Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 20 May 2015

Film: Documentary C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of The Zeitgeist Movement was copied or moved into Zeitgeist (film series) with this edit on 2 December 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

If you are a member or affiliate of the Zeitgeist movement, or were called here by one, please read this introduction on how to change the article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Citation needed

In the text it says, "The informal group was founded by and is directed by Peter Joseph." but citation doesn't say anywhere he directs the movement. Is there a reliable source to say he directs the movement? If not, it should not say this. --Melarish (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

He invented the term Zeitgeist Movement, he announced the formation of it at the end of one of his movies. He is the ostensible leader. No doubt someone can document that when they get around to it. Problem is that their official FAQ's info. says the so called movement has no leaders, so really you can not win on this type of article. It is all concocted though by Peter Joseph for better or worse. Its pretty obvious without original research that he is the leader, director, spiritual god father... etc. etc. Did you do a search on that? Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting having unsourced information in the article because you personally think it is obvious? --Melarish (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Often lead segments that are obvious do not need citing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason lead segments do not always need direct footnotes is because they are supposed to summarize the article, where the references can be found. "Obvious" isn't really a threshold that applies here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Joseph is the leader of the Zeitgeist movement. It is his baby. As the leader of the movement and their official unofficial spokesperson he gets to say it is a 'leaderless movement', so do you want to parrot that or do you want to do some research and actually get at what is going on in an encyclopedic fashion? Do you want to quote their FAQ's material like the members of Zeitgeist who repeat what they are told by Peter Joseph because maybe they think he is Guru like or do you want to actually report what is happening in a meaningful way and not an idiosyncratic Zeitgeist presentation? He funds the website. He made the movies. He funds the movies. He collects the donation to his pocket. He announced the 'movement'. He made the plaintive remark that people asked him what to do so he founded the Zeitgeist Movement. Now Zeitgeist members show up and edit war relentlessly for their preferred presentation. Most get blocked after a week or two and then their meat and sock puppets show up. Melarish previously edit warred for the Zeitgeist movements faq's material. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Then do it in an encyclopedic fashion and provide a reliable source for your claim. If Misplaced Pages's standard of a reliable source is a tabloid journalist then I'm afraid this "encyclopedia" has gone down the drain. No wonder no one considers WP a source worth citing. --Melarish (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source and not considered even reliable by Misplaced Pages standards. Mostly it is a website that has a bunch of affiliated websites where it makes money and it pretends to be a 'higher purpose' above the fray thing. It probably is a good source though for all the lazy minded people that do not have the time to actually learn anything. Misplaced Pages is mostly a scam site, its true for its other related endeavors that make money. However in some ways its pretty good. Since you are a dyed in the wool Peter Joseph acolyte and probably believe in the whole thing he is proposing you probably think the world is against you and its part of the conspiracy but the reality is that it appears the Zeitgeist is a dead movement and lived its life, kind of like Angry Birds or any other internet fad. My opinion only and probably should not give it but since you are attacking the basic thing here, that is my opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of 'informal'

The reference given does not state it is an 'informal' group, it stipulates rules for membership (citation used). Jonpatterns (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonpatterns, I looked at the sources in the body and there is no mention of "informal" which makes this is a WP:OR violation. We can leave the tag in place for awhile and then remove "informal" if it remains unsourced. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

How long as "awhile?" Danotto94 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Danotto94, it's common courtesy to give it a few days. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff can we now? Danotto94 (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, user:Danotto94 and user:Jonpatterns! It has nearly been a month, so I'd say it's safe to say no source will be found to support the informal claim. :-) OnlyInYourMind 09:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal Opinions Regarding Zeitgeist

It has become apparent to me that there are a lot of strong personal opinions on this wikipedia topic. Some people want to use the page to bolster The Zeitgeist Movement by deleting cited criticisms. Others seem to want to marginalize the Zeitgeist films and movement by minimizing article content and de-legitimizing its group by calling them a movie fan club and lower casing their group name and calling it "informal". Whether Zeitgeist is great or terrible, neither of these opinions belong on wikipedia.

Let us remember that Misplaced Pages's mission is to characterize topics from a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). This is one of Misplaced Pages's Five pillars. If we all focus on this pillar, there is no reason why everyone can't get along and work together by adding verified content and enriching this article for all.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Let us remember that Misplaced Pages's mission is to characterize topics from a Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). Yes the topics that are notable. Zeitgeist seems to be border line. It appears to be an advertising arm of Peter Joseph who recruits people through his websites to come here and claim that Zeitgeist is something special and problem is though, it has not been seriously written about for years. There is a real lack of interest in the media about it. It could be because of Joseph's background as a Wall Street money broker and Madison Ave. worker bee, that get some media thinking it is not much of anything except a self generated advert for Joesph's projects. He did announce it after all, and who 'announces' a movement? Usually they actually announce themselves by appearing. Since many of the followers of Zeitgeist were called to come here from their blog sites it becomes problematic also to sort through their contributions because of their cause mentality. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Earl:

• First, claiming that Zeitgeist's notability is borderline is a personal opinion. That is exactly the thing I created this section to neutralize. The fact is, according to WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Therefore, it is a demonstrable fact according to the independent, reliable sources cited in this article that Zeitgeist is notable under Misplaced Pages's General notability guideline and is deserving of an article.
• Second, Misplaced Pages does not require the topic of an article to be currently popular in order to keep from being deleted or its content from being marginalized.
• Third, again, to Earl and everyone, please try to put your opinions aside and accurately characterize this topic, focusing on Misplaced Pages's pillars, especially neutrality and civility.

– 68.7.95.95 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I am shocked at how many biased comments the Earl has been allowed to get away with. Impartiality is a fickle thing, especially with such a controversial topic/movement. The Earl has got his knickers in a twist about the man Peter Joseph. In the rush to debunk one man, the whole article attempts to deflect from the inevitable fact that the movement is an adoptive ideology that has taken a hold in the minds of millions of people. They are an 'advocacy initiative', which is why you may not see much 'action'. The mainstream media coverage of the zeitgeist movement is not a reliable source for impartial reporting, nor is the lack of it, and means nothing to note in any case. The ideology didn't just go away, simply the media coverage. Supporters, in the majority, aren't deluded sheep but intuitive and fed up oppressed citizens looking for an answer to why capitalist society has failed, for them.

I can agree that the ego of Peter Joseph, coupled with the self-observed truth that until we can transition from money-based economics we are all 'agents' of the system, inevitably marrs the overall message for the average skeptic who fails to look past the vessel to read the message. Yes he does sell his DVD's because he lives in a capitalist culture that endorses it, and so he is finding his niche in that regard, but as the current social paradigm dictates to the aquisition of currency to trade for our daily needs, I'm not quite sure why this is continually asserted as a contradiction to his words. It is an admission he makes, and professes to wish to move from it.

To summarise my thought, it's belligerent to continually assert your opinion as fact, and if I were to guess, it isn't productive towards the education of what the zeitgeist movement is as a whole and actually means to the people who support its message. Anybody would think you were activily attempting to persuade people to look past it and not take the messages within seriously. You are partaking in personal propaganda on wikipedia's time, that which you are accusing supporters of doing by complaining about all the re-edits.. correcting your bias no doubt. The crux of the zeitgeist movement (even if not all of the films) is centred around a cultural shift of ideology and values. Not even mentioned. Not one posivite assertion is really made on its behalf, which is why you may have made so many supporters unhappy. You have, essentially, reported on nothing that you assume to understand. That is obvious, or you would have made an extended effort to be impartial in your reporting on the article. Is there any way that all the other regular editors can boycott Earls edits, and anyone else who is clearly lacking the capability to be purely objective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.5.244 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are from the Facebook group . Not really sure what to tell you. The overwhelming notable information on Zeitgeist related things is mostly self generated primary information that the media has not reported on for years. As far as your comment, there may indeed be millions of people involved but they do not keep any records, the group is not registered anywhere except on Facebook as a 'company' or business. Facebook is not really a reliable source for sourcing the number of people involved. I see that according to your edit history you have the single edit above on Misplaced Pages, 15:25, 10 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+2,748)‎ . . Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) ‎ (→‎Personal Opinions Regarding Zeitgeist) and assuming you want to learn the 'ropes' of how to edit I suggest you get a user name, read some of the articles and guidelines, edit a few articles and get the hang of this operation. Making an emotional appeal on the talk page is probably not going to do anything because it is forbidden or frowned on to make the talk page blog like. Learn how to edit and if you want to make changes in the article you may if they pass muster with the other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the subject of "brainwashing" is a pseudoscience, utterly impossible for professionals in clinical settings. The MKULTRA project would drool to know everything the people at Zeitgeist know -- the CIA tried and failed for 20 years to brainwash people with drugs and extreme coercion, while (according to Pear-Jack) Zeitgeist is able to brainwash people with a few words over the Internet. But to return to reality, the people in this Talk section should be more careful in their accusations. Fiction does not become fact by asserting "it's no secret ..." Regardless of personal taste, fact is fact and fiction is fiction. Slade Farney (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Restore Deleted Content

The following older version of this article contains content that has since been inexplicably removed:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zeitgeist_(film_series)&oldid=632010026 - 1 November 2014

The older version is more comprehensive and easier to navigate than our current version. Many of the section headers have been inexplicably removed (for example, you wouldn't remove the Film content subsection headers from Bowling_for_Columbine). Portions of content have also been inexplicably removed. Some content was removed claiming a citation was needed, however, plot synopses and content summaries do not require citations because the film itself is the source for the summary (for example, you would not delete the synopsis from Capitalism:_A_Love_Story). Other content inexplicably removed includes a list of interviewees in one of the films. Reducing the amount of encyclopedic content obviously only makes an article less comprehensive and therefore worse.

