Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zeitgeist: The Movie redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This redirect 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 articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Media Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Template:WikiProject September 11 Alternative Views Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The Universal classification of the film being a "conspiracy" film is biased and should not be included included in the intro., overall statement of the film. The film is a documentary, very simply. It content can only be considered "conspiratorial" in total via opinion. Such an overarching statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon2112 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only this very question had been discussed at some point on this page above...maybe we could have reached some kind of, I don't know, consensus? -Jordgette (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal is to be objective, then such a qualifier holds no ground. It is more honest to say it is a "documentary film", for there is an extensive precedent for such a notion. There is, however, no precedent for a "conspiracy film" as it has no active definition. Anything could be call such a thing. The first part of the work, for example, is not describing conspiracy in any way until the final lines when discussing the Counsel of Nicea. Everything else is showing the alleged relationship of modern religions to pagan ones. It is academic. So, to use such an overarching notion is biased and incorrect when the whole film is taken into account. --Falcon2112 (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud you for being bold. However, being bold does not mean disregarding a long history of discussions and going ahead and doing whatever you want to do, as if you were the first person to revise the article. This is particularly problematic if you're using your account for one purpose and one purpose only. Like I said, an admin will take care of it one way or another. -Jordgette (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the term "conspiracy" in the proper place- 9/11 section. This is more objective and contextually correct. --Falcon2112 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. This film is not to be reduced to a "conspiracy flick" it is full of concrete dats for sure. Too bad people are so judegmental sometimes. Redisco27 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Zeitgeist Movie sites should not be allowed in the external links section. This is a film in and of itself and Wikipedia is not a place to voice the biased opinions of those who dislikes the content. All links should be related to the main work itself. Otherwise, there will be 100s of attack sites listed. Wikipedia isn't here for debate. Wikipedia in this sense is also being used for promotion of biased sites which seek revenue via the popularity of the film itself. This is not a place for advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon2112 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, advertising is the not the position of Wikipedia and 3rd party sites that discuss the film from the position of opinion are obviously not objective and should not be allowed here. This is to maintain neutrality of this article. --Falcon2112 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical links are commonplace on wikipedia and are acceptable. Certainly links defending the movie (assuming the possibility that it could be defensible) would likewise be appropriate. Mamalujo (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of the article will be in dispute if any person with a problem with the film is allowed to post their website. The link should be objective- otherwise 100s of links would likely be added which are biased and hate filled. --208.120.242.125 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid objection. It is commonplace on wikipedia for critical sites to be included under external links. Hundreds of links have not been added nor are they likely to be. If a link is hate filled, then we can deal with that. Mamalujo (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the very least, these three links should be included because they are articles and interviews by scholars who are cited in the article:

• Skeptic: The Greatest Story Ever Garbled by Tim Callahan
• Zeitgeist Debunked with guest Tim Callahan Reasonable Doubts podcast
• Interview with ancient historian Dr Chris Forbes at Centre for Public Christianity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandthefttoaster (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great to me. PorkHeart (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree with me and I'd like to see what others have to say. But is there anyway to keep this asshat Falcon2112 from changing the article without discussing it? This person keeps ranting that any criticism will "opens the door for 100s of blogs and personal perspectives that have no notoriety" As I've explained, Chris Forbes and Tim Callahan are scholars who are already listed in the article. The only Wikipedia articles that Falcoln2112 has ever edited are Zeitgeist related, so it's not hard to see where he/she came here from.Grandthefttoaster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If Link against the work are to be posted so should links definding it. The 220 Page source Guide PDf was added. This is Official and needs to stay. Skyperiod (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If criticism from supposed authorities are to be added to this page in this section, then, logically, supporting documents and counter arguments can be addded to: FYI. --Skyperiod (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist Addendum is a 2 hour film that exists on it own, regardless of it being a sequel. A new page should be created and it should be taken off this main "Zeitgeist The Movie" page. This would allow for direct awards and criticisms to be presented in context of that film. Every feature film should have its own page if there was consistency here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon2112 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Zeitgeist Addendum meet enough of the criteria in our notability guidelines for films to survive a request for deletion? --Versageek 23:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. It is a huge work which has been noticed and reviewed by many. It should have its own page. It meets the notability guidelines. --Skyperiod (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it doesnt have its own page either. I found that firm first and it has been talked about on the internet as much as the first. I also see it won an award. I will try to find time to add a new page once I learn more about wikipedia. Would you like to help "skypperiod" ? Redisco27 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There actually was a separate article for Zeitgeist: Addendum. Here's an old revision of it. – Sylph (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted for the second time the insertion of material sourced to a youtube post by Stefan Molyneux. This source is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia. If one looks at the guidelines for reliable sourcing it is clear that the youtube video comes under self-published sourcing. Reading from the relevant section, it is clear that because Molyneux's expertise in the field has not been credited by reliable third party sources, that his views, no matter how incisive or objective they may seem, do not qualify as a source on Wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since The Official website states that the 2010 Update replaces the Old Version and outside of old internet posts the old version is no longer being produced by any official medium of zeitgeistmovie.com. In fact, it has been literally removed from the original Google video post and replaced by Vimeo as the Official Online viewing. The would alter the description(s) of the ending, for example, as the World Government issue no longer exists in the work, etc. Skyperiod (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really bizarre case, in which a previously released film has been "replaced." The Wikipedia article is about the original 2007 version of the film, to which all of the references are referring. I do not like the idea of wiping the slate clean. It's like revisionist history. The original film was released, circulated, and commented upon. Just because the producer has attempted to "replace" the film (perhaps because certain parts are now embarrassing for him) does not mean these events never happened. Perhaps there can be a new section called "Zeitgeist: The Movie (2010)" -- but the remarks about the original, including the criticism, should remain. Pretending that the other version never existed is an inappropriate move for Wikipedia. -Jordgette (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with Jordgette. The makers of Zeitgeist do not get to control what outside sources say about them. This is not 1984. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sentence in the article explains everything you need to know:

"An updated version of Zeitgeist released in 2010 removes the North American Union section among other changes."

The parts of the movie that have been removed should stay in the article because they are still part of the history of the movie. Also making a new section for the 2010 version is just needlessly confusing, as only a few things have been changed.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is illogical. Yes, the film has content which has exited for 3 years which is now removed, but it isn't the role any one here to say what the film is or is not based on version. In fact, the page could reflect the very first version which is now not even addressed; likeswise, in 10 years, the 2010 update version will be the obvious "real" version so the temporal issue is moot. It is only logical to update this page to reflect the film as it "Officially" exists and how it is distributed, which is the new Vimeo version and the DVD version. The "original" 2007 version as addressed on this site is out of production and hence this page needs to be updated. You opinion about the director is irrelevant. It isn't up to the public opinion to decide what is official- only the creator. It is his project/film and hence his changes are what define the film. I will be changing this page to reflect the correct ending. Also, the bias on see on this site is very unhealthy. Be technical- not political- please--Skyperiod (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree, based on the previous arguments. It isn't up to an artist to control what has or has not been written about his/her past work. The original "Zeitgeist" was seen by a very wide audience. If U2 released an 'updated' version of The Joshua Tree with some songs removed, because Bono didn't like them anymore, would we remove what Wikipedia said about the original songs? No. People heard and remember those songs and they are part of rock history. The same principle applies here.

Skyperiod has made a series of unilateral edits, with which several other editors have already expressed their disagreement. I would encourage another editor to revert these changes (unlike Skyperiod I would like to work toward a consensus and not act unilaterally). -Jordgette (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all of these recent edits by Skyperiod. Skyperiod, if you make a suggestion and ALL the other editors in reply reject it quite clearly, you cannot simply impose your will on the article. If you have a problem with our view, you can take that problem to another venue on wikipedia. See the page on noticeboards where you can get help for a list of fora.

