapers

Per notability/WP:RS criteria, we have to be careful what we list here. College newspapers certainly do not have high standards at all for what it takes to write an opinion column for them -- having served on one ages ago and seeing a bunch of worse ones, pretty much anything that was submitted would run. I can't see any justification for listing what some student has to say in a paper anymore than if they'd said it in a blog. (Is the boing-boing thing a blog or a paid/regular columnist? That might have to go too.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the Arbiter source was also a student newspaper, I was thrown by it having a blue link, usually meaning a full article about it, but that was just a redirect to a small mention in another article. So I removed that one.

The boin-boing is kind of an interview with someone who counts as a reliable source, so that should stay. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)