Keep in mind that a lot of the current wording has gone through revisions and is likely much improved over the wording used in this older version. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend using an older version of text when a newer version is available. Only the section headers and missing content should be salvaged.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC), edited 68.7.95.95 (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not going to happen. You need to be blocked for being a single purpose account and POV pusher and ban evader.--MONGO 04:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That pretty well sums it up. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So you both admit to being against building an encyclopedia? Bold move.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My editing history makes it clear that I have been building an encyclopedia whereby yours, even including your previous banned accounts, does not.--MONGO 14:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your edit history. I proposed encyclopedic content here. You denied it (based on nothing) and deflected to accusations (also based on nothing). This is not the behavior of a neutral editor who cares about encyclopedic content. You have failed to assume good faith and you cannot point to anything in my edit history to justify your bad faith. If you think your behavior is good for Misplaced Pages, you should reexamine yourself and the situation.
I am new to Misplaced Pages editing, and I've been greeted with a battleground. My interest now is figuring out how to end this war through policy and proper procedure so that we can all enjoy civility and encyclopedic content.—68.7.95.95 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The older version was not deleted as you phrase it. It was modified to discussions on the talk page and changed through consensus over time. The older version was more information from primary sources and skewed in the direction of the website from Zeitgeist presentation. Read the history of the talk page especially going back in sequence. That may explain a lot of issues about what is appropriate and the consensus of others in the current article. Its best not to accuse people of building or not building. That is a personal attack in this context. You are not talking about content you are talking your opinion of editors motivations. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the IP, they are not here to help. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why we cannot have a film synopsis and list of interviewees? Neither are original research nor POV. Per WP:Manual_of_Style/Film#Documentaries, "a documentary article should have a synopsis that serves as an overview of the documentary. The synopsis should describe the on-screen events of the film without interpretation, following the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT). Since a documentary deals with real-life topics and figures, provide wikilinks to them wherever useful." Even if this content was removed because of a consensus made in the past (of which I can find no record), per WP:CCC, consensus can change. Also, if a consensus is made that contradicts policy, then policy should be followed because it represents a broader consensus, WP:CONLEVEL. Can someone please explain why we cannot have a film synopsis and list of interviewees? - 68.7.95.95 (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not make lists it looks like you are back same as before and are going to edit tendentiously again with talk page blog like nonsense. Please do not. As a Zeitgeist supporter called her from your Facebook site you have to be really careful to follow policy and not paste Zeitgeist info the way they advocate it here. The articles are very complete and fair currently. I hope you do not immediately do what you did before your last block again. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The correct procedure is being followed, ie discussing on the talk page, maybe it would be best to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Regarding synopsis there already is some there, maybe it would be good to state what you think is missing? The interviewees could probably be incorporated in the prose.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The synopses from November 1, 2014 contained more detail and easier navigation via the sub-headers (which also encourages further detail to be added to the sparse synopses). I've written more about it at the top of this section. Yes, prose is prefered, of course, no one is going to know to rewrite the list of interviewees as prose if the list is buried under months of edits never to be seen again. I value the time of the wiki editors who added this content, and I'd rather their efforts not be lost. - 68.7.95.95 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not make lists --> WP:LISTS, WP:EMBED. "If you find an inappropriate or badly written list, insert a cleanup tag at the top of the article. For example, use the {{Prose}} tag for an embedded list that would be better written as prose paragraphs." - WP:PROSE - 68.7.95.95 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories

The categories classify these as documentary films, which they clearly are not. The article describes them as documentary-style, which is correct. I propose to remove the misleading categories, per WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--MONGO 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They are documentary 'like' in presentation. One source calls it agitprop done for effect rather than critical analysis. Removing the categories removed, discussed above, seems appropriate. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on 'Documentary style'

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies History and geography Society, sports, and culture Politics, government, and law Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What should the film be described as:

1. documentary-style film
2. documentary style film
3. documentary film
4. something else
5. film (new option Jonpatterns (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC))