No where in this article does it reference any source of the film it now describes. The official site has the version is represents. It does not have any other version. The DVD of the version this article describes no longer exists or is it in production. The Google video also no longer exists. Therefore it doesn't matter the history, it isn't referenced. The site goes to the Vimeo and that version is not what this Wikipedia describes. Keep this article as representing the old version is technically wrong. The film isn't a song- it is a dataset. I will changing this based on the technical reality that in 10 years, this wikipedia articles will be changed anyway to reflect the current version, so why not get it over with now? The census here should be "what is" not "what was". You opinion is based on a temporal disposition and mine is based on a empirical. The logic here is faulty and biased. Skyperiod (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film is a film, not a dataset. Again, the creators do not get to control how others analyse the film. If you want us to pretend that the 2006 version, which is the one which achieved notability, never existed, then my reference to Orwell above is more apt than I realised. Censorship is doubleplusungood. If you want to add well-sourced information on how it has been revised since 2006, that's fine. Consider the treatment given, for example, to the special edition version of Star Wars IV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even if it is a dataset, if tomorrow YouTube decides to delete all user-uploaded videos, should YouTube's Wikipedia article be wiped of all references to user videos having been hosted there for years, simply because we can't find them anymore?

Regardless of how you feel on this issue, you really shouldn't go against discussion-page consensus. That's a good way to get your editing privileges revoked. -Jordgette (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight. You think this article should reflect the current data 10-15 years from now, even though virtually no one will have had access to a dvd of it with that old version, for that period? You think just becuase 3 years go by that suddenly everything is stuck in time? Also- how do you rationalize the fact that Wikipedia cannot link to a non-official version and be taken seriously- yet this article upholds a non-official version, which is no where linked? This is like linking to a remake youtube video that some yahoo does...is that how wikipedia maintains its integrity? Skyperiod (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See VsevolodKrolikov's note below on predicting the future. -Jordgette (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the future- it has to do with the now. Your point is non-existent. The version on zeitgeistmovie.com is the only distributed version. That's it. This articles does not and can not link to the only version if is to be accurate. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can get on with our lives.Skyperiod (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OH- i see now. Yes, I agree that this [age should be updated. The fact that the verions this film is talking about is no where to be linked or the like, as pointed out, means it is just odd to have content here which is not related. Lets update!!! ;) Redisco27 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid, the article should still mention the older version of the film. Imagine if someone has a copy of the "old" version and they get confused why some things are different, they should be able to read about the different versions on Wikipedia. You cant just erase your mistakes from history.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is now trying to remove the sentence that mentions the 2010 update, which makes it so the description doesn't match the current movie. So we've gone from people trying to censor the existence of the old version, to people trying to censor the existence of the new version. Ironic isn't it?Grandthefttoaster (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article: "According to egyptologists, however, Horus' birth was on the second Epagomenal day (early august).", which links to this site: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/Calendar.html However, if you dig around the site a little bit, you can find the section about Horus: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/NetjeruH.html#Horus Notably, the birth date: "25th December - 10th Mechir - Birth of Heru (Horus), the child of Aset (Isis), Day of elevating the Great Netjret (goddess) in all her names and manifestations." The bit in the article may be referencing this: "15th of July, the 2nd Epagomenal Days, is the Birthday of Heru(Horus)" (also from the same page on Horus). Seems a bit ambiguous, perhaps remove or expand? It isn't clear what the "egyptologists" believe from the article linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.232.67 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this. Actually, I've removed the sentence - it shouldn't have been in that section, and the sourcing was not up to wikipedia standards. There appears to be a lot of factual errors in part 1. The problem for wikipedia is that effectively we can only point them out if a reliable source points them out in direct relation to Zeitgeist.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Factual Errors"? Can you support those supposed errors with proof? Skyperiod (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a talkpage statement, I don't particularly have to back it up. But as you're interested, and as an illustration of how Wikipedia works, there is this site here. I haven't been through all the sources the writer uses, but many of them appear to be pretty solid. So why aren't they in the article? Because the writer is not a notable expert with a reputation (such as an academic), nor can the website be treated as a reliable source, such as an academic journal, or a book from a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking, or a high-quality newspaper. If we were to cut out the website and go straight to the reliable sources and use them to critique the film, we would be performing original research, which is not allowed. Even where there is material that I'm convinced is wrong (such as the existence of a Japanese god called Beddou, for which I searched in both English and Japanese without success) I cannot add that to Wikipedia, unless there is a reliable source that says so. Changes to the article need to be made in accordance with what the (balance of) reliable sources say, not what you or I think is the truth.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I found on the web the "source guiide" which I asusme should be referneced here? It has everything. Redisco27 (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The 2007 and 2010 update both had, on screen, the text saying it was the Madrid Bombing. Chapman implies is was deceitful as it was not labeled. This is incorrect. This has been removed Skyperiod (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chapman reference in the article misrepresents what Chapman said, and who called it a lie (she cites someone approvingly doing so). I think her critique stays in. It's clear that there was a later addition of a subtitle.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a dispute over the versions of the film and which should be included in this Wiki, then we should simply have a versions section. Again, in 10 years, no will know anything but the current version which is the only officially distributed version. The argument being put forth here by some is that the prior version is, for some reason, more important than the current one. This has no basis in logic - but for the meantime, we can have both. Agreed? Otherwise, there will be a long and hard war on this article as more people become aware of the dispute, I can assure you.Skyperiod (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skyperiod, you are violating all kinds of wikipedia policies. First of all, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we don't edit with regard to editors' guesses about the future. Changes in wikipedia come after, not before, changes in the real world. Secondly, it is clear you are editing against consensus. Thirdly, you appear to be threatening to get other Zeitgeist supporters involved in an edit war. A "versions" subsection detailing revision would be a good idea, if it can be properly sourced. However, I must say that you appear to be very close to the Zeitgeist movement, and I am concerned that you are editing wikipedia for the wrong reasons.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am threatening nothing. I am making an observation. Also your statement is riddled with non-objective bias. What is a "Zeitgeist Supporter"? Are you a "non-supporter"? I'm being objective and logical. What-You can't handle that?Skyperiod (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also- What consensus?! There are only two of us here?!Skyperiod (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three editors opposing your suggestion that all references to previous versions are taken out. That's good enough for consensus, especially considering that you are an single purpose account with an apparent POV. Removal of well-sourced material that is relevant to the topic because you don't like what it says is against wikipedia policy. If you can find reliably sourced material that is more flattering of the film, go ahead and include it - in fact, please include it, as it would improve the article. The issue is, it seems reliable sources have been almost entirely negative about the film, and this is what wikipedia should reflect. Not what you or I happen to think. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point you to the editor who commented earlier on your user talk page. -Jordgette (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hola! I'm trying to find out about the film I just saw and was looking into it. But - there data here which doesn't not exist... It appears the people who have been contributing to this site have it wrong. I will do a bit to correct the posts, but its sad to see how poorly used wikipedia is. ;( Redisco27 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions above explain why the article should describe the version of the film that attained notability, and why the producer's removal of (apparently now-embarrassing) material should not alter or eliminate what had been written about the original notable version of the film. I encourage another editor to kindly revert Redisco27's changes to that effect. A new section discussing later editions of the film may be appropriate instead. -Jordgette (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the external link to Acharya S. as it clearly fails WP:EXTERNAL. I'll have a look at the other suggested changes, as some of them might be reasonable. But any attempt to edit out material referring to earlier versions of the film should be viewed as POV censorship and not tolerated. These attempts are ironic, given the accusations the film makes of secretive conspiracies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other changes referring to the North American Union and the future world government - I'm checking the original "final" version of the film, and it mentions international bankers, the US constitution becoming obsolete without anyone realising, that the same people are behind the media hiding information, (not telling you things), who are also behind the EU, AU, the NAU the apparently forthcoming "Asian Union", who want to have a "one world government" (big letters on the screen). Linking this to the wiki page New World Order (conspiracy) seems uncontroversial, save to those who find the term embarrassing when it's applied to themselves, and that's not a reason to take it out of wikipedia. Changing the reference to "Destruction of the World Trade Center" to "9/11 attacks" seems entirely fair. The film looks at the pentagon attack too. I'll make the changes in a short while.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you VsevolodKrolikov -- you've done an awful lot of legwork here. -Jordgette (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pdelongchamp has changed the article heavily, removing all the information about the sequel movies and the Zeitgeist Movement. This seems like vandalism and I reverted it.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not vandalism. He's done a lot of good-faith work and actually checked out the sources. Apparently nobody had tried that before and just assumed on faith that they were okay. Did you check them out before you reverted his work? I'd argue that you're the one vandalizing, since you are intentionally inserting false facts that aren't confirmed by the sources cited. I am reverting your reversion, pending further discussion on the matter. -Jordgette (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh what? The only change he made that has to do with a bad source is the section about the award the movie won. Mostly what he has done is removed the entire section about the sequel movies because he says they aren't notable. That doesn't make any sense at all, why should an article about a movie not mention the sequel at all? The sequel is just as notable as the first movie.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name some of these false facts that I'm inserting? If it's just the information about the awards, I can see the sources are out of date, but I found new sources for that information:

http://www.artivist.com/festival/artivist_awards.php

http://www.cortoweb.com/icfilms/eng/2008_winners.php

Grandthefttoaster (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to add the awards back in with the appropriate sources. I also encourage you to take the material about the sequels and create new articles on them. If they are in fact notable, they deserve their own articles, like all films and their sequels. Creating new articles is fun. As for Pdelongchamp's other edits, I think they generally improve the article. The level of detail in the plot description, for example, was pretty over the top before. I might expect that on the article for a Twilight movie, but not a documentary. -Jordgette (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what was wrong with just having a separate section for the sequel in the same article like it was before. I have seen that in other article where the sequel wasn't hugely notable. It is still better then pretending the sequel doesn't exist. I agree with you that the plot description of the first movie was too long.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a different movie, then it should have its own article (assuming that at least one secondary source has reported on it), and there should be a backlink to the sequel article at the bottom of this article. As far as I can tell this article is about the 2007 film, which attained notability on its own. The sequel is its own animal and should be treated as such, in my opinion. -Jordgette (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what other people have to say before I make a new article or anything but in the meantime I put back the award information and stuff from the opening.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. -Jordgette (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeitgeist article was deleted repeatedly for non notability. The sequel certainly is significantly less notable that the first. I don't see how it needs to be mentioned. The article is about the first movie, not any movie the director may have made afterwards.Pdelongchamp (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly relevant to mention sequels and other works spawned as a result of a film's success. This is legitimately practiced in film articles across Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the sequel is significantly less notable then the first movie. The biggest amount of press that anything Zeitgeist related has gotten is from this New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html) which mentions both videos. Secondly, even if it isn't notable, it should still be mentioned just for being the sequel to the first movie. The point of the Wikipedia article is to have all the important information about the movie, so the fact that there is a sequel is relevant. For example the movie From Dusk till Dawn 2 is not a well known movie at all, but it is mentioned in the article about the first From Dusk till Dawn movie just because it is the sequel to it. Not mentioning the sequel in a movie article doesn't make any sense. The article can have a huge section quoting every review of the first movie out there but we're going to pretend that the second movie doesn't exist?Grandthefttoaster (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The movement should also be mentioned in this article as it is mentioned in the NY Times article and even has it's own Wikipedia article. I'm not sure what Pdelongchamp's problem is, s/he continues to remove information without discussing it.Grandthefttoaster (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the words 'sun' and 'son' were not homophonic is irrelevant - as irrelevant as would be the fact if they were. It has no bearing on the argument, and its presence in the article gives undue weight to criticisms of the idea that a man may have been used as a substitute for worship of the sun. I have removed the sentence as violating NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.174.62 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if editors think it's irrelevant. The source quoted provided that as one of his points of criticism of the film, and therefore, including it as such is legitimate. We don't include or exclude material based on our personal disagreements with sources, so long as they meet reliability requirements, and are accurately attributed, which this material was. Please see WP:NPOV. Nightscream (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film (at least the original version) puts both words onscreen together in order to demonstrate their homophonic relationship. Even if that wasn't the producer's attempt, it is clearly the impression created, which is why it is mentioned in the scholarly criticism. -Jordgette (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter if editors think it's irrelevant. Human reasoning is the fundamental process by which material is vetted for wikipedia. We do exclude material, however reliable and well attributed, when the material is unrelated to the article. Please see WP:PBAGDSWCBY for advice about veiled personal attacks.

I accept, Jordgette, that you may have understood from the film that the fact that 'sun' and 'son' are homophonic in our language is important or relevant somehow. However, when this common misunderstanding is not addressed or even mentioned in the article, it is less-than-impartial to include rebuttals of it.