Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RFC: One or Two Articles? Should film series and movement be split?

Should the article on Zeitgeist (film series) continue to also describe the Zeitgeist Movement, or should a separate article on the Zeitgeist Movement be re-created? Currently The Zeitgeist Movement redirects to Zeitgeist (film series). Should the article (the result of a previous merge) be split? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please !vote for One article or Two articles, or, synonymously, for Split or Keep merged. Be civil and concise. Please avoid threaded discussion in the Survey section. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: the last two editors to vote have mentioned a draft article would be desirable, to see if notability can be established. I have knocked one together, though help to improve it would be desirable, see Draft:The Zeitgeist Movement group.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Keep merged There is not enough information in the current Zeitgeist movement section to warrant its own article. It should be developed and further citations added before a new article is created. Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sticking with Keep Merge because I believe this is a Fringe Topic and needs more sources from major publications in order to be notable. Please see my comments below for more information. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - WP:COATRACK complaints currently prevent content expansion. Expanded content exists here, here, and here. The zeitgeist movement topic meets all the notability requirements of WP:GNG. This notability is verified by a rather large #List of sources for The Zeitgeist Movement (roughly 30 reliable sources) and further bolstered by a 2011 AFD discussion that agreed to keep the then separate article on The Zeitgeist Movement. To further the goals of the encyclopedia, restricting appropriate content cannot be allowed. OnlyInYourMindT 08:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC) updated 20:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Split - there is a enough coverage and notability for the group to have its own article (see comment in threaded discussion). Including all the information in the film article upsets its balance, which should be focused on the films. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged Things like WP:RFC are pretty strong guidance for action and there was already one on this article a few months ago and it said 'merge' and that was done then.Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

One article - sources aren't adequate to support two; one article is more resistant to fan's continuing efforts to promote their fringe views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - The most apt description of the article I've seen is "schizophrenic". Most all problems here seem ultimately rooted in the merging of two distinct topics (film and movement). Willondon (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Split - Additional press mentions of the Zeitgeist Movement:

1. Nicola Sturgeon is backed by Occupy protesters in London The National-May 10, 2015
2. Forest boy "inspired by Zeitgeist movement" Telegraph.co.uk-Jun 17, 2012
3. «Биологически я несу его гены, но это — не самое главное» Yarsk.ru-May 26, 2015
4. Jim Rickards on dollar debasement & Peter Joseph explains Zeitgeist Movement RT-Mar 7, 2014
5. Zeitgeist solutions for the world RT-Sep 15, 2011
6. Zeitgeist a Blend of Skepticism, Metaphysical Spirituality, and Conspiracy Religion Dispatches -Jan 16, 2011
7. Beyond capitalism and socialism: could a new economic approach save the planet? The Guardian-Apr 22, 2015
8. Segment: Peter Joseph on "market paradox" RT December 11, 2014 03:30
9. The Zeitgeist Movement on "Off the Grid Ora.tv-June 08, 2015
10. They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present NEW YORK TIMES-March 16, 2009*

Those editors who want the articles united argue that the films are propaganda. So the result is notable propaganda from a non-notable movement. Not a tenable position. A movement notable for its propaganda is a notable movement. And since the movement did not arise completely from the films (it was a part of the previously existing Venus Movement), it is actually and historically a separate entity. Current page looks like one of those mythical monsters, part goat, part lion, and part eagle. Neither fish nor fowl, but trying to be both. But the editors who lobby for one article argue that this will soon be solved by reducing the Movement portion, and reducing again, -- hey, where'd he go? All mention of Movement removed completely. This is not an accusation -- this is their statement of their intentions. (Sorry for twice voting with these remarks. This is date of combined statement.) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged Those who want to split might consider writing a draft article and see if what can be reliably sourced meets WP:N. Considering the number of clearly unreliable sources mentioned above and below, this would have to be considered carefully. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged for now. After someone creates a draft article that demonstrates notability, that would be a good time to have this conversation again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think the whole structure is a mess. If these films actually meet WP:NF then personally I would split this article into four articles: one for each film and a Zeitgeist Movement article. I would add a section to the Movement article about the films, that would link to the three distinct film articles. The film series article could be retained although it might be a bit redundant, but it certainly should not be retained in the form it is currently i.e. basically three (or four) articles glued together. Betty Logan (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• One article. The Zeitgeist movement has not become any more significant since last time this was debated. Rather the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) I am persuaded otherwise, see below. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The films are either notable or they are not. If they are, then each one should have a separate article per the norm on Wikipedia. If the Zeitgeist movement is not notable at all then it shouldn't be covered at all; if it is then it should have its own dedicated article, rather than being shoehorned into a film article. It shouldn't be bunged into a film article to circumvent the notability requirements. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Split. As OnlyInYourMind and Willondon point out, merging two related but different topics into one article is detrimental to the accurate coverage of either. --Waldir ^talk 09:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Split. The first film doesn't seem to have much in common with the second and third films in the "series", so the movies should be split into their separate pages. I am not sure if the Movement has enough notability by itself outside the context of the films. If the Movement isn't split, I would like to see the article be reorganized to resemble the Kony 2012 article. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Weak keep merged for now. The draft article doesn't persuade me of the notability of the movement. An editor above speaks of 'mentions', unfortunately that is what so many seem to be, hearsay references to (for example) friends of 'the forest boy' saying he was influenced by the films/movement, Amazon promotional of a book, all with little independent content about the movement itself. I agree that it is anomalous to have a movement 'shoe horned into a film article', but that is a reflection of the dual anomalies of that movement arising from/adopting the name of a film series and that name being 'owned' by the filmmaker. This isn't necessarily 'circumventing notability requirements' since notability requirements for a mention/section are more lenient than those for an article. Though I agree that the main coverage of the movement should go AFTER coverage of the films, or as part of the film which gave rise to the movement, regardless of chronology.Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC) addendum, I also see the logic of AndytG's final point below, that if we can't say very much about the movement, then we say not very much !!Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Split The original merge was not justifiable to begin with. The Zeitgeist Movement has lots of direct, notable press with no relationship to the film series. The group was started to support The Venus Project and is not a "fan" club for the films or anything like that, which is what this current article implies. Today, It has international press as well that also confirms an independent existence from the films. I also agree all three films should be given their own article. The history shows that the entire move to collapse these 4 articles into one really looks like covert vandalism and an attempt to marginalize. JWilson0923 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Split - Whether it's "Fringe" is a matter of opinion. Content should be judged by it's nature. One is a film series, and the other is a movement. They are totally different things.Rationalbenevolence (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Split. I'm not entirely convinced that TZM meets our notability guidelines, but trying to cover it properly in an article on another subject simply isn't working. Even with the best of intentions writing about a political movement in an article about movies is going to skew the coverage. If it merits coverage, it needs to be done properly, in an on-topic article that doesn't needlessly conflate criticism of the movies with criticism of the movement - and if it doesn't merit an article, we should say nothing more in this article than that the movies helped inspire the movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Split Zeitgiest Movement clearly meets all the notability requirements of WP:GNG. As far as being "fringe", the media coverage does not support it. It is wide and vast, The problem with the existing article is that is assumes this group is defined by the movies made by P Joseph. This is not the case based on viable secondary media reporting. Sanjit45 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Split -- summoned here by bot. To me, the Zeitgiest Movement meets notability guidelines. Two articles would be better. The ZM has many reliable sources and press that could support it's own article. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 02:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep merged -- TZM is FRINGE, but doesn't appear to be notable FRINGE. Overwhelming majority of sources are self published or iffy blogs. Press received outside of Huffpost is obscure. It would need more mainstream coverage to warrant an independent article. A couple paragraphs here briefly detailing the basics should be sufficient. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean a non-obscure source like the New York Times... "at the second annual meeting of the Worldwide Zeitgeist Movement, which, its organizers said, held 450 sister events in 70 countries around the globe." See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyregion/17zeitgeist.html?_r=0 The truth is that there are many new reports from all over the world. If TZM is fringe, so is The Venus Project by which it is based and so is Technocracy JWilson0923 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SeeOther stuff exists, also note the difference between 'its organizers said, held etc' and 'it held'.

Split -- Looking at Jon's draft, there's plenty of sources/info to use to write about the group, trying to mush that info into this article about several films has caused problems since a lot of it is "off-topic". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Split, I think, since True Believers in TZM are unable to accept that the films which spawned it are fatuous, and we badly need to stop the flood of well-intentioned people trying to recast a Truther propaganda film as some profound social commentary. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you have voted both ways! Would you like to amend/remove one?Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I have struck the earlier one. I am persuaded that we need two articles: TZM has a somwehat different demographic more akin to Occupy, whereas the films are conspiracist claptrap. Not all members of TZM are conspiracy nuts, whereas the Merola brothers clearly are. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC running tally, collapsed to not obstruct discussion

Tally: Count Name Comment 1 Z1720 merge 2 OnlyInYourMind Split 3 Jonpatterns Split 4 Earl King Jr. merge 5 Tom Harrison merge 6 Willondon Split 7 Grammar'sLittleHelper Split 8 Arthur Rubin merge 9 NinjaRobotPirate merge 10 Betty Logan Split 11 Guy merge 12 Waldir Split 13 Kage Acheron Split 14 Pincrete merge 15 JWilson0923 Split 16 Rationalbenevolence Split 17 AndyTheGrump Split 18 Sanjit45 Split 19 Comatmebro Split 20 70.36.233.104 merge 21 Jeraphine Gryphon Split To merge = 8 To split = 13 (at time of posting) collapsed and updated by:Pincrete (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I would also suggest that the Zeitgeist movement section be placed after Zeitgeist: Moving Forward section. Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720: I invite you to change your !vote. The current merged article has been accused of WP:COATRACK and as a result some editors decided to remove encyclopedic content against WP:PRESERVE policy. As such, attempts to expand the section are currently met with reverts. Rest assured expanded, developed content does exist: Here you will find the text of the movement when it was originally merged into this article. There is also a rewrite underway by Jonpatterns. OnlyInYourMindT 07:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking back through the article history to 2012, we can see that there used to be a considerable amount of expanded content. OnlyInYourMindT 08:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

When I cast my vote, I decided based on the content I saw on the article page. After reading some of the previous RFC and DR, I think this dispute is between those who believe the movement is WP:FRINGE and does not have enough reliable sources (and thus should not get its own article) and those who believe the movement section is off-topic from the article (and thus needs to be split.) Regardless of the decision in this RFC, information about the movement should be included in the film series article because the movement was inspired by the movies and removing this inspiration in the film series article would be removing significant understanding of the topic.

