- User:Pdelongchamp/Zeitgeist (video) (edit | [[Talk:User:Pdelongchamp/Zeitgeist (video)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Article is rigorously sourced and asserts its notability. Notable sources stem from the United States, to Ireland, to New Zealand. The film is notable for having been selected for screening at the 4th Annual Artivist Film Festival on Saturday, having attracted massive interest[1] and having been downloaded approximately 5 millions times on Google Video.[2] (and about another 2 million times on youtube[3]). Previous unencyclopedic versions of this article have been deleted and salted. This DRV is by request of admins that want to see a reliably sourced userspace version in order to properly reinstate it. Pdelongchamp 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please assume good faith. If it makes any difference, I'm as much a fan of this movie as I am of What_the_bleep_do_we_know. That is to say I personally think the film utilizes pseudoscientific techniques to bolster it's arguments. From misleading claims of suppression and excessive logical leaps when the actual data is insufficient to support the preordained conclusion to a focus on anomalous data and anecdotal findings that are inconsistent with the vast majority of current data supports the predominant theories. However, I do consider this bullshit movie to a notable bullshit movie and one that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, the fact that it has been created and recreated so many times should give us an incentive to give a genuine attempt at recreation it's due respect in DRV. Thank you. Pdelongchamp 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - clearly notable, discussed, and often-watched. That we dispute some of its methodology is beside the point. We are here to report on our the world around us, whether we agree with facets of it or not. Such a downloaded and popular movie, regardless of its merit, deserves an article to explain it, if not for those who wonder about its veracity. It should be called Zeitgeist (film). --David Shankbone 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has already said that Zeitgeist, the Movie is the official title and should be the article title which makes sense. When is it appropriate to add (title)? Is it appropriate in this case? Pdelongchamp 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC) btw, i just reread my reply and it sounds confrontational. there should have been a "I agree, the title isn't appropriate." before the first sentence. Pdelongchamp 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I have my doubts about the notability of almost all of the sources, I think that a relist is in order, so that others can look at the sources for themselves. I don't know the Scoop, so I don't know how accurate it is. I don't know The Stranger, so I don't know how accurate it is. The Arbiter - student newspapers are generally not reliable. The News Blaze mention is just that, a mention in a list of what movies are showing at a film festival, so that's no much to go on. The Irish Times article is, I guess, somewhat a claim of notability. Corvus cornix 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although in principle I agree with the questioning of those sources, I caution the desire for us to always wait for the Mainstream Media to point out that something is a phenomenon. I realize this is an issue when it comes to sourcing, but phenomenons overlooked by the MSM should still be given our consideration. --David Shankbone 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist There is enough sourcing here to be worth an AFD discussion. The article falls far short of adhering to WP:NPOV, given the sources, but since the sources exist that is an editing problem, not a deletion problem. (Flagrant example - letting it sound like the reliability of the film is merely criticized, when the Kinney review closes with a reminder that even the producer has said "It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth . . .".) GRBerry 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I'll review and see what I can do about your WP:NPOV concerns. Pdelongchamp 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was cool with this being relisted before, since this version looks scads better than before. --Haemo 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - the sources are still sketchy in some cases (IMO), but it's at least sourced and worth an AFD discussion to see what consensus turns up. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist at AfD - In the last DRV, I posted properly formatted footnote strings. Your draft's references lack dates, author names, and Wikipedia links to the source and otherwise do not meet the citing sources style guideline. I think this may work against your efforts, especially if the single purpose accounts show up at the AfD. Before the article is listed at AfD, you should considered Request for comment or Wikipedia:Peer review. -- Jreferee t/c 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion. Sorry, but I still don’t see enough non-trivial coverage by reliable sources to overturn the consensus to delete established at AfD and confirmed at the 1st DRV and 2nd DRV. -- Satori Son 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As was mentioned in a previous discussion, this article needs to be bulletproof before it is put up yet again. I do not think the sourcing yet shows bulletproof notability. Also believe it is jumping the gun by at least a few days. This festival it is being introduced at has not even happened yet. I also have a problem with the use of the term "massive interest" without overt attribution. Yes, it says that in one source, but it is not verified as "massive" in any way, so that word needs to be directly attributed to the source, and not just stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. These rapid-fire recreations only make it harder for me to make a finding of notability, not easier. At the very least, wait until after the festival, and hope that there are a few RS mentions that come about from it. - Crockspot 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point on the "massive interest". I changed it to "public interest". Readers can now determine themselves from the sources if they consider the level of interest to be "massive." Pdelongchamp 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and wait another six months at least. I am heartily sick of the relentless campaigning to get this on Wikipedia, and bringing it back here every time another passing mention comes up is only reinforcing that. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist I'm as tired of the campaigning as the next man, but this looks like a good faith attempt at producing a passable article, and it's sufficiently different to version which was originally deleted to deserve its own hearing. For me it probably barely passes notability, but that's jut my view - if you follow Crockspot's suggestion and wait until after the festival there might be a few more sources which would give it a better chance of passing an AfD. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I've reviewed the userfied article, and while they're making an effort, it is still a conspiracy theory. There are few news sources, and only two that I would consider notable - The Stranger (which is, as a Village Voice paper, so marginally reliable it's almost not even marginally so), and the Irish Times (which itself calls it, in not so many words, a nonsensical conspiracy theory film, and gratuitously makes fun of the film). I will give the authors and producers kudos for their passion, but that isn't something to save this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How many times do we have to endure this utter waste of everyone's time? This is just a silly youtube video peddling baseless conspiracy lunacy seeking to get spurious credibility by appearing on Wikipedia. The articles authors aren't interested in writing a properly balanced piece, which would point out repeatedly that it's complete bollocks, but are just trying to spam their pet project everywhere and every chance they get. This may sound a bit harsh but the author of the Zeitgeist article left a message on my talk page informing me about this deletion review and asking me to comment, so I have done.
Let's remember what this 'film' is about:
"Part II: All The World's a Stage Part II argues that the United States was internationally warned of imposing attacks, that NORAD was purposely confused on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 and that the World Trade Center buildings were underwent a controlled demolition. Additionally, the film arguments that some hijackers are still alive, the Bush administration covered up details in the 9/11 Commissions’ Report and that a plane never hit the Pentagon.
Part III: Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain Part III attempts to describe how the powerful bankers of the world have been conspiring for world domination and increased power. According to the documentary, the rich of society have been using their wealth to increase financial panic and foster a consolidation of independent competing banks. The film details a theory that the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States was created in order to steal the wealth of the nation. It showcases the amount of money that has been made by these rich few during World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War and now the war in Iraq. It describes the goal of these bankers as world power over a completely controllable public." The reason the film lacks proper sources is because it was written by, and appeals to, twelve year old lunatics. Nick mallory 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick, please don't insert claims of antisemitism in the article without a source. Thank you. Pdelongchamp 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When you're peddling a film which exists merely to push ridiculous conspiracy theories don't pretend to get all offended when you get called on it. I actually edited the article on your page to add some sources debunking its silly assertions - the international bankers conspiracy for example - I trust you've left them in there to balance the piece as per Wikipedias neutral point of view policy? Nick mallory 10:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just checked, the sources I added on the article - which gave an alternative view of the validitiy of these conspiracy theories- have been removed. Colour me stunned. You ask me not to make claims without sources, having removed those very sources yourself. Nick mallory 10:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who reads the history and checks the discussion page will know this is completely misleading. That's all I'm going to say. Pdelongchamp 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - There's only eight sources, and of those, one is a very good one, two are trivial mentions, one is straight "this is what's in it", one is a youTube link to the movie, one is a mention of the upcoming screening, one is the claim of "multi-million phenom" only, and Globe and Mail is a pay-only article. for something that claims to be such a phenomenon, the lack of mainstream coverage even to debunk it is strange, and the very small number of non-trivial sources even from indy media doesn't really reinforce its notability. There are Windows patches with high download numbers, but we don't have articles on them, because they don't have any impact. The theories in the film aren't new; it's just that the watchers of the film haven't read other sources. There's nothing about the film that makes it any different than any other conspiracy film - how "suppressed" can it really be on YouTube? In short, I concur with the need for the article to be bulletproof, and it is not. MSJapan 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse deletion I feel like the film is approaching notability, conspiracy theory fodder or not. However, since it's already been through so many itterations on these lists, I'd rather see it get a little futher before going back to AfD. As mentioned above, waiting until after the festival may bring in some non-trivial, notable sources that aren't there yet. Most of the sources at this point are a bit weak. One or two more I think would put it over the notability threshhold. Scott.wheeler 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Enough sources to establish that the issue of deletion should be at least revisited. There are problems with the article in its current state, but they can be solved by editing it. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Notability issues are not something that can be fixed by editing. We have notability standards that require non-trivial reference to reputable sources. If reputable sources discuss the film in a non-trivial manner, then we will have sufficient information to summarize in a neutral encyclopedic article. Let's not let vigorous efforts at self promotion cloud our judgment. MortonDevonshire Yo · 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it strange that editors continue to argue against self promotion when I feel that I have made my views on the film pretty clear in this discussion. I am, however, happy to report that two excellent sources discuss the film in full. The Irish Times article and The Globe and Mail article. Copies of both can be found on Google with little to no digging. Pdelongchamp 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim, your efforts to promote your film through Wikipedia just aren't going to work. Wikipedia cannot be used as a springboard to create notability -- it's the other way around. MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is seriously lacking in good faith. What reason have you to believe I'm trying to promote the film and who is Tim? Pdelongchamp 06:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Morton thinks that Pdelongchamp is really someone named "Tim" who is somehow associated with the film and thus promoting it then he should provide evidence for that connection--it would obviously be highly relevant to this deletion review and should therefore be made explicit. Argument by innuