Talk:Zeitgeist, the Movie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
  • Delete, 9 July 2007, AfD#1
  • Speedy endorse 17 August 2007, DRV#1
  • Deletion endorsed, 7 September 2007, DRV#2
  • Deletion endorsed, 3 November 2007, DRV#3
  • Recreate and relist, 8 November 2007, DRV#4
  • Keep, 13 November 2007, AfD#2
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Removed sections

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

“ Zeitgeist won the highest award of "Best Feature Documentary / Artivist Spirit" in November 2007 in the 4th Annual Artivists Film Festival in Hollywood, CA. The Artivists awards ceremony included prominent Hollywood and social figures such as Ted Dansen and Claes Nobel of the Nobel Prize family. ”

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

“ Joseph announced the Z-Day on March 15, 2008, "A day of awareness and activism"[4], 718 Public Events and 1100+ Private Events are scheduled Worldwide."In an effort to increase public awareness of the important social issues addressed in "Zeitgeist" (the movie), along with our belief that human unity is the key to ending the exploitation of humanity, we are working to have "Zeitgeist" shown in as many colleges / theaters & meet-up groups as possible on: Z-Day - March 15th 2008. - Peter Joseph Z-Day ”

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

“ Some have argued that the onus is actually on the filmmaker to do and prove the research, and that much of the research in the first section, such as most of the basic assertions about the life of Horus, has proven unverifiable. (March 21, 2008) Ending the Myth of Horus ”

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Another removed section

“ The films claims about religion, the "Copycat Christ" in particular, have recieved a heavy amount of criticism for being fallacious and misleading.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] A notable criticism being that despite it's long list of sources, none of those sources are experts in the Bible, Biblical history, the Ancient Near East, Egyptology, or any of the cognate fields. Many of these sources are quite old, and the arguments they present have long since been shown to be weak.[12] ”

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:RBI— WP:BRD confusion on my part. Regards, El_C 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)