I believe this movement does qualify to be a fringe theory, and WP:NFRINGE says, "A fringe subject...is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (emphasis theirs.) Looking at the links below, most are not major publications and some only mention the movement in one sentence. The only two articles below that I would consider major publications with significant coverage are the New York Times and the Telegraph. I would encourage those who would like a new article to focus on finding more coverage of the movement from major publications to base the new article on. Z1720 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Important to note that WP:FRINGE is quite different from WP:NFRINGE. The difference is explained under WP:NFRINGE, and I am disappointed that anyone would confuse them. That confusion may, however, be the genesis of the whole disagreement. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I think the above comment could be insightful. Can you expand on what you mean? My interpretation is WP:NFRINGE explains that a WP:FRINGE topic can have its own article page when it is notable (or "receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") Would you agree with this assessment? Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you have said it. For example, Modern flat Earth societies are definitely WP:FRINGE, but look at the size of the page. WP:FRINGE says you do not include the ideas of Modern flat Earth societies when discussing Geography, but that policy has does not remove the page on Modern flat Earth societies. Contrary to what some argue, a subject does not have to pass through the James Randi sieve to appear as a page on Wikipedia. In fact, the WP:FRINGE argument is inapplicable to this discussion. Using the WP:FRINGE argument here is a good example of Sophistry. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - examples of sources, for context see rewrite. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Tom harrison: I've added 10 more sources to the above list. OnlyInYourMindT 20:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Z1720, Tom harrison, and OnlyInYourMind: I've added 6 more to the list above. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: I've updated the 60 Minutes source to http://www.cuny.tv/highlight/sp2000039. At first I thought the piece was a spoof, but upon further digging, found that "BROOKLYN COLLEGE 60 MINUTES is a production of Brooklyn College and CBS News," and, "The special is produced by Stephanie Palewski, a veteran 60 MINUTES editor, who was invited to teach a graduate course." It's a very unique situation, but now I'm leaning toward reliable source. OnlyInYourMindT 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Things like WP:RFC are pretty strong guidance for action and there was already one on this article a few months ago and it said 'merge'. If an RFC suggests or encourages a merge and it did and that is why the article was merged, it is generally appropriate to pursue that as an outcome. This previous decision was not made based on article length, but on the underlying connectivity between two issues. I suspect that this film creator and his films, relative to all other artists and films in Wikipedia is a case of "This artist and their films are not notable enough to stand alone as articles, so merge them together" as was decided last time around. If we make this decision based on "words" it becomes who can spend the most time padding an article with words so that it meets some threshold so that it becomes two articles. This does not increase the notability or the distinctiveness of the articles, only creates the illusion of such. There is a terrible problem on this article also of people arriving and editing from the subject itself [1] and yes I have to point out that this is an ongoing problem. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Can those editors against the split please explain why they feel the sources listed above are not enough to establish notability for the movement? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No one said the movement was not notable completely. But, it is owned and operated by the guy that made the movies and announced by him also originally so the very issue is how real is it? There are zero membership numbers anywhere. Is that grassroots,?? as the old article claimed. No way. The citations if needed can be used in the merged article and mostly are. The Huffington post citation was removed previously as a non notable blog arm of that paper so it does not count. Most of the citations are old. Virtually nothing in the media on this group in recent times. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ownership of name is not an element of the WP specification, so let us not invent rules de jour. We have seen enough of that. The movie grew out of the decades-old Venus Movement, and the Zeitgeist Movement grew from both sources. The Huffington Post page states, "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." This is the same that other publications call Editors-at-large and guest editorialists. It is not random user contributions (like Wikipedia). Grammar's Little Helper (talk)

No. It was already decided here that it is not a reliable source. Look at the archived discussion for the page. It is a blog. A blog is not a news story. It is just a person grinding an ax about something and possibly getting paid several dollars a word in the process if they are looking to fill empty space on the paper. That is very different from a news story. It says in big bold letters before the story it is a blog story. It was already removed from other articles related and will also be removed here if it is used. It is not a reliable source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And only a person with a microscope could tell the difference between that and a NYTimes editorial, where someone is (surprise!) grinding an ax about something. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: Policy states WP:NEWSBLOGs "may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". Was the writer not a professional? OnlyInYourMindT 08:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a non notable fluff piece filler piece that has already not passed in archived attempts to gain consensus of using it. It is a blog. I suppose he is a pro. but that just means someone is paying him to write. Mostly this space is for editors to come and write their thoughts. Not discussing minutia about things already well known on the talk page by current editors. The whole point of an RFC is to get new people in here to comment. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the deprecation is dead wrong. Travis Walter Donovan is a former executive editor for the Huffington Post. Here is his web page stating exactly that, and here is a portfolio of his contributions to the Post. The topics are broad and deep. This is not the profile of someone who writes "fluff pieces" or "filler pieces." Donovan is a professional whose choice of topics is guided by the interests of his readers and the editorial policies of his publication -- like any professional. I wish people would do a little research before sounding off with misrepresentations of Wikipedia rules and distortions the real world. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the writer is a professional, WP:NEWSBLOG policy says the HuffPost Blog is an acceptable source. Notability on wikipedia only applies to topics, not sources. Sources are governed by Verifiability, not notability. One editors faith in a vaguely referenced past consensus does not stand up to the current weight of arguments. Consensus can change. OnlyInYourMindT 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:NEWSBLOG clearly does not apply. It might be appropriate under WP:SPS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

After "professional", WP:NEWSBLOG goes on to say "but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note, the words "with caution" come after the words, "use them." So, what "caution" would you like to apply to that source? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: I'm confused. Do you think WP:NEWSBLOG applies or not? You have not given a reason why it would not apply. You then quoted it as if it does apply. The quote then continues, "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer" which is policy again telling us to use this source. Yes, with caution, but to use it. OnlyInYourMindT 02:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG suggests that some articles are displayed as if in a blog, and we should consider those as if displayed as a news article if they are subject to editorial review. On the other hand, reliable publications (such as Forbes) host blogs, and those are not subject to editorial review. Function over form. In the specific case mentioned, I believe it is the latter case, and could be used only If attributed to the author and only If the author is a recognized expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no evidence for that belief ("not subject to editorial review"). On the other side, Huffington Post headlines the article with the words, "[one of] HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." And what does "signature" mean? According to the dictionary, Donovan speaks for the Huffington Post like its own signature. Having provided that endorsement and left the article on the web page since May 2010, the Huffington Post editorial staff implicitly and explicitly indicate the article is a welcome Huffington Post statement and not a rogue opinion piece. Whether there has been formal editorial review of the article is pure speculation, and a moot quibble. HP is only one of many web sources testifying to the Movement's notability. There are also many books, pro and con, that have not been listed. Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We have no evidence that it is subject to editorial review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted previously, the editorial is presented under a banner of editorial endorsement: "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors." I cannot find any legal disclaimers stating that "the opinions expressed here are of the individual writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners or editorial staff of Huffington Post ..." Do you see any? Grammar's Little Helper (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. A rational person would assume that something attributed to one of "HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors" is credited to that contributor and should be attributed only to that contributor, not to HuffPost. The fact that the contributor is an editor of HuffPost might make it reliable as attributed to him, per WP:SPS. The question of it being in blog format is irrelevant, per WP:NEWSBLOG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: From HuffPost terms & conditions, section 5: "We are an Internet Service Provider, e.g., We are Not Responsible For and Do Not Necessarily Hold the Opinions Expressed by Our Content Contributors: Opinions and other statements expressed by users and third parties (e.g., bloggers) are theirs alone, not opinions of The Huffington Post. Content created by third parties is the sole responsibility of the third parties and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed."[2] OnlyInYourMindT 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Typical lawyerly language reserving the right to drive on both sides of the road. A "signature" is not a signature, and a web site characterized as an "internet provider." You're right. No skin. And it is not the only reference. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Huffington_Post_HuffPost_Green_blog_by_Travis_Walter_Donovan_per_WP:NEWSBLOG OnlyInYourMindT 19:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Good on ya. Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft

• Draft:The Zeitgeist Movement group

As recommended by Arthur Rubin, I have create a draft to give an idea of what a split group article may look like, it includes 'Ref List' for former merged article. Its not very good, it will need additional work. When people criticise sources please be specific on which sources and what issues.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: there is already a draft see above.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The lede has described the Zeitgeist films as "documentary-style" since November 2014, immediately after the merger of the three individual titles. Some editors dislike this characterisation. there are a number of options:

1. Documentary - preferred by fans of the film and followers of the Zeitgeist movement, disliked by others as the essential character of a documentary (that it is factual) clearly does not apply.
2. Documentary-style - a compromise but one that entirely fails to placate the pro-Zeitgeist editors.
3. Propaganda film - factually correct but a minority view among reliable independent sources, which tend to steer clear of such labels.
4. Film - avoids the drama but satisfies pretty much nobody.

(The RfC statement has been edited to bring it into conformance with WP:RFC.) ~ Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Edited again to bring it back into line with what I said. Your edits and commentary are grossly insulting. Do not even THINK about doing this again. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There's then the problem of categories, since both documentary and propaganda are candidate categories.

Please state your preferences and reasoning. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinions

• Oppose 1 per WP:FRINGE; weak Support 2 as a mealy-mouthed compromise; Support 3 per WP:SPADE; Support 4 as the only one realistically likely to succeed. Support Category:American propaganda films, Oppose Category:American documentary films, again per WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!)

Support 2 as a mealy-mouthed compromise. It is obviously not a real documentary. The current Categories of what it is on the article page now are adequate as far as describing what it is. The only category it really is not is documentary unless pseudo. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC) But would also support Propaganda film in a documentary style, works for me or just propaganda film would also be o.k. That would be closer and more to the point than documentary-style.Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Support 3 as the best choice. 1 is acceptable only with caveats; perhaps "conspiracist documentary" or together with 3. I agree with the Zeitgeist movement members that "conspiracy-style" is not common usage in the real world, so it would be inappropriate here unless linked. Categories should be both "documentary" and "propaganda". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• 1. Documentary [SUPPORT] - Preferred by neutral editors who care what 90% of sources say. The essential character of a documentary has nothing to do with being factual. Terrible documentary filmmakers can produce terrible documentaries with terrible sourcing that are still documentaries. This film documents conspiracy theories from the perspective of a conspiracy believer. Please let's not inject our personal missions into this. Stick to policy. WP:NPOV demands we include this majority view.

2. Documentary-style - A WP:WEASEL word, and a WP:SYN violating compromise with zero support from any reliable source. This is an attempt by some editors to push the minority view that this is not a "true" documentary (No true Scotsman fallacy) despite what 90% of sources say.