Comment a documentary, even if it is poorly made, incorrect, false and misleading is still a documentary. Starting to call certain films documentary-style could lead to a debate on every documentary article about whether it is a documentary or documentary-style. Tagging style on the end doesn't describe in what way it differs from a regular documentary. The following sources categorise it as a documentary NYTimes The Hindu IMDB. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation. To a large degree documentary describes the intention of the filmmaker rather than whether the film is factual. So even if they intended to create a false version of history it would be a documentary (but reasonably described in the article as false, controversial, biased, etc., depending on what the reliable secondary sources state). QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the interpretations of Jonpatterns and QuiteUnusual. If we are defining a documentary only as a film that documents something without commentary or agenda, then nearly every documentary in the world would have to be recategorized as documentary-style. Sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy. OnlyInYourMind 05:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)— OnlyInYourMind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Option 3 - there should also be something in the lede noting that most of the film series is based on specculation and/or indeffinitive proof. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It may be good to add something in the lede regarding the validity of its claims, as a balance. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Earl King Jr.: I am unable to view the page, on Google books, for the new reference to 'document-style' (ref). However, the search is for pseudo documentary film, not documentary-style.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Earl King Jr.: Reference Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know - does say pseudo documentary. So I'm to edit the lede as all commenting editors are in agreement regarding removal of style. I will move the ref to a second sentence.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr. Jonpatterns I can't view the page that says "pseudo(- ) documentary." It seems blocked or something. Danotto94 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: It shows up just fine for me here. The link in the citation also works for me. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the link works. The first time I clicked it didn't work, after that it has. Propably an intermittant error somewhere.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fantasy Fiction I was called by the 'bot. More properly the series should be classified as fantasy fiction, certainly not as "documentary" of any kind. The series falls in to the same arena as the so-called "911 Truth" conspiracy arena which is itself possibly properly classified as dysfunctional human psychology among those who believe the core premis, but is more properly classified as fantasy fiction among the majority of people. Damotclese (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your opinion but please base your future comments on policy and sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon  16:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theory documentary - Per the sources I've presented in the Edit war discussion section below, the other two only make sense in the "light" of the conspiracy theories of the first movie. The second movie is pretty much a call to fight the evil bank conspiracy from part three of the first movie. The third movie is meant to provide a ideological rationale for the second movie. If someone wrote a book that said "the Pope is a lizard person," and then the second book (titled as a sequel of the first) called for opposing the Papal office at any turn, and then a third consisting of select quotes from Martin Luther and John Calvin about opposing the Papacy, the series would be classified as conspiracy theorist literature, not just protestant propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• comment A documentary style? What's that but a description of the various stylistic aspects of a documentary or simply another term. It doesn't seem to meet the definition a pseudo-documentary. The nonfiction component seems more important than any factuality. Factuality seems to be important as an intent as opposed the actual case. Documentary style in its variation doesn't have much effect other than indicating that it is a documentary to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• comment, a documentary, even if it is poorly made, incorrect, false and misleading is still a documentary. Starting to call certain films documentary-style could lead to a debate on every documentary article about whether it is a documentary or documentary-style. Not really. It was an art project by Peter Joseph according to him and I don't think he ever considered it a documentary either. Does Joseph even claim to have made a documentary I don't think so according to his account that is source in the article. If the BBC puts out a piece on global warming it is going to be taken seriously. If conspiracy people put out a film about the future saying people are going to be chipped with rfid chips and that George Bush and friends organized 911 and there was no plane that flew into the Pentagon then it may be called a psuedo documentary style film especially with people like Alex Jones as sources for Josephs 'ideas'. Its a little harsh to call it a pseudo documentary though we have sources for calling it that. People can read the information and decide for themselves what it is. A good compromise is that it is a documentary style of film that is more appropriate than calling conspiracy film or cult film or Pseudo documentary. We have to give people some credit for having the ability to distinguish what is in the article from the sources and we do not have to lead people by the hand in the pre lead by saying that much. Its just a very short description which is only there to clear up confusion if people are confused about which article they are on. Its just the basics. Its a documentary style of film. That is not passing judgement on Zeitgeist and we have to be neutral at least in the pre lead and then the citations/sources will actually give information on what it is. Lets keep it neutral. Its not a real documentary obviously but we do not have to say that unless in another section that gets into the particulars. Lets just give information from reputable sources as the article proceeds and let the 'chips' fall where they may. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Documentary-style doesn't help readers know what it is. If the sources say it wasn't made as a documentary, why characterise it as documentary-style. Why not simply characterise it as a film. Also how much weight should be given to each source? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

An additional problem is should the two sequels be described in the same way, or have a separate description. As far as I remember the second two have elements of 'solutions', where as the first only looks at 'problems'.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Should we add a template like {{weasel}}, {{weasel-inline}}, or {{definition}} until this is sorted? Secondly, has anyone considered the definition of Documentary film: The American film critic Pare Lorentz defines a documentary film as "a factual film which is dramatic." Others further state that a documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents. The zeitgeist films seem to precisely fit this definition of Documentary film, and sources agree. That said, nothing is to stop us from also listing, with citations, the other adjectives used to describe these films (conspiracy, cult, pseudo-documentary). The last thing we want to do is make up our own description which may be a WP:SYN OR violation. :-) OnlyInYourMind 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Of COURSE it is a "documentary" by the definition. It doesn't matter whether it is documenting somebody's theories, as in "Guns, Germs, and Steel," or speculation about the Kennedy assassination. It doesn't matter whether the majority or minority of editors (or Skeptic watchdogs) agree that the film is "factual" in the tiny universe of fact that they are willing to recognize. It doesn't matter whether it is blessed by the Pope, the ADL, or the local chapter of the Fairy Watching Witches of America. If posited as fact, it is "factual" and meets definition. Misplaced Pages is not chartered to determine The One True Truth in the Universe, nor to police the line between Orthodoxy and Heresy. Slade Farney (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think Jon that you are getting way to tendentious on this. You as a member of that special interest group Zeitgeist have to be neutral and you are starting to harp on points that are not even contentious but you are getting them repeated over and over and trying to rewrite parts of the article to Zeitgeist information. I know you want your presentation but that is not the same as an encyclopedia. I would ask that you stop the redundant posting of the same things in different sections here over and over. It is a waste of peoples time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The accusation is also a little too personal, and not in keeping with the spirit of the Wiki. Slade Farney (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that. How many thread do you intend to devote and how much time must we spend on this non issue? ] It is not a documentary. Maybe its a mockumentary but for sure its not the real thing. So hate to say it and not really trying to offend you but you are not getting it and that is also called tendentious editing when a person grinds the ax over and over and you are repeating all this over and over. Our readers are not helpless people wanting leadership about the meaning of documentary-like. All things in an article do not have to be word for word from a source. English language is used to explain and deduce from the information in the article. It is a super tiny synopsis of the info from the article. Its not even the lead, it is a tiny thing letting people know what the article is. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

