Talk:American Zeitgeist

Sources for article expansion

• http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts-Film/american_zeitgeist_3647.jsp
• http://thetyee.ca/Entertainment/2006/10/10/AmericanZeitgeist/
• http://news.google.ca/archivesearch?q=%22american+zeitgeist%22+mcgann&num=100&hl=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8

--Anchoress 06:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting on my tinfoil hat for a moment, I've been trying to find a plot summary or an available copy of this award-winning full-length film and both are apparently not on the internet. (The links above link to reviews but have little detail of the movie.)

But stranger than that, RottenTomatoes has zero reviews for the movie though 51% of users want to see it. There appear to be no DVDs available online for the movie (all queries seem to end up at the Peter Joseph low-budget conspiracy movie).

And strangest of all, en.Wikipedia.org, the corpus that includes a fully-detailed plot summary of every episode of Buffy, has not a single paragraph of detail for this movie. And all the edit wars on the page appear to be deleting references to that other similarly-named film, not actually talking about this one.

I am wondering whose 'no-fly' list I have just signed up for simply by asking this, but: What's the movie about, where can I buy a copy, and can we write about it without being speedily deleted? Steve Rapaport (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should any reference to Zeitgeist - the movie be removed?

The problem with remming the note is that it isn't visible to casual readers, only editors. [1] This spreads the confusion between the two movies, since the IMDb page for American Zeitgeist (which we link to) is largely populated with content (old plot summaries, most if not all the comments, and most if not all the discussion threads) erroneously referencing Zeitgeist - the movie.

If reference to this topic is verboten a la Brian Peppers, I'd like know where; otherwise, is it really so bad to say that 'American Zeitgeist' is not 'Zeitgeist - the Movie'? Similar clarifications exist all over WP. Anchoress 00:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Place the clarification in a footnote. --NeilN 01:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Or we could do something in italics at the top? Like this:

This article is about the mainstream documentary film American Zeitgeist, released in 2006. It is not about the similar documentary film Zeitgeist - the Movie released on the internet in 2007.

-Anchoress 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who's Brian Peppers? -WarthogDemon

Brian Peppers is an unfortunate soul who became an unwilling web celebrity due to mundane circumstances somewhat beyond his control. His is an example of a topic on WP that is so unwelcome as to be virtually anathema. Anchoress 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Brian Peppers Article Deletion History. Anchoress 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good god. I suppose there were some heated discussions at the time but I nearly bust a gut laughing when scrolling through that edit history. Anyways, yeah, a couple of italicized sentences seem fine to me. --NeilN 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, v/v Brian Peppers - despite his at least borderline notability, the gratuitous and salacious nature of his notoriety, combined with the ghoulish verve with which some editors have tried to keep his article on WP, has so solidified the opinions of WP movers and shakers against the existence of a Brian Peppers article that it will likely never exist. That in contrast to the more neutral ethos relating to subjects that are simply non-notable. I'll add the comment. Change it if you think it looks weird. I'll put it at the top but I'm just as happy with a footnote if you think that's better. Anchoress 23:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That note at the top looks good with the hidden message. :) And on the Brian Peppers thing that has to be the biggest deletion history ever given a page . . . O_o -WarthogDemon 19:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)