3. Propaganda film - I agree this is "factually correct but a minority view among reliable independent sources". In addition, it is also factually correct that nearly every documentary can be labelled a Propaganda film because nearly every documentary pushes the author's point of view. ("Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.") Being a propaganda film does not stop it from being a documentary. This label can only be mentioned in articles if it is a majority or significant minority viewpoint, and it cannot replace another majority viewpoint. The WP:SPADE essay applies to user conduct, not article content. WP:NPOV policy applies to article content.

4. Film - Neutral, but lacks descriptiveness.

I support all categories that naturally follow the majority and significant minority viewpoints.

Side note: this exact RfC was posted a month ago, but apparently got auto-archived and forgotten. OnlyInYourMindT 20:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC), updated 07:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1 Documentary is clearly what these films are, there is nothing that says the content of the documentary has to be true, we just tend to assume they are. Michael Moore is infamous for exaggerating certain "facts" in order to push his POV onto viewers, this doesn't mean that the films he makes are not documentaries. Also, notice in the lead of the Michael Moore article it calls him a "documentary" film-maker, not a propaganda film-maker. Although the arguments used to call Zeitgeist propaganda could all be said about any of Moore's documentaries. As for the other 3 options, I completely agree with OnlyInYourMind. Don't refer to this as something it isn't just because you don't agree with the viewpoint of the film, you still have to keep Wikipedia's description of the series neutral. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• 1 Documentary -- support - Wikipedia should dispense facts, not attitudes. The objective, informative term is preferred, and it has the majority of RS support. (Unaware that this Rfc is still active, I changed the lede two days ago in conformance with what I read as the consensus. Apologies for misunderstanding.)

2 Documentary-style is wp:weasel wording and has no RS support. Spaghetti-tree hoax is documenary-style, but it is not a documentary.

3 Propaganda film (and all other variations) is not supported by RS. It is clearly POV, even if supported by multiple editors.

4 Film is not in conformance with any RS Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• #1 Documentary -- support - Documentary is RS supported and neutral name for genre. 2&3 aren't RS supported. 4 is unnecessarily unspecific of genre. Kinda surprised that this has been fought against so fiercely. People, "documentary" doesn't mean true anymore than "non-fiction" means true. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• 1 Documentary, as this is what the large majority of RSes describe the film as. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• 1 or 4, the other two seem like POV original research. Maybe agreeing on 4 as a compromise would be best to avoid these endless arguments. There's enough space in the rest of the lead and the rest of the article to describe the films as what they are. "Propaganda" is probably not it, even if it seems to vaguely fit the dictionary definition. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment, this RfC is at least arguably entirely invalid - it singularly fails to provide a neutral statement of the issue, but instead tells us what is "factually correct", and otherwise directs those responding towards a particular response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I will not play billiards on a tilted table. Here is a more neutral statement:

1. Documentary - preferred by fans of the film and followers of the film and followers of the Zeitgeist movement some editors.
2. Documentary-style - a compromise but one that entirely fails to placate the pro-Zeitgeist supported by some editors and used in the current version
3. Propaganda film - factually correct but a minority view wording among reliable independent sources
4. Film - Avoids some drama but satisfies pretty much nobody. Has not been previously discussed in this forum

The RfC definition indicates that the author either does not read the discussion or does not credit the statements of the other editors, who have all indicated they are neither members of the Movement nor fans of the film. The inability to be neutral and impartial, to credit the statements of the other editors and/or failure to read the discussion is a serious indictment and disqualification for writing an RfC. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The careful reader will be amused if the "propaganda" option is chosen. Then Wikipedia will be stuck in the amusing oxymoron of endorsing the notability of propaganda from a movement that is not notable enough to mention, except as a footnote. He he. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to the editors very intensely involved here that they let the new RFC try to work. Throwing a monkey wrench into the works destroys the process. Assuming some good faith would indicate that an experienced editor has chosen to help us sort this out. New voices need to be heard. The purpose of the RFC is to get comments from people we have not heard before called here to deliberate ideas about this. Andy please stop asserting that the whole process was not done right. Gram's helper, please stop long blog like speculations about all kinds of issues not related. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, the 'experienced editor' has already chosen to 'help out' by arguing that people who don't share his opinion on the subject of this RfC have "no place on Wikipedia" [3][4] - a suggestion that appears not to be based on policy, unless WP:THOUGHTCRIME has been snuck through without anyone noticing, and not exactly compatible with WP:AGF... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A pseudoscience book can be notable without its author being notable, so why couldn't a propaganda film be notable without its author or targeted belief being notable? And, although I do not fully agree with Earl, I will assert that anyone who believes the film to be based in fact has no business acting on that belief on Wikipedia, as it is a WP:FRINGE position. Exactly how that affects characterization of the film is unclear to me. "Conspiratist (sp?) documentary" seems the most representative characterization we can find, although I don't think anyone disagrees that "propaganda film" is accurate, and it does appear in some reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

First: A pseudoscience book can be notable without its author being notable, ... uh, we weren't discussing pseudoscience, authors, or books, but please list the first half dozen examples you have in mind. Help me out here. And then, if you don't mind, give us a few examples that are on point. Second: anyone who believes the film to be based in fact: If you are trying to prove that you have not read the discussion or looked up any of the references, congratulations, you have just done it. Once again, the word "documentary" does not mean "fact," and the Academy of Motion Pictures does not grade or qualify documentaries on the fact value of the content, as shown by these "documentary" nominations: Naked Yoga (1972, as "factual" as reality TeeVee), Terminus (1963, known to be a mixture of fact and fiction), The Finest Hours (1964, actors doing reenactments of allegedly historical events of Churchill's life). All of those and dozens more fail to fit your definition of "documentary." Looking for Richard (1996) is classed by Wikipedia as a documentary, synopsised by IMDB as "Al Pacino's deeply-felt rumination on Shakespeare's significance and relevance to the modern world through interviews and an in-depth analysis of Richard III." That is, Looking for Richard is not "fact," but opinion and artistic interpretation of a fictional play that was written as propaganda to show the evil of the Lancasters, rivals of Elizabeth I (the reigning queen)'s family, and now known to be a tissue of lies. Your definition of "documentary" is an invented definition that does not conform to the real world where people live and classify films. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm arguing that, although "documentary" is technically correct, and "docunentary-style" is a minority view (although denied by none), "propaganda" is probably the best description for the lead. It's a recognized gendre, supported by a minority of reliable sources, and denied by no independent reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Technically correct is all that we ever asked for. When we are technically correct and in agreement with the majority of our sources (as the word is), we have eliminated all POV. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy, the original Zeitgeist film presents 9/11 conspiracy theories as fact. Anybody who thinks that is a documentary genuinely does have no place on Wikipedia. See 9/11 Truth movement. Anyone who asserts that these conspiracy theories amount to fact, is a crank, and we are well within our rights to ignore them. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal political opinion is irrelevant in this work, Guy, and that includes the expression of personal opinions in a way that is deliberately offensive to others. How about we all tone down the language and build an Encyclopedia? That is what the general sanctions are about. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make any reference to personal political opinion, I was discussing the issue of WP:COMPETENCE as it relates to people who actually believe counter-factual conspiracy theories. There is no world Zionist conspiracy, there was no government cover-up over 9/11. If an editor's system for separating truth from falsehood leads them to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job, then their mechanism is badly broken and incompatible with WP:V, WP:RS and other core values of Wikipedia. They are not competent to edit on those topics. As we constantly see with homeopathy, True Believers turn up, try to rewrite Wikipedia to reflect their beliefs rather than reality, and very often end up topic-banned or banned outright - after , of course, a brief period of the inevitable drama. This is not a controversial view: we simply do not need more Truthers. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a recognized term for a documentary with no accurate assertions. It's a common enough type of film that there should be, but Wikipedia should not be the first to use it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda film in a documentary style, works for me or just propaganda film would also be o.k. That would be closer and more to the point than documentary-style. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A notable propaganda film propagandizing a movement that is not notable enough to mention?? That is not intellectually consistent. Obviously, if there is no movement, the propaganda is not working, and if it is not working, obviously it's not notable or not propaganda. But I'll be you can't even say in 40 words or less what the propaganda message is, because it sure as heck is not on the existing page. The page is more like, wow, WTF was that? Did that man just say something about my mother? I mean, oh yeah, it must be a conspiracy cult.

I think we should tell a story more together than that. Any movement that can put together notable propaganda is a notable movement and deserves its own page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Which source calls them propaganda movies? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, I agree. Crockumentary, perhaps? Guy (Help!) 10:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Meta sub thread

For reference there has already been an RfC on which term to use to characterise the film, see here.

Simply using the term 'film' is probably for most neutral, though, not very descriptive. The article on America: Freedom to Fascism may be a useful example. It does not use the term documentary in the body of the article, apart from once in a quotation. However, it includes the film in both 'Category:Documentary_films_about_conspiracy_theories' and 'Category:2000s documentary films'.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

According to one editor here who has apparently seen them all, only the first in the series has any conspiracy theory material in it. The characterization would not be correct for all three. The weird thing about that phrase "conspiracy theory", though, is the where it is used and by whom. A bunch of Arabs living in caves, secretly plotting to attack the World Trade Center -- is that not a "conspiracy theory?" The Nazi Holocaust was the consequence of a "conspiracy" called the "Wannsee Conference." In the last few years, America has just been waking up to the fact that thousands of people have been helping the government to illegally spy on domestic phone traffic -- A conspiracy of pretty good size. We are drowning in "secret" "confidential" "classified" "compartmentalized" operations -- what's the big deal about acknowledging government conspiracies? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(sorry, couldn't figure out where to place this or where to indent)
Responding to the request for comments from editors with little or no participation to date: mine is not a single purpose account (contributions), and shows involvement on WP before the film was released. I have seen only the first movie, and know nothing about the movement beyond what I've read on Wikipedia. I personally found Zeitgeist: The Movie to be a very interesting and entertaining two hours of complete bullshit. That said:

"Propaganda" promotes a cause or view, which seems an inapt label if the Zeitgeist movement is not notable. I would accept "film" as a less informative but less objectionable description. But I prefer "documentary", and I think the conversation has been bogged down by failure to accept that term for something on the extreme edge of its definition. Sure, it's a burlap sack that used to hold manure, but if it has a hole for the neck, two arm-holes, and covers the legs, it's still a dress.

That a conversation is impeded by incivility goes without saying. Here, I see extra hinderance that is off-putting: imputing motives to editors when they express their views. It really is important to separate the edits from the editors. My tuppence. Willondon (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Like Willondon, I am responding to the request for comments from outside editors. Like him (having attempted to read the above 'discussion'), the level not just of incivility above, but of fallacious arguments, seemingly determined to 'slap down' discussion is depressing, (particularly, though not exclusively, from 'friends of the film'(Grammar'sLittleHelper do you really want to know why 'Looking for Richard' is a documentary, do you really want to know the difference between a 'conspiracy' and a 'conspiracy theory'?)).

Like Willondon my knowledge of the films is limited, however, unlike him, I personally found the bits I have seen of the various Zeitgeist movies to be a headache-inducing few hours of complete and utter dull, manipulative, bullshit.

BUT, if the form of the film is (even loosely) 'documentary', that should be the term used, that it does not qualitatively conform to the values associated with 'good' documentaries is irrelevant. Criticism should not be achieved by using 'loaded' descriptors. IF the film has been widely described as propagands, that should also be included in the lead, in the article and reflected in categories. My halfpence!Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC) … … ps almost all reviews/articles (including the most critical) use the term 'documentary', almost all the critical articles refer to 'conspiracy theories' within the film. Shouldn't that end the discussion about which labels to use? Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Shouldn't that end the discussion about which labels to use?". I heartily agree. Willondon (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I know the difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy (why do you ask?). A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit some act in violation of a law or otherwise generally considered evil. The perpetrators need not all know each other, but they must have some idea of the general purpose. The agreement need not be kept secret, as in the case of the American Revolution, which the British characterized as a "conspiracy" -- but it usually is to maximize success of the act. Many criminal prosecutions, both federal and state, allege and prosecute conspiracy as a separate criminal charge. We might imagine a conversation in the prosecutor's office: "What is your theory of this case?" "Oh, I expect to charge them with kidnapping and rape, and because we are not sure whether Jones was part of the rape scene, and Mrs. Jones certainly not, I think we can get them for conspiracy." Thus, conspiracy theory is an important part of every prosecutor's profession; conspiracy is the action of criminals, and conspiracy theory is the action of law and order.

In other realms, however, "conspiracy theory" is a term of utmost contempt. It is a statement that the idea so characterized is beneath consideration, and implies that the one suggesting the idea is mentally deranged. For example, until five years ago, any public suggestion that the US Government was collecting all telephone and internet traffic and poking through it for possible anti-government activity (like the Czar's Secret Police) would be met with derisive laughter and hoots of "conspiracy theory!" However, when undeniable documentation surfaced that the US government was doing exactly that, the prominent columnists in our major newspapers argued that the goernment was only doing what was necessary to prevent terrorism, and revealing the operation was a criminal act. Subsequently, a court ruled that the wiretapping was not authorized by law, so the operation was essentially illegal. For the operation to succeed on that scale, thousands of IT people must have partaken in the illegal conspiracy.

Similarly with Operation Mockingbird from decades ago. If you are unaware of that gig, the CIA planted scores of agents on the staffs of major networks and newspapers, and fed them stories to shape national politics. Until the Church Committee exposed the illegal operation, anyone who suggested the plot would be accused of harboring conspiracy theories, and possible committed to a mental hospital -- only for his own good, of course (and maybe for the good of Operation Mockingbird).

If you look at the topic conspiracy theory, you will see it starts out in the lede with a innocent definition, as technical as the first paragraph in this post. The article then proceeds to cite a dozen psychologists speculating on why people's minds malfunction so that they come to believe in conspiracy theories. The article is dishonest in that way, but it mirrors the dishonesty of the term itself. Or perhaps the article is simply mirroring the division in the population; some people use the term to deprecate other people's and their ideas, and other people never find occasion to use it.

It is inappropriate to define any documentary film as a "conspiracy theory" because it is a WP:POV term. It is an evaluation, not a definition. No one would characterize their own documentary as a "conspiracy theory," so what is happening is WP:UNDUE weight is being accorded to the critics -- and the negative attitudes of the editor, who cherry-picks such statements from the reviews.

I am not by any means a "friend of the film," -- though I should not have to say that. Only a person unfamiliar with encyclopedias would consider putting such language in the lede. My issue is the quality of the Wikipedia. Like you, I would like it to grow up and quit loading the articles with this kind of value language. Just leave the attitudes home and tell it like it is, good clean facts. Instead of this baggage, we should expect the readers to be adults who can derive their own values. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have a better label, conspiracy theory seems like an accurate term supported by sources. Though, it may impart the POV that these theories are unproven and those who believe them are doing so with credulity. Any honest filmmaker documenting unproven theories concerning conspiracies should readily label the content in their film "conspiracy theories"... if they're being honest. This label has a bad name because people so often slide from theory (or rather, hypothesis) to full religious believer. This human willingness to believe stories without adequate evidence is why we have things like the Innocence Project. I like the label "conspiracy theory" for being concise, but I admit I am biased against credulity. I think a good encyclopedia should share this bias. OnlyInYourMindT 05:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, really? Like, a documentary producer should announce to the audience, "Here's a conspiracy theory I'd like you all to consider -- carefully"? I don't recall Irving Stone including that in JFK (1991). That would be as honest as Gandhi describing himself as a "religious fanatic." I can't quite put my finger on it, but there may be something wrong with that approach. ;-) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper, since you know the difference(' between a 'conspiracy' and a 'conspiracy theory'?)), why are you 'muddying the waters' with walls of text with examples of or rhetorical questions about one or the other? The fact that there have been BOTH in the past, (or that one MAY sometimes have turned out to be the other), has little bearing on this instance (There have been medical breakthroughs and have been 'false dawns' and 'quack-cures', but which is drug XXX?)).

I have already said that the main point is that almost ALL RSs describe the films as documentaries, almost all describe much of the content as 'consp. theories', they also use other very critical descriptors of the remaining content. Why are acres of text being expended on what you or I or any other editor thinks about these films, when sources are fairly clear? That these films evoke strong pro/anti reactions should be reflected in the article (majority of RS are anti, I would say), but it isn't our job to legitimate or disparage either position.Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC) … … ( ps, 'Friends of the film' was shorthand.))

Expressions of affection or antipathy are not fact. "Conspiracy theory" pretends to be an expression of fact, but in reality is an expression of contempt and POV. You would never hear the "19 suicidal hijackers" scenario described as a "conspiracy theory" but is exactly what it is. Osama bin Laden and the boys conspired to commit a crime against America. It was a conspiracy, and the story is a conspiracy theory. So you tell me why the major news media never mention the "bin Laden conspiracy theory," and you will have the answer to why we should not use the term in the lede. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict Grammar'sLittleHelper, a "conspiracy theory" is like any other theory, it becomes generally accepted as fact, becomes disproved or disappears into the ether. Most RSs believe that ObL WAS responsible, why should they use 'theory'? What you appear to be suggesting is a nominal 'equality' between all accounts of an event, which is a false neutrality. Who burned down the Reichstag? Who shot JFK ? ( The man, not the film!)) Who murdered the Princes in the Tower? We may never know with certainty the answers, that doesn't mean that ANY theory has equal credibility (either privately or in WP terms). I draw a distinction between 'is' a con.th. and 'presents'/'advances' con.th.s, as that IS how RSs describe parts of the content, and yes, they mean that these accounts have little credibility to them. I agree with you to this extent, that these negative opinions should not be put in 'our' voice.(ps I didn't mean to single you out for criticism, discourtesy seems to characterise all the above 'discussions', and is very counter-productive.))Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out the Wikipedia policy for the definition and usage of a conspiracy theory in the 9/11 conspiracy theories talk page, particularly Q4 and Q5. To quote Q4:

Wikipedia refers to reliable mainstream sources when determining appropriate descriptions. As such sources do not commonly refer to the official account as a "conspiracy theory" neither do articles here. The term conspiracy theory is typically used for claims that an event is "the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." Although the version in government reports would fit the literal meaning of the term, conspiracy theories are generally viewed as theories that "read between the lines," and assume a hidden motive & massive manipulation of evidence to deceive the public. By nature, conspiracy theories are unsubstantiated and intended to question the official or scientific explanation.

Due to this common mainstream usage of "conspiracy theory", it is appropriate to use this definition, rather than the literal definition of a "theory that involves a conspiracy". For example, "gay" is used in the mainstream to describe a homosexual, rather than the literal definition of a happy person. In addition, as long as reliable sources describes it as such, we should reflect the viewpoints of such. From Q5:

Titles are typically chosen based on whether it is the common name used for the subject in reliable sources. While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms. It is not universally considered pejorative. There have been numerous discussions about the title of the article since the attacks occurred. After several debates, "conspiracy theory" has been judged to be the most common, accurate, and neutral term to describe the subject this article covers.

By this policy, due to the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describing the films as promoting conspiracy theories, the lede should reflect this viewpoint. Similarly, since the sources also describe it as a documentary, the lede should also describe it as such. Kage Acheron (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kage Acheron's final para I endorse both points. Only proviso is that an accurate form of words should be found for many/most reviews describe the films as promoting conspiracy theories. That they thus describe it is verifiable fact, that it does is not.Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the synopsis of the film, the film promotes alternate 9/11 theories, which are by definition considered "conspiracy theories". Therefore, by definition, it promotes conspiracy theories (unless if someone disputes that the film doesn't contain this content). Kage Acheron (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I also endorse both of Kage Acheron's points. With a note that it does not appear the other two films concern themselves with conspiracy theories. OnlyInYourMindT 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kage Acheron, a quibble perhaps but 'alternate theories' of ANYTHING are not 'by definition considered conspiracy theories.' THESE theories are widely considered thus, and that is all that needs to concern us. OnlyInYourMind, I spent quite a long time today reading reviews/articles, I don't recall whether comments about the later films used the specific term 'conspiracy theories', I do recall the films being highly disparaged for various forms of intellectual dishonesty and lack of evidence or rational argument or coherence. Therefore it is not a case of the later films being given 'a clean bill of health', rather a question of what descriptor is generally employed by the articles for those films.

I am still of the opinion that some neutral, factual way of phrasing (eg widely described as … ) is preferable to saying IS. Even if this film were a notoriously bad drama/CD/book we would not say 'this is a crock of shit', we would probably say 'poorly received by critics, who described it as …'. I don't think we should put opinions in 'our voice', regardless of how widely held they are.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear in my previous statement. I was saying that these alternate theories of 9/11 are conspiracy theories by definition. As the first film promotes those alternate theories, it promotes conspiracy theories by definition. I think this is an indisputable fact. Besides, remember that Wikipedia considers "conspiracy theory" to be a neutral phrase, as per above. I agree with you that matters of opinion should remain neutral, but matters of fact should be described as IS. Otherwise we end up with "this was widely described as a film", "sources said it was ... minutes long", etc., which is obviously ridiculous. Kage Acheron (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not treat "conspiracy theory" as a neutral phrase. A careful read of that page indicates that conspiracy theory-ism is pretty much a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, discussed by a dozen psychologists and psychiatrists commenting on the reasons a person might fall into such a plight that he is in disagreement with the opinions of his neighbors and the government orthodoctors. According to those good doctors, the majority is always factually right, and the minority is sick in the head. When rubber meets road, the term "conspiracy theory" has a lot in common with the term "heresy," which derives from the Greek word for "choose." A heretic a person who chooses an opinion at odds with the prevailing opinion. If you recall your history, it was the custom in European countries to arrest and torture heretics until they stopped saying things that offend against the prevailing opinion.

As you have defined it, a conspiracy theory is simply an idea or explanation for events that stands at odds with the prevailing opinion. The conspiracy theorist is subject to arrest, commitment to an institution, and forcible dosing with drugs until the conspiracy theorist stops saying things that offend against the prevailing opinion.

As I have said, I do not think it appropriate for an encyclopedia to concern itself with deliberately bolstering the orthodox opinions and attitudes of the day. An Encyclopedia should stick to the facts, and leave the grooming of opinions and attitudes to the government propagandists at the Ministry of Truth. However, you might observe that my edit of the Zeitgeist lede paragraph left that phrase intact in accordance with the consensus of this group of editors, correcting only the grammar so that it no longer suffers from the grammatical redundancy, "conspiracy theory ideas," as it once did.[5] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Although the term "conspiracy theory" has acquired a derogatory meaning over time and is often used to dismiss or ridicule beliefs in conspiracies,[1] it has also continued to be used by some to refer to actual, proven conspiracies, such as U.S. President Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to cover up Watergate." Think you're off base Sfarney. Until an alleged conspiracy gains scholarly consensus as accepted history it remains a conspiracy theory. Term may have developed a negative connotation, but it remains the neutral term for alleging the existence of a conspiracy. Like film being labeled documentary, "conspiracy theory" isn't a judgement on veracity. That and RS are clear film features conspiracy theories. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions of this nature can easily be solved by examples from popular and scholarly media -- the fodder of Wikipedia. I would be happy to learn I am wrong, but I have not been able to prove it. Can you show me what you mean with examples of text that are not your own? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: Perhaps you missed the Wikipedia policy that I quoted in the posts above, which I copied from 9/11 conspiracy theories talk page. Q5 states:

Titles are typically chosen based on whether it is the common name used for the subject in reliable sources. While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms. It is not universally considered pejorative. There have been numerous discussions about the title of the article since the attacks occurred. After several debates, "conspiracy theory" has been judged to be the most common, accurate, and neutral term to describe the subject this article covers.

Kage Acheron (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kage Acheron:, thank you. I saw that a few days ago, but this page is getting so long, I could not locate it again. I didn't know what a "Q5" is, so the applicability was lost on me. I see it in the talk page template, but who wrote it? In any case, I consider that statement is pure wp:weasel. "Conspiracy theory" is rarely (extremely rarely) used in any sense BUT the pejorative. I have invited another editor to find an RS who uses it to mean anything credible or complimentary. Just as an exercise, since you are citing the statement again, I invite you also to find any RS (more than one would be preferred, of course) that uses the term with non-pejorative intent. I would be grateful. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Q5 in this case referred to Question 5 in the FAQ section on that page, which was reached via consensus. That statement is also repeated in the Wiktionary definition of "conspiracy theory". Although you may personally disagree with this consensus that "conspiracy theory" is neutral, we should abide by this consensus of the Wikipedia community. You can see that all the other articles on Wikipedia that deal with conspiracy theory topics use it in the lede, without any negative connotations associated with it: ie. Loose Change (film series), New World Order (conspiracy theory), etc. There are many uses of conspiracy theory in a neutral context, here are just two I found after a quick search.1 2 Kage Acheron (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on that page does not govern all other pages. It represents only a general agreement among the editors participating in that discussion at that time. Also, Q5 is specifically limited to titles, not to body, and not to the lede. As I said earlier, I would be interested in seeing some instances of RSes using "conspiracy theory" as a neutral or credible term. In all my research, I have not found any. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This consensus appears to go across the entire Wikipedia project, as shown by the links in my previous post. The statement that "conspiracy theory" is neutral applies to all the sections of an article. I have also posted RSes with using "conspiracy theory" as a neutral term in my last post, I suggest you go back and read it more carefully. Kage Acheron (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeating a comment I made earlier almost all the articles refer to 'conspiracy theories' within the film. Shouldn't that end the discussion about which labels to use?. What I or Grammar (or the WP article) think about the term is irrelevant to this discussion. I happen to agree with Grammar, that when the writers use this term they mean something like 'theories for which no credible evidence is offered', but that IS how they describe the theories proffered. Grammar seems to be asking for a spurious equality. 'Noted for its innovative lighting/filming/editing' of Citizen Kane or Potemkin is not 'un-neutral' in WP terms, nor inappropriate for the lead if that's how the films are widely regarded by most RSs.Pincrete (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what is going on here now because the threads are too hard to follow at least for me but I get the impression that conspiracy theory is still being debated. Consensus appears to go across the entire Wikipedia project that "conspiracy theory" is neutral. Another editor says I have also posted RSes with using "conspiracy theory" as a neutral term in my last post, I suggest you go back and read it more carefully. The movie is using conspiracy theory as its underpinning and that should show in the lead. It does not examine conspiracy theory ideas but it is based on conspiracy theory ideas from classic conspiracy theory. There is no shortage of citations that show that. I wish this debate was more centered around new people coming here to comment and suggest the article should not be edited by editors here while comments are still going on. Using these RFC as proving some kind of consensus is probably not a good idea until they are closed. Even in the lead using documentary film is still being debated while this discussion goes on. Conspiracy theory based documentary, would have been appropriated also with the reliable sources so lets not change the article till more people weigh in or there is some real support for doing so. New people comment please called to comment on the RFC. Thanks Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Kage gave two examples of RS supposedly using the phrase in a neutral tone. I do not agree those links prove Kage's thesis. The first link is a newspaper from India. Though it is written idiomatic English, the grammar is strange and the proof reading is flawed (E.g. "Firing salvo at the Centre;" "multi-crore industry;" key points of the speech are in first person but not in quotes; "The AAP got a landslide victory and was voted to power"). I cannot agree that this is an RS for the usage of the American idiom. The second link was about an unsuccessful pro se criminal defendant who said the witnesses against him had been suborned by the prosecution. The prosecutor characterized the defendant's allegation as a "conspiracy theory." The phrase is not used in the extreme pejorative of the usual connotation of paranoia, but it is still pejorative. The defendant is not even alleged to have used the word "conspiracy," yet the prosecutor uses the phrase to discredit him in front of the jury. (The irony of that usage is that the defendant was charged and convicted for conspiracy, while the secret deals whereby prosecutors buy testimony from convicts is notorious in America's corrupt justice system. Still, the prosecutor managed to discredit the defendant with the phrase "conspiracy theory" and get him convicted.) This link actually shows awesome pejorative power of the phase when used strategically, rather than illustrating neutral usage. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The term IS used by the majority of sources. Why is anyone discussing whether an Indian newspaper properly understood its meaning or whether a US prosecutor MAY have used the term manipulatively, or conjecturing about what impact that MAY have had on a jury? The sources appear to be articulate professional writers, the term is not inherently pejorative in WP terms. I opposed 'documentary style' and 'propaganda' because sources did not widely use these descriptors, I defend 'conspiracy theory' on the same grounds. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer to question 1: Those questions are being discussed because those are examples offered to show that "conspiracy theory" is a neutral term. Answer to question 2: We may find a RS that says, "X film is awful." Nevertheless, we do not lede the article with the statement that "X is an awful film." Fact is different from attitude. Fact we take from RS. Attitude, regardless of source, is still POV and a violation of the centuries old encyclopedic tradition of NPOV; it is a policy much older in the culture that Wikipedia. POV cheapens an encyclopedia. ~ Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sfarney, just because the term conspiracy theory has a negative connotation doesn't change the fact that 1) this documentary proposes a conspiracy, which, as yet, is not widely accepted or supported by relevant scholarly consensus and 2) RS use the term for this and other documentaries that propose conspiracies, which, as yet, are not widely accepted or supported by relevant scholarly consensus. You are stuck on the colloquial use of the term. I think there is value in distinguishing conspiracies which have been substantiated and those that have not. Isn't a statement on whether they are or are not true, but that they are not acknowledged by RS as substantiated. I don't get the run around. What do you want to call a documentary that proposes a conspiracy, which, as yet, is not widely accepted or supported by relevant scholarly consensus? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And just because nobody has made a really good exaggerated comparison lately, your argument sounds like not wanting to reference the Third Reich as "a fascist totalitarian state" because "fascist totalitarian state" can be used as an insult. I get your point, but it isn't a good one. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You have cited to the neutral denotation, just like the lede in conspiracy theory. But the body of conspiracy theory proceeds immediately to the highly pejorative connotation, just as is intended in this article. From conspiracy theory we can see that "proposing a conspiracy" that as yet is not widely accepted (as you so gently term it) is posting an invitation to have one's head candled, which a dozen psychologists and psychiatrists quoted on that page are eager to do. Question: What do you call a documentary about horses? Hint: Not a horse-documentary. Answer: A documentary about horses. Question: What do you call a documentary about building a house? Hint: Not a building-a-house-documentary. Answer: A documentary about building a house. Question: What do you call a documentary that presents some unconventional explanations for a number of historical events, sometimes proposing that conspiracies are involved? Hint: not a conspiracy-theory-documentary. Zeitgeist touches on UFOs for example. To characterize that as a "conspiracy theory" is to wave the magical panacea that makes all such suggestions discreditable. No one minds if a writer waves the conspiracy-theory-go-away wand in a movie review or opinion essay -- by convention, we know we are reading opinion. However, people read the Wikipedia for fact, not opinion. Wikipedia should therefore not become a compendium of opinion and should peal away POV rhetoric to deal with fact. Do you get the difference?

I have asked for RS that use "conspiracy theory" as a neutral term. It appears the term is never neutral. It is always used as a term of contempt and dismissal. In that way, "conspiracy theory" is much like the word "heretic" from a few hundred years ago. The parallels are chilling in a democratic society among a group of Wikipedia editors. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Then your argument is with the conspiracy theory article. The Watergate Scandal was a conspiracy theory then when it was substantiated it was just a conspiracy. With the way you are interpreting the term no evidence will meet your criteria of neutrality because you can always infer it's being used to discredit the theory. You've set an impossible standard. I could try to provide proof "fascist totalitarian state" isn't just a mean phrase used to discredit the Nazis, but if the only context you've ever assumed exists for the term is as an insult then I'm going to fail to change your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Merriam and Webster secretly run the world's taco supply by manipulating the brain waves of television talk show hosts. Sorry, can't help myself. Dictionary doesn't define the term as "never neutral" and according to the thesaurus it isn't synonymous with the word heretic. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

nb Edit Conflict, responding to a previous post.Grammar, I've already said that I don't think that "conspiracy theory" is a neutral term in the sense that you appear to want, but I think you are confusing neutrality with neutral-ised. WP neutrality and non-POV does not demand that only sources which use wholly neutral terms are acceptable, (ie that those sources do not have opinions, or do not articulate them clearly). It does (broadly) mean we are not selective in only using sources we like and that we do not impose OUR PoVs on those sources. You seem to be saying not that WP editors should be non-POV, but that the sources must be.

I return to the question, since the sources widely use "conspiracy theory", (not one source as in your analogy), what are the grounds for imposing a different terminology on those sources?Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer to the 'What do you call a documentary about … …?' question. If the answer is difficult/not obvious you refer to it using the terminology principally used by RSs. You don't try to rewrite that into something more derogatory, more laudatory or more sanitized. By the way I don't think anybody has proposed '"conspiracy theory documentary", I think they have said "documentary that advances/contains etc". Pincrete (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Viaduct? Vi not a chicken? The horse/house argument was nice and all, but I still don't know what Sfarney'd prefer. Was that seriously a call for it to be labeled documentary about "unconventional explanations that sometimes have conspiracies"? I have to agree with Pincrete. Because this is kinda FRINGE stuff on top of it, that's all the more reason to stick to mainstream RS for the labeling. If mainstream RS called this one of the worst films ever made, neutral or not, we'd still be obliged to put that in there too. List of films considered the worst 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Some RS is fact, some is opinion. The term "conspiracy theory" masquerades as fact but in actuality conveys opinion. It is not neutral, and I proved it. The term is always used as an expression of contempt. Contempt is not fact -- it is just attitude and opinion. A real encyclopedia does not dabble in opinion. That is the way it is. Maybe you are too young to recall real encyclopedias, or maybe you never used one, or maybe you just don't remember. But that is the way it is. And when you flog opinion through the Wikipedia, you cheapen it.

There are three ways to inject opinion into the article. (A) You can use it as part of the definition, as the editors did before this dust-up, calling it "propaganda" and "pseudo-documentary." (B) You can use it as a descriptor in Wikipedia's own voice, as the page does now. (C) You can say that reviewer Grimey Sleezeball of the Globe & Mail called the film "full of conspiracy theory." The third way is best because it removes any mixing of attitudes and facts. You may not know it, but the Wikipedia cannot tell people what to think. If we try, people will not believe us, and we introduce doubt between us and the reader. The result is, we cheapen the Encyclopedia. This is not sanitizing the subject. This is sanitizing the Encyclopedia. Believe it or not, dirty words get the speaker dirty. Contemptuous words cast contempt on the speaker. If we wish to be respected as dispensers of fact, we take care not to confuse opinions and facts. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which does not state the films support conspiracy theories? If so, I would like to see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I will look around, but this is not normally my field. The opinions of the opinionators are often dictated by Operation Mockingbird, and hardly fit for a healthy diet. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

'Maybe you are too young to recall real encyclopedias' . Oh how kind of you to think so! I agree with SOME of what you say, but it leads me to a different conclusion. If we follow your logic, we should not say that 'Creationism' is widely dismissed as 'unscientific' by mainstream scientists, that it is thus dismissed is a fact, that C-ism IS 'unscientific', is an opinion, regardless of how widespead that opinion may be. To that extent I agree with you, some form of words that accurately reflects 'widely criticised for promoting etc' should be found. I take a homeopathic 'medicine' sometimes, I know full well that the science behind homeopathy is (at best) not understood and may be nothing more than placebo. I have no objection to WP informing me that this is majority opinion. I am an adult, I can make my own assessment, but am glad to be informed as to what most RSs say. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney:You have not "proved" anything regarding the neutrality of "conspiracy theory". You are merely stating your own opinion, and disregarding the opinions of everyone else. I have referred you to Wikipedia policy and other articles on WP that demonstrate the neutrality of the phrase, and you seemed to have ignored them all. On the topic of "real encyclopedias", let's refer to the article on Encyclopeadia Britannica about the assassination of JFK. 1 It clearly uses "conspiracy theory" in a neutral tone, and doesn't use any other phrase like "alternate theories" to describe those theories. Why should Wikipedia be different?

Also, I wouldn't bother looking for an alternate RS if I were you. Even if you do find an RS that says it doesn't support conspiracy theories, it would fall under WP:FRINGE, and shouldn't be accorded equal weight with the vast majority of the other RSes that say that it does. For example, there are clearly RSes saying that the Earth isn't round, yet we don't say that "Most scientists consider the Earth to be round". Likewise, we should not say that "Most reviews consider the film to promote conspiracy theories". Kage Acheron (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Until just now, no one was able to provide an example from a native English RS where "Conspiracy theory" was used in anything like the neutral sense. All uses are in the extreme pejorative. "Conspiracy theory" is as neutral as "heretic," and serves just about the same function in modern day. Previously, the citizens worshiped a complex theology defined by conflicting documents and papal decrees; any disagreement was labeled heresy and punished. In modern day, citizens worship the government and the official versions of history planted in news organs by various government agencies; any disagreement is labeled "conspiracy theory" and punished through various mechanisms, not the least of which is psychiatric commitment. The Wikipedia "policy" (as you call it) is applicable on the page it appears, and only to titles. There is no statement or representation (except yours) that it applies to the Wikipedia generally or to text. But just now, you found ONE RS that uses the term in neutral tone. Well done. The score moves was about 1,000 to zero. It is now 1,000 to one. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's cut out the hyperbole: it is not helping advance your argument any. What makes you think that the statement on the 9/11 page that "While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms. It is not universally considered pejorative" doesn't apply here? What makes you think that the usage of conspiracy theory in the lede of Loose Change (film series), New World Order (conspiracy theory), etc. should not be used here as well? What makes you think that even though the "real encyclopedia" of Encyclopeadia Britannica uses "conspiracy theory" in a neutral way (which even you admit), it can not be used in a neutral way on Wikipedia as well? What makes you think this page is so special to ignore all the previous precedents? Kage Acheron (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

While the term conspiracy theory has been used as a pejorative, so has "scientist," "American," and various other terms ... Not true. There is no general pejorative connotation when using "scientist" or "American." That is simply a fantasy. You have to look long and hard to find those last two terms used by an RS with pejorative intent. On the contrary, you have to have to look very long and hard to find "conspiracy theory" used by an RS without pejorative intent. What makes you think that the statement on the 9/11 page that "..." doesn't apply here? It was written for that page, not for this page. A consensus on this page does not rule that page or vice versa. The Wikipedia general policies can be found on WP: pages. Can you find that policy on a WP: page? No? Then I rest my case. If you can persuade the editors on the conspiracy theory page that your neutral definition is correct, by all means, go ahead. In the meantime, we have it on good authority that:

*--Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s, in the aftermath of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, it has acquired a derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events. The term is often used to dismiss claims that the critic deems ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational.

*--Assessing the prevalent use of the term to ridicule or dismiss, Professor Rebecca Moore observes, "The word 'conspiracy' works much the same way the word 'cult' does to discredit advocates of a certain view or persuasion. Historians do not use the word 'conspiracy' to describe accurate historical reports. On the contrary, they use it to indicate a lack of veracity and objectivity."

*--Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia, asserts that strong supporters of conspiracy theories usually experience a feeling of lack of control. A theory can help a believer regain a sense of order explaining some extraordinary events. Knowing some facts can even bring the feeling of power. Lewandowsky states that belief in conspiracies can be a protective mechanism against the horror of possible disasters.

*--Academic work in conspiracy theories and conspiracism (a world view that places conspiracy theories centrally in the unfolding of history) presents a range of hypotheses as a basis of studying the genre. According to Berlet and Lyons, "Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm".

*--The historian Richard Hofstadter addressed the role of paranoia and conspiracism throughout American history in his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, published in 1964. Bernard Bailyn's classic The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967) notes that a similar phenomenon could be found in America during the time preceding the American Revolution. Conspiracism labels people's attitudes as well as the type of conspiracy theories that are more global and historical in proportion.

And so on, and on, and on. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the weirdest discussions I've had in a long time. The term has a negative connotation, so does "Nazi", but that doesn't make the term non-neutral when applied to members of the Nazi party. Grab a dictionary. Websters' Conspiracy Theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" Oxford's Conspiracy Theory: "A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event." Dictionary's Conspiracy Theory: "1) a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group. 2) the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public." And so on and so on.

The term can be used disparagingly, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an otherwise neutral term. Just because there are instances where people apply the term flippantly or sarcastically shouldn't change how we use it. There's that argument on neutrality, then there's the RS angle. Neutral or not, opinion or not, super majority of mainstream RS note film contains conspiracy theories. If mainstream RS held this was a propaganda film, which is very loaded language, it still ought to be applied just like in Triumph of the Will. To use FRINGE terminology/phraseology to describe film differently from mainstream RS would be UNDUE. I would imagine the first argument should be sufficient, if not then the second should be a slam dunk. This is exactly like the debate on using "documentary", some people believe documentary means true and conspiracy theory means false, but that just isn't the case for either. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I challenged someone to come up with an example of "conspiracy theory" used as neutral term by some English-speaking RSes, and only one was found - the Britannica. Challenge and response (or failed response) is about the only way to prove a negative. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a classic example of argument from ignorance. You can never prove a negative; you can only say that it has not yet been disproven yet. However, your claim that "conspiracy theory" "is always used as a term of contempt and dismissal" has been disproven, by the existence of the Britannica as a counter-example. I will make my point again, since you failed to respond to it: what makes you think that even though the "real encyclopedia" of Encyclopeadia Britannica uses "conspiracy theory" in a neutral way (which even you admit), it can not be used in a neutral way on Wikipedia as well? Kage Acheron (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is your opposition just coming from the wiki article on conspiracy theory, Sfarney? Because it looks like the scope of that article also delves into Conspiracism, which appears to be where you're deriving most of your criticism against the term conspiracy theory. Terms seem related, but do not seem to be synonymous. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Whilst I defend the use of 'conspiracy theory' above. I think the pudding is in danger of being over-egged at present. Yesterday I pruned 1 use in 3 consecutive sentences, each of which used the term (removing the middle sentence). The term should be stated clearly and attached to those films which have been widely described thus. It also belongs in critical response where apt, but it doesn't need to be re-inserted at every opportunity, otherwise the article becomes unreadable.Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the Zeitgeist films and Movement seems to be a critique the current forms of government and economies, with a proposal for a different strategy, a "post scarcity economy." To define the Zeitgeist films in the lede as presenting "conspiracy theories" really misses their intended purpose (a) because it misses the real point, and (2) because apparently there is no conspiracy theory in the third DVD. It's like ignoring the whole Nazi war on Europe and mentioning only how badly the Nazis treated homosexuals. Some people might think that the most important point, but it does not accomplish "neutral." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see in the synopses, the first film in the series exclusively contains conspiracy theories, while the second and third ones focuses on the post scarcity economy and the origin of the movement. I wouldn't be opposed to included "also proposes a post scarcity economy" in the lede, but omitting mentioning conspiracy theories altogether would be ignoring a whole third of the series. This is an unfortunate byproduct of merging the films into one article, but also the fact that the second and third movies cover completely different topics from the first movie, almost as if they weren't part of the same series. Kage Acheron (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And every second orbit of Pluto, we agree. The regularity is starting to wear me down. ;-) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I started the Nazi analogy, my bad. I only saw the first film, so if it is accurate that the others in the series don't feature conspiracy theories then it's fine to include what those films cover. It doesn't really matter what the intended purpose of the series is so much as describing what they are and what they present. From a really cursory search it appears Zeitgeist is most notable for, or most known for, its first film featuring conspiracy theories. Maybe something more like:Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film featuring a number of conspiracy theories that was followed by two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, which each promote a post scarcity economic model. It is a bit wordy, but I don't imagine I could get away with shorting it to Zeitgeist: The Movie is a conspiracy theory documentary without starting WWIII. Though I would call a documentary about horses a horse documentary, so what do I know, amirite? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, calling it a "conspiracy documentary" would be unfair and dishonest. After arguing that the world is run by rich people (no one could disagree with that) and that the rich people of the world are mostly a twisted, selfish, and evil lot (many people could agree with that), the film advocates for a new post-scarcity economic system in which the differences between rich and poor was not so obscenely exaggerated (or so I've been told). Saying the film is about bashing rich people would be telling a deceptive half-truth. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And who could argue that the rich do not conspire against the poor, using harmful and illegal methods to maintain their positions? The whopping great bank, HSBC, has recently been prosecuted by the Swiss government for laundering money[6] -- as though HSBC does not have enough. Obscene wealth (effectively, hoarding goods in a world of destitution) is obtained and maintained by obscene activity. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Did I lose my mind and put "Zeitgeist: The Movie is a bashing rich people documentary"? Reflecting on my previous post, it appears I didn't. I don't care about the rich, the poor, or any injustices. I am just tinkering with a couple words in a sentence to get to a compromise. I'm not even pushing for "conspiracy theory documentary", if only because it doesn't appear among Documentary film genres. I think it accurately describes the film though. And for that I guess I'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes? Chill out, Sfarney. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Walk softly. It was a parallel example. The movies are not about conspiracy, though conspiracies among the rich and powerful are a premise. Saying the films are "about conspiracy" would be a dishonest Metonymy. Equally, saying the films are about the greedy rich and powerful would be a dishonest Metonymy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think conspiracy theory documentary is just a concise way to describe first film, but I'm not married to that. How about: "Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film featuring a number of conspiracy theories that was followed by two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, which each promote a post scarcity economic model."? I suppose it wouldn't hurt to dig up a reference that differentiates subject matter between the first and two subsequent documentaries. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Documentary?

The lede frames the article. When a film presents itself as one thing (a documentary) but is in fact another (propaganda), the lede should make this clear. It is rather significant that the contents of Zeitgeist 1, in particular, is largely nonsense. The fact that it has a cult following is not an excuse for not saying it. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That is original research and does not concern us. Most RS call it a documentary, and that is what we should call it. Frankly, Guy, this whole issue has been thrashed to death in the last few weeks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not a documentary except in the sense it was labeled as such in some places because it has the appearance of a documentary. Probably the best way to describe it is 'conspiracy theory pseudo-documentary' [7] and there are no shortages of sources that give that as what it is. It would be rather misleading to call it a documentary in the lead without some kind of reliably sourced disclaimer or attenuated information about it actually being a kind of propaganda film about classic New World Order themes of secret society groups manipulating like little fairy's behind the scenes. In other words it bases its premise on nonsense. There is no conspiracy. Scapegoating is more accurate. Propaganda scapegoating pseudo documentary is accurate than just plain 'documentary'. That would be sourced also [8] Then in the body it can be extrapolated on as it is now by adding that The Zeitgeist movement is the first Internet-based apocalyptic cult, centered around a doomsday-proclaiming film and an ideology filled with classic anti-Semitic tropes That is what the film is about according to our sources. Nothing original research about that. Neutrality does not mean being kind and gentle or non controversial when dealing with subject matter. Balance and weight means balancing and weighing the sources to get at the medium point in presentation. So the old old duck test works just fine. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit more on that [9]], Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at the think tank Political Research Associates and one of the country's foremost experts on right-wing movements, points out that Zeitgeist borrows liberally from the G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island, an "expose" of the Federal Reserve System popular with the John Birch Society, Alex Jones, and some Tea Party groups. It also draws on ideas from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though it never mentions Jews. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As Grammar says, most RS call it a documentary, … this whole issue has been thrashed to death in the last few weeks. Perhaps, it's a totally-shit, intellectually dishonest, racist, far-right, mysogynistic, amateurish, manipulative 'load-of-old bollocks' documentary that only someone with an IQ approaching zero would sit through, it's still a documentary. The rest is called 'criticism'. … … ps I have sub-sectioned this discussion.Pincrete (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about how majority of mainstream RS describe the film has changed within the [last month]. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Though we can not use it because its primary Peter Joseph did not consider the film a documentary as he makes clear on his website [10] so perhaps others have interviewed or quoted his giving that type of information. He specifically said this about it not being a documentary HOW DID "ZEITGEIST: THE MOVIE" COME TO BE? The original Zeitgeist was actually not a "film", but a performance piece, which consisted of a vaudevillian style multi-media event using recorded music, live instruments and video. The event was given over a 6-night period in New York City and then, without any interest to professionally release or produce the work, was "tossed" up on the Internet arbitrarily. The work was never designed as a film or even a documentary in a traditional sense - it was designed as a creative, provoking, emotionally driven expression, full of artistic extremity and heavily stylized gestures. However, once online, an unexpected flood of interest began to generate. Within 6 months over 50 Million views were recorded on Google Video counters (before they were reset for some reason). The current combined estimates put the number of Internet views at over 100 million as of 2009. Suddenly "Zeitgeist" the event, became "Zeitgeist: The Movie".

Previously the edit had it as documentary like. Probably a difference between a documentary, a conspiracy film, a propaganda film, etc. so lets not get hung up on calling it a documentary. Something like documentary propaganda conspiracy film can be cited just as easily as documentary and is much more accurate. Earl King Jr. (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been settled. It's been adequately shown that the sources being used call the film a documentary. Nothing more, nothing less. I would dearly love to move on from this. Willondon (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you misrepresented the statement, EKJ. He is referring to original concept not initially intended as a film. A cursory search of his site indicates he defends film as a documentary. I do think that is a good source for the 'original zeitgeist' quote already featured in article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please reread the WP:RS. Primary source is not forbidden, and in fact is used in many Wikipedia articles. Many. Where and when to use primary source is policy we should all know. But none of that material quoted from Joseph changes the nature of the film. The definition of documentary has nothing to do with truth, as a little research on the definition will prove. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read the talk page before starting a separate discussion, whether to use the term documentary or not is discussed above here Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#RfC. Although listed as an RfC I'm not sure if it was ever properly tagged. This will probably have to go to a proper RfC, although two other RfCs relating to the article are awaiting admin closure.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding was that this was settled a while back in favour of 'documentary', for reasons given by Willondon (although the RfC is not formally closed). If I am right, any new RfC would need to be arguing for a change TO 'documentary-style' or other choices.Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

First paragraph of this section seems neutral.

Second paragraph doesn't seem neutral and appears to give undue weight to two negative reviews already featured in reception section.

"The Zeitgeist film, according to writer Paul Constant, is "based solely on anecdotal evidence, it's probably drawing more people into the Truth movement than anything else."[5] While Jay Kinney questioned the accuracy of its claims and the quality of its arguments, describing it as agitprop and propaganda.[8]"

Third paragraph appears neutral. Fourth paragraph seems like it has issues.

"According to Peter Joseph, the original Zeitgeist was not presented in a film format, but was a "performance piece consisting of a vaudevillian, multimedia style event using recorded music, live instruments, and video"." - No citation?

"Zeitgeist, the first movie of the trilogy, has been described as a pseudo-exposé of the international monetary system. The exposé theme runs through both its sequels, according to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates." - No citation? Perhaps undue weight to feature Bertlet's view so prominently outside of reception.

"Many of the themes of Zeitgeist are sourced to two books: The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, a member of the John Birch Society, and Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins.[9]" - This is also based on analysis according to Bertlet. Also poorly written because it doesn't reflect what source says. Themes aren't sourced. Bertlet claims "much of it derives from two books", presume he means arguments against banking system. This too seems like undue weight to one commentator. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Basic problem is that this 'intro' strays too much into 'critical response'. There is no expectation that criticism be 'neutral' but some of this is prob in the wrong place. 'According to PJ etc. is (I think), Tablet quoting film's own website (cited at end of para). There is prob no justification for anything more than 'factual' intro prior to synopsis. Though probably good to merge some of this into relevant criticism rather than purge.Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral presentation does not mean that reliable sources are not given because of a perception that the information is not neutral enough. The snippets used by the various writers are representative of responses to the film series. Its not like there are many positive reviews. It is over balanced toward negative critique because the movie series itself is over balanced toward negative critique by those that critiqued it so the current intro seems well within weight limits of fair presentation. A balanced view of the subject comes from outside of the subject, not the perception that presenting citations/information that are not bright or cheery or themed from the subject itself are somehow not neutral. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., point I was making is that 'criticism' should belong in 'criticism'. The normal practice on most films would be to put only factual matters before 'synopsis' (development, prod co., released where, when etc.). I specifically said that we don't expect critics to be neutral, but we equally don't put criticism in sections which are meant to be factual. … … what I think is being discussed is moving/consolidating criticisms, not removing them.Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason why critical elements can not be built into the article. As far as just factual aspects, that is hard to say what those are without some critical reference point. What the person above you is saying is that one thing seems neutral, another thing not. I am just making the point that all the talk of cherry picked negative criticism of the current article is probably not actually the case and recent events on boards would indicate there is a general feeling that it would be difficult to find a neutral as in balanced, not negative or positive way to talk about the film because the citations have opinions on the film which is part of their descriptions of the film. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a very real reason why the personal opinions of reviewers should not be in the main article. For one reason, if we do that, there is no point of having a "reception" section. Reception is not the same as fact. The second reason is that opinion is not fact. A fact is like, "produced by producer x in studio y about subject z." An opinion is like, "it reminds me of ...," "... badly done," "... crazy ideas," "... loved the costumes," "similar to film w," etc. A reliable source is not fact unless making a factual statement. When stating an opinion, a reliable source is may be worth quoting if the opinion is worth quoting, but only as an opinion, not as a fact. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Grammar is largely right, I also think 233.104, was partly right but for the wrong reason. That is why I proposed moving 'opinion' (there isn't that much) from the mini-intro to 'criticism' and (in an ideal world), consolidating the opinion there in order to make it more readable/thematic. There may be instances when it is apt to include opinion in the main text, I don't think they apply here.

I don't think anyone disputes that the overwhelming majority of critical response is very negative, it would be false to not reflect that, but there is a right place.Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism belongs in criticism. I never meant to suggest criticism had to be neutral, but introductory section has no reason to be used to give undue weight to the more extreme end of negative reception. The criticism inserted into the introductory section seems to place undue weight on a few commentators who are quoted for statements not representative of mainstream view. In prior discussion on Jay Kinney's review I've noted he is not a recognized authority on film, politics, conspiracy theories, or journalism. The statement he is quoted on in this section is also not representative of his conclusion of the film or of mainstream description of film. Paul Constant, who at least has some [reputation] for writing on politics and film, is given undue weight in this section for a statement about Zeitgeist in an article that is more about 9/11 Truth movements. He's quoted for a speculative statement where he uses the word "probably", that doesn't seem appropriate for an introductory section which is otherwise factual information. Chip Berlet, who is the closest to an academic of the three, expresses an extreme unsupported partisan opinion, which, as reflected in the article, is sloppily written to appear as fact. Mainstream RS don't name drop John Birch Society for shock value nor are Chip Berlet's views widely held. If editors feel these views are significant then I agree with Pincrete that they ought to be properly attributed and merged with criticism section. I do not get why those who support an unbalanced intro are re-hashing the documentary vs fake documentary/propaganda debate, majority of mainstream RS just don't describe it that way. No one has yet to offer an opinion on the uncited "the original Zeitgeist" statement. Why the insistence on including cherry-picked opinion and not on veracity of factual information? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

70.36.233.104, 'the original Zeitgeist' is Goldberg quoting the film's website (I believe), it may well therefore qualify as 'factual history', rather than criticism. Chip Berlet doesn't need to provide evidence, or to be non-partisan in his pov, IF we consider him a sufficient 'authority', it does however need to be represented as his opinion, and be in the right place, as you say.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If the 'the original Zeitgeist' is 'factual history', I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to track down where it came from because it seems like something like that ought to be cited. I have no problem with Berlet's statements as attributed criticism in criticism section. I emphasized the nature of his criticism to illustrate that it can't be relied on outside of criticism context. For instance the film doesn't cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so it would be undue to include that film borrows from that, even as a statement attributed to Berlet, in the introduction section or synopsis. Likewise, selecting a line where he name drops the John Birch Society doesn't belong in intro. I think we're in agreement though, Pincrete. This is directed more towards those who feel it ought to remain. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

'the original Zeitgeist' is sourceable either to Tablet or (in this instance), to the film's website, thus 'According to the filmmaker, the original Zeitgeist etc.'. I think we are nearly all agreed that opinion belongs in 'criticism'. The 'alterations' to the film you mention, if sourcable, should not be within someone else's criticism, unless it is VERY clear who is speaking. I don't see any reason to remove the criticism that the original version 'dishonestly/carelessly' used footage, just because a later version may have remedied that. The film doesn't need to cite E's of Zion, Berlet makes that connection. One film/book etc rarely admits to 'borrowing' ideas from somewhere else.Pincrete (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Tablet is preferable. I go into the 2010 revised version discussion below, but I agree it shouldn't be used to remove or refute criticism from criticism section. Sorry if I gave the impression that was what I was proposing. I think you think I'm trying to refute Berlet's criticism by making the point about E's of Zion. Just emphasizing that it can't be relied on outside of criticism context, directed towards those who might feel Berlet's criticism still belongs in intro. I think we are nearly all agreed that opinion belongs in 'criticism' too. Apologies for any confusion. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

2010 Update

While looking into the [Jane Chapman criticism] I realized that some of the criticism leveled against the original 2007 film had been addressed by filmmaker and incorporated into a revised version of the film released in 2010. That seems noteworthy. I think at the very least a statement to that effect should be included in article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Highly doubtful about what you are saying. You are saying the Peter Joseph redid or reedited a portion of his film because of negative press from Jane Chapman and others? We can not give a statement even remotely like that unless it is sourced from other than primary sources where it actually quotes Peter Joseph as saying he changed the edit of the film because of negative publicity. I don't think there are any sources that go there. Are there? Other wise we are talking about the original film in its original release unless other sections are added about the film being reedited and some information changed in later versions. Projecting about why this was done is either original research or editors speculation though. Earl King Jr. (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

[This] would appear to be an acceptable primary source that original 2007 film was re-released in 2010 with changes addressing criticism. I don't think I'm projecting. WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." A secondary source would be nice, but unnecessary as it appears uncontroversial that film was altered and re-released in 2010. I don't quite understand the OR objection. It is sourced and I don't think I've misrepresented or misinterpreted the statement. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"It wasn’t until the film was grossly misinterpreted in its mixed genre style and artistic license that I later went back and made such editorial changes to conform it to a more 'documentary form'." "In 2010, I 'cleaned it up' to conform to a more traditional 'documentary' form and produced a free 220 booklet to support the literally 100s of claims made in the work." "Anyway, while the very original version of the film did talk about global government run by corporate power as an Orwellian '1984' type assumption for the future, this was artistically presented and deduced as a result of global financial power and the tendency to constantly concentrate this power. I later removed this section entirely (in 2010) as I was disgusted by the constant misinterpretations."

A neutral statement like "Citing constant misinterpretation and criticism of Zeitgeist: The Movie, Peter Joseph released a revised edition in 2010 accompanied with a source guide." shouldn't be objectionable based on straightforward statements made from RS. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

233.104, I think you are partly right, though your quote doesn't address Chapman's criticism of dishonest/careless use of footage. If used this would be a 'footnote/parenthesis' to Chapman's criticism, or elsewhere, it wouldn't invalidate it.Pincrete (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My quote or quote from filmmaker? My quote encompasses each instance where filmmaker mentions the revised version and reason for changes. Filmmaker does mention the Madrid bombing criticism, Jordyn Marcellus', but it isn't the sole instance filmmaker mentions for altering film. He doesn't say "Because of Chapman's criticism, I changed movie" so I didn't either and left the statement as broad as he does with regards to "constant misinterpretation."

I apologize if I gave the impression I was arguing for replacing or removing criticism of original film because filmmaker released revised version. I just don't like how it is mentioned currently, which is just to adding subtitles in the Chapman paragraph. That does seem like a tacky attempt to undermine criticism. I don't think it should be used as a 'footnote/parenthesis' to that criticism. I think our discussions got a little crossed because it is in the talk "Zeitgeist: The Movie" section that you mentioned "The 'alterations' to the film you mention, if sourcable, should not be within someone else's criticism, unless it is VERY clear who is speaking." I completely agree with that. I'm not sure if you read my mind, but for placement I was thinking the mention of the revised version belongs in the intro, as just that statement that filmmaker released revised edition citing change prompted by misinterpretation and criticism. In no way do I think mention of a revised version ought to be used to dismiss criticism or used to refute specific criticism. Mention of the revised version seems important enough to stand on its own. (noticed IP change: formerly 70.36.233.104) 173.228.118.114 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. "173.228.118.114," please create a proper login name so that you have a history, a talk page, a persona, and the right to participate fully in Wikipedia activities. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

173.228.118.114 , if you want! Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

118.114, your text (quote), I think, is fine, short and factual. I wasn't criticising, either here or above, just trying to be clear about exactly what/where I agreed with you.Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar'sLittleHelper: Neither here nor there. Lets not clutter the talk page with suggestions to I.P.'s. If interested hold that advice for their user talk page because its too chatty here and this page is about the article. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jane Chapman criticism

In Jane Chapman's criticism of film one it says 'In later versions of the film a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings' , is this in her criticism? If not it should be put as a footnote or removed. I've put a 'cit tag' temporarily. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it would not make a lot of difference. The original film is the subject so if it was re edited that can be mentioned but the point is that it was originally presented in a certain form. Even if it was re edited and some quotation given for the film footage it does not change anything appreciably though as you said that can or could be mentioned in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it makes a lot of difference whether the text was actually used by the critic or not.Pincrete (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur. I'd recommend removing uncited portions of her critique at least until they can be verified. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the article got protected I've been playing Ghost of Edit Wars Past to try to find out where this line came from and if it ever had a citation. Seems like for as long as it's been here it hasn't had one. It's been in and out of the article quite a bit over the years and object of edit wars. It shows up briefly in the talk archives from 2010. For a time there was a version that just removed that claim. Found some neat stuff along the way too. My favorite of the edit wars has to be over how to treat a proper noun. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about inclusion (it should prob stay), just that it should be clear who said it.Pincrete (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears this is [falsely attributed]. She is quoting someone else.

"This argument is furthered by an unethical use of content and of records, as Jordyn Marcellus of The Gauntlet comments: ‘It’s infuriating and prevents any kind of real discussion about the credibility of the original source material’ (Marcellus 2008). Marcellus criticizes the film for its duplicity:

'For instance, video footage from the Madrid bombings of 2004 is used during a discussion of the London bombings of 2005, the implication being that the footage is from the actual bombings in London. It is deceptive filmmaking pure and simple and no manner of self-righteous explanation can disregard the simple fact: it’s an out and out lie, ‘creative example’ be damned. For a film that rails against deception, there’s a lot deception, there’s a lot of deception implicit in its creation.'"

Here's the [original piece]. I don't know if the Jane Chapman source can be used now as it appears this was actually Jordyn Marcellus's point all along. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I went looking for some source to the changes made to the film since it's initial release and found [this].

"It wasn’t made to “declare”, it was made to challenge. Same goes for the long held up cry of “manipulative filmmaking”, such as when footage of the Madrid subway bombing was used to introduce a section on the 7/7 London Bombings. How dare I show a different explosion! In 2010, I “cleaned it up” to conform to a more traditional “documentary” form and produced a free 220 booklet to support the literally 100s of claims made in the work."

I know the idea of referencing a primary source like this has to have some editors frothing, but this does appear to be a documented instance where the filmmaker updated work based on criticism. That seems noteworthy. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The parts that are NOT Chapman's can be credited to Marcellus, if it helps saying 'in her book Chapman quotes Marcellus, etc.'Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)