All I have done is discussed how to improve the article. The only 'tendentious' part is not agreeing 100% with you. You have accused me of being biased and single purpose editor (baseless accusations). The discussion page is the correct to place discuss how to improve articles. You seem to want to limit any discussion by making personal attacks.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(redacted)

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Whether Misplaced Pages is overall 'Establishment' depends on how that is defined. I would agree there are definitely systemic problems with Misplaced Pages. I am less pessimistic, probably more native, that these problems can be mitigated to some degree as Misplaced Pages grows and develops. Hopefully, we can learn to better communicate with each other.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Review of RfC

@JzG, MONGO, Sfarney, Theikiaccoun, Somedifferentstuff, Danotto94, Biblioworm, Ian.thomson, Jeraphine Gryphon, Jnav7, Lotje, Harizotoh9, USchick, Jerodlycett, Tom harrison, and Sithoma: I've moved this RfC to the bottom of the comments because some relevant discussion has taken place just above. This is my intrepretation and each editor's position so far. Since the RfC began @QuiteUnusual: agreed with using option three 'documentary'. As did @Sturmgewehr88:, but also requested the inaccurately of the film should be mentioned in the lede. @Earl King Jr.: thinks option one 'documentary-style' should be used. Is this a fair summary, anything further to add? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo history or propaganda films would be more appropriate than documentary which it is not, or is in a conspiracy theory fringe way but our sources say it is not really a documentary in a classic sense. They say it is an internet cult mostly of bad information. Basically it can all be sourced to Peter Joseph and his LLC company that is involved in social networking on the internet and making media projects that he sells to the public and his selling of clothes T.shirts etc. through his limited liability corporation he controls the whole thing completely. The over whelming critical reviews, the material is of very poor quality but slickly produced. That is according to our citation sources reliable sources. Probably better not to overtly mislead people into thinking it is a documentary. You made an edit that said that JonPatterns. That would be false. A documentary documentes something while Zeitgeist according to our citations is a kind of internet cult fad type of thing though it has influenced many with its conspiracy theory version of world history such as 911 being a contrived thing by the American government etc etc. So documentary style or documentary like is being pretty kind to the film and that is what it says now and has said that for a while by consensus. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Documentary-style isn't useful as it doesn't say in what way it differs from a usual documentary. Please could you list the other references that say it isn't a documentary, other than the one that says it is a pseudo documentary. I've listed the NYTimes and The Hindu above which say it is a documentary. Maybe something more neutral than documentary or documentary-style would be 'film'. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't do references for saying what something is not in a case like that. No. We could also say documentary like film It is a propaganda film or a conspiracy film according to our categorizations at the bottom of the page which I had nothing to do with. Overwhelming citations refer to it as such in the critical appraisal section. Its a film yes, but so is Tom and Jerry the cartoon. Probably the current phrasing of it as said is extremely kind to the movie. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We have to follow what the sources say. No source provided says it is 'documentary-style'. 'documentary like film' also doesn't help it say in what way it is like documentary. In fact is it a documentary with inaccuracies. That is what should be in the lede. Many documentaries have major flaws but are still categorised as documentaries. Another potential source categorising it as a documentary is AllMovie.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That would not be a reliable source its some site that sells movies and blogs about movies. Zeitgeist is a self produced, Peter Joseph project that was released on the internet. It never was a real theatrical release. It is documentary like because it is does not document anything except the content of the building being blown up by the U.S. goverment, being implanted with 'chips', A new world order of bankers etc. Its a conspiracy movie or release that probably should not even be tagged as a documentary . Its a company run by Peter Joseph that sells T-shirts and DVD'S. The social movement does not have any real numbers. It might not be real at all but internet conjectured bloggers that meet up at a high cost once a year. Most of our sources consider it a conspiracy cult run by Peter Josephs's business arm. I think you are getting way to picky about documentary like. It is not a documentary. Calling it 'documentary like' is really almost too much credit for what it is. Misplaced Pages articles have to be written to make some sense and not every single phrase or word has to be cited unless its really controversial. For the record I did not do the edit saying 'documentary like' but it has passed a long consensus here as the page history shows of the talk page. Having seen you change it once to documentary I saw your aim. But, its not really a documentary is it? No Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Some sources call it a documentary, like NYTimes and the Hindu. Other call it a conspiracy theory movie, and others still a pseudo documentary. Sorry, if I come across as picky, but the term documentary-style is not very informative.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

All mainstream sources have referred to the films as documentary. Only the first film has a "conspiracy" aspect. I love how you people just make things up as you go along. Unesco2015 (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New lede - TZM trademark

The phrase 'Zeitgeist franchise corporation', isn't quite right if its using this ref. The trademark is 'The Zeitgeist Movement' belonging to Gentle Machine Productions LLC, registered by Peter (Joseph) Merola.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Limited liability company which I assume he did for tax purposes and control of the information. So, should be changed from corporation to company Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly how I would have phrased it, but correct in a round about way.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What is a Zeitgeist franchise company? The reference only says the trademark THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT is owned by Gentle Machine Productions LLC and that the contact person for GMP LLC is Peter Merola. That phrase is rather ambiguous. I think we should move it out of the lead and word it more accurately. OnlyInYourMind 08:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No, its accurate. It is a company he owns and is a franchise that turns out a certain kind of product. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If "Zeitgeist" is not the name of the company, it is not accurate. As Google shows, Zeirgeist is an ordinary English word with broad usage. If you shorten the name of a trademark or company (like shortening "The Los Angeles Times" to "Los Angeles"), your message may loses clarity. Do you see any harm in using the full name? Slade Farney (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree the wording is not very clear at the moment. Also, strictly speaking the company is Gentle Machine Productions, The Zeitgeist Movement is a trademark. Although, some may refer to Gentle Machine Productions as 'the Zeitgeist company' that is not a clear and could be confused with the separate Zeitgeist (film company).Jonpatterns (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems we have some consensus. Found a primary source claiming PJ owns GMP. http://www.gentlemachineproductions.com/about.html OnlyInYourMind 16:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know what a "pre lead" is? I can't find this concept in wikipedia. Can anyone explain what Earl King Jr. means by tiny intro before the intro? Thanks. :/ OnlyInYourMind 03:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material on grounds of promo and paid events

The information regarding events was removed on grounds of promo and paid events.

The article stated: Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival. Z-Day is an educational forum held in March since 2009 with chapter events worldwide. The inaugural Z-Day in Manhattan had a sold out audience of about 900 and included lectures from Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco.

diff

1. It appears written in a fairly neutral style.

2. Are past paid events not allowed to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages?

Jonpatterns (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.:What do people think? Jonpatterns (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The Burning Man page is a shameless advocacy for the event, and I am not saying the writers should be ashamed. They simply tell it like it is, with a full history of ticket prices, contractual terms of ticket contracts, prices for buses, vehicle passes, dates of the annual events, etc. Go have a read. They are not dodging a weaving like a nun at an orgy. All this careful language and abstemious tea-totaling is reserved for disapproved subjects -- like Zeitgeist. This page is now crippled with negative advocacy, the anti-matter version of WP:POV. Slade Farney (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like characterizing the topic to me. Promoting anything, including an event (whether paid or not), is a POV violation and is not the same as neutrally documenting an event as a characteristic of the topic. There are many paid events documented on wikipedia. If something appears promotional, then we should reword it with greater neutrality rather than remove it. I think we have demonstrated some consensus here. :-) OnlyInYourMind 20:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, MONGO, and Earl King Jr.: Sorry, you've each reverted claiming "promotional": , , and . Can one of you please explain how this is promotional? I would love to be on the same page here, but to me this looks like neutrally characterizing a group's main events. Is there some way we can objectively identify that something is promotional, or are we doomed to disagree 3v3 on the grounds of our own subjectivity? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind 02:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

At least one other person reverted that also besides the ones you listed. Misplaced Pages is not obligated to make a list of events for an organization. It becomes promo then. We mention already the main Zeitgeist Day. That is more than enough. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This article suffers from multiple personality disorder. Why are we describing a yearly event in an article about a film series? Why do we have a separate section for the movement at all? --NeilN 03:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. If you want to drop the Movement aspect probably it would be an improvement. The article is too long now. Maybe include some basic information about the movement or what the owner of the Zeitgeist company calls a movement, and put some of that information in the second? Addendum movie where the movement was announced at the end of that film, it would probably be an improvement. There may be an internet Movement and maybe it was written about in reputable sources but there is virtually nothing on it besides their self published stuff. It could also be that it was kind of an 'Angry Birds' like phenomena that has since almost dissapeared but for a while got a bunch of curious clicks on Google Movies and Youtube. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If the movie triggered the movement then a paragraph should be added to Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Reception and that's all. --NeilN 03:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. Feel free to do it. Maybe in the Addendum section Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I would also agree, but with one caveat: The Zeitgeist Movement topic is notable enough for its own article, and indeed used to have its own article, but past disagreements and an RfC decided to merge the movement and 3 film articles into a single article. If we separate the movement article from the film series, the same complaints may reemerge. OnlyInYourMind 20:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The merge was wrong and this is not promo. It's like a political party convention. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Only In Your Mind I would say that you are editing the article tendentiously and that you are a single purpose editor most likely called here by Facebook or one of the other Zeitgeist sites and your edits on the article reflect non neutral presentation and promotion You are claiming consensus now for your pov when there was none. Looking at your edit history your first edit was Zeitgeist related and you have a new account, so it is assumed you are one of the people called here. It is o.k. to be a single purpose account but you have to be neutral. The ground you are trying to cover now is not going to be traversed. Editing tendentiously is a problem for everyone if you continue doing that. It was overwhelming consensus that put the movement article into the film series. Please read the page history of the movement article and the history of disccusion on related articles. Now we are probably going to put the separate section of the Zeitgeist movement into the rest of the article because the consensus among the neutral editors is that it is fitting to do so. Non of the editors here is against Zeitgeist in particular. They do get annoyed though when people try to insert a pov and edit tendentiously. Sorry to focus on you instead of the material which is usually the talk page way but better to say this now as you are agressively insisting against consensus for changes that are basically pro Zeitgeist. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Some facts will be "pro" by nature, some "con," but facts are more important than whether the material is pro or con. My review of OnlyInYourMind editing history satisfies me that he/she has multiple interests, understands neutral POV, and intends quality of article above all. I do not see great virtue in preaching the anti-conspiracy/anti-pseudoscience/anti-woo-woo dogma at every turn of the page. Misplaced Pages is not in danger of producing a population of idiots by failing to inoculate the readers with anti-woo-woo vaccine. A good read of Huston Smith and Will Durant shows that the best compendiums and surveys are composed of sympathetic rather than scathing text. The "Facebook" remarks are uncalled for. And appending an apology after a personal attack does not make a personal attack permissible. Slade Farney (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Took the Zeitgeist movement separate section and modified it because there was too much information and consensus is to shorten it. I removed the Info. box which is not needed. Moved that material into the Addendum movie section. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Grammar/syntax problem

Earl King Jr. , your latest edit is unintelligible. No doubt it is a simple error, but only you know what you intended to say, so we would be grateful if you corrected the wording. Here is the text: The information related advocates transition from the global money-based economic system to a post-scarcity economy or resource-based economy. Slade Farney (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Boldly taken care of :-) OnlyInYourMind 21:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Cracked.com source

Just an FYI. I checked the RS/noticeboard and consensus is that Cracked.com is only suitible for a Response or Reception section. As you were. :) OnlyInYourMind 03:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful that its suitable. If you read on it says Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 92

content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites 259 KB (36,930 words) - 20:43, 24 August 2011 It is not a good source. It is a user generator advertising site. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not suitable for use here in the least.--MONGO 13:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Opening is violation of Misplaced Pages rules

The title of the article is "Zeitgeist (Film Series)" and should introduce the three films, not what appears to be only "conspiracies" for the first film. It is a violation of neutrality. 186.64.176.133 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edits violate WP:NOTCENSORED. The second and third films are addressed in relation to the conspiracy theorism of the first film, and the second and third films make no sense outside of the conspiracy theorism of the first film, as was already mentioned above. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian, that is the most biased POV assumption I have ever seen. You could remove the first film and the other two films stand on their own perfectly. This is literally a made up idea you just presented. There are no censor issues here. This is about neutrality. That said, you cannot decree that the whole series is about conspiracies when the vast major of content is about a new social system. Literally the entire third film is about economics and the environment.186.64.176.133 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It may appear that way to one of Joseph's shills, but for those of us who have not been blinded by the light, it's pretty clear that the series is meant to be viewed together -- or else there'd be more sources of TZM members decrying the ludicrous stupidity of the first movie while affirming the politics of the later movies. As it is, the most the TZM and Joseph's shills bother with is trying to draw attention away from the first movie, as you tried to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian is right on that. Its a trilogy of conspiracy films and we have sources that say that. Lots of citations in the article say that it is a conspiracy pseudo documentary. Shill might be too strong a word Ian. Perhaps brainwashed is more suitable with less baggage or inculcated but basically you are close enough to being right in your appraisal of the current situation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

More calls from the Zeitgeist folks to come edit

Just another heads up of the sites out there from the Zeitgeist fans that have mounted an aggressive editing campaign on the article

I think this one is already posted somewhere on the talk page also There are several others. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment, you realize that the first link is five months old and the second is over a year old? Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

They are old. Still, those links (and this one) do confirm that TZMers actively recruit each other for concentrated attempts to whitewash the article in their favor. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, nearly every fringe group I've ever encountered does. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I just happened on it though so thought it might be informative. Just a comment, you realize that the first link is five months old and the second is over a year old? It sort of gives a backdrop of how to spot meats and socks so in that sense I hope it helps. I remember that particular time frame. A bunch of people were permanently blocked from editing then and others restricted for long periods. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, nearly EVERY group (not just fringies) attempts to control relevant Wiki pages including the Skeptics, the DNC, RNC, Roman Catholic Church, Zionist groups, Hollywood studios, personality cults, colleges, sports teams, ... We won't ask why Earl hangs around here, reverting edits and deleting information. Just a quality guy, I expect. Slade Farney (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

He is a quality guy: you don't find him adding promotional material or casting aspersions on those who remove promotional material. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Promotional material" is in the eye of the beholder. Burning Man has no problem with listing all the ticket prices, event dates, bus costs, parking fees, etc. No one is sitting on that page deleting everything a person might want to know. Thus, Burning Man is an informational page for those who are interested. Zeitgeist should also be an informational page for those who are interested. It does no good to sprinkle it with pejoratives (conspiracy theory, cult, crap, bogus, etc.) -- that is just POV at work. If people do not like the film, movement, or whatever, let them move off to something they can take pleasure in. Listing the dates of events is not promotion, else all the quality guys would be rushing over to censor the Burning Man page. Can you see the inconsistency? Slade Farney (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I do not see it. If that is true on the Burning man page then it has lacked oversight also, Burning Man has no problem with listing all the ticket prices, event dates, bus costs, parking fees, etc. That does not seem right policy wise and sounds like an advertising site. It sounds like that page Burning man needs a clean up.

Also it is not an information page for those that are interested because its purpose is to document what it is with a neutral stance or to go where the citations take us. It is not an arm for information per se it is an overview of a subject that should not be a promo or banner of their own information. If people want that they can explore their web pages. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A Wiki editor convinced of that position would want to be over there helping to clean it up. And such editor might also want to look look at San Diego Comic-Con International, listing the date of the next Convention in July 2015 -- just like a promotion. But I would not advise such editing. The practice on those pages seems to be more the Wiki standard than what is being enforced here. They are not promoting, they are just serving the interested reader. Slade Farney (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Just thought I'd let you guys know that I noticed this talk page was getting a bit long so I've set up automatic archiving of threads that have gone 7 days without a response. If anyone disagrees or feels that the page shouldn't be automatically archived feel free to revert, or discuss it here first to get some more opinions on the matter. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 02:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving is a good idea but 7 days seems like too little; we don't want people to come here and make redundant points or arguments. — Jeraphine Gryphon  10:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but do you really expect people to read through this entire talk page before making an argument, just to see if it hasn't been made before? Don't forget that you can always just point someone to an archived thread if they've made an argument that's already been made. 30 days seems a little long, what would you think of say, 10? Pishcal — ♣ 12:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't expect anyone to read through this stuff, the conversations should just be visible here, to show that plenty has been discussed and that it (the content) may still be relevant. This page doesn't have to be short, it's okay if it's long. Comparing to some other articles, this one is more prone to attracting new and opinionated editors. 10 days is too few, in my opinion. — Jeraphine Gryphon  12:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to disable auto-archiving and manually archive discussions as they are resolved? I think that would be best. If not, can an unresolved discussion that was auto-archived be manually unarchived for continued discussion? OnlyInYourMind 01:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

OnlyInYourMind, As a single purpose or nearly single purpose account most likely called here to edit for your group, its a good that you examine things and not let other people have to try and follow such a convoluted approach like you are talking about. There are basic guidelines. You can read them. As a single purpose editor whose first and last edits revolve around Zeitgeist material you have to be really cautious to not show bias and keep the pov down to neutral 05:16, 28 April 2015 Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) ‎ (→‎Discussion on 'Documentary style': adding my 2 cents, your first edit to Misplaced Pages There is nothing wrong with being a 'single purpose' editor but as remarked its a fine line from advocacy to being here to build an encyclopedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving could help focus discussion, but I think 28 days would be more suitable.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We could just remove the bot code from the top of this page so the bot would not come here. The oldest discussions have now been archived, so the hard work is done. I don't know, I don't have an opinion. As for unarchiving, I think it's allowed but you should always consider just linking to that thread in the archive and make a fresh thread instead. — Jeraphine Gryphon  09:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how long discussions tend to last around here, but it's not unreasonable to expect that if a discussion hasn't had any comment added to it for 14 days, the discussion has either ended and there's nothing left to say or a fresh discussion should be started. 2 weeks is a long time to reply to something, and really the point of archiving is to focus editors into active discussions. Leaving too many resolved or stale topics around clutters up a talk page and doesn't make it clear which issues are still being discussed. Manual archiving is used on some pages, but more often than not auto-archiving is used on talk pages and WP pages. Pishcal — ♣ 16:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DR

Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29.23Removal_of_referenced_material_on_grounds_of_promo_and_paid_events -- apparently there's a discussion going on there about this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon  18:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Film Synopses "too long"?

@Earl King Jr. and Tom harrison: You've both claimed "too long" when you removed the {{expand section}} tags from the synopsis sections of the 2nd and 3rd films. I quoted WP guidelines in my edit summary: Documentaries follow the same guidelines that apply to a plot summary. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Current synopses are close to 100 words. Can you explain why we should not follow these wikipedia guidelines? Seeing as you removed the tags to expand, I assume you would also revert any actual work toward expanding these synopses. Is this correct? And if so, why? OnlyInYourMind 20:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that. Misplaced Pages is not obligated to go into the minutia of poorly sourced movie and paw the ground to get up every nuance of dust and then hash out the views of fringe groups. A synopsis of the basic story line is there. Going further becomes an exercise for Zeitgeist supporters to educate potential converts to the Faq's presentation of Peter Joseph and crew. People that 'work' for Zeitgeist have formed a block on the article and now are a special interest group here editing. The article is very long now. The article has been improved dramatically with the merge of the Zeitgeist information. I suggest we also merge Peter Joseph into the film series as we merged the Zeitgeist movement. I hope the Zeitgeist people understand that the more attention they draw to themselves here the more its possible for things to boomerang. It is probably only because of the onslaught of meat and socks that the article has attracted more neutral editors. Perhaps another section is in order now to merge the Peter Joseph article into the film series. Inadvertently for the supporters of Zeitgeist who consider the article atrocious now the actual information is honed down and better in general for curious people on the subject. Mr. Joseph is not notable except for these films and there is really no reason that a paragraph or two in the original movie section is not sufficient to explain to our readers who he is and give cursory background information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• C-Class film articles
• C-Class Documentary films articles
• Documentary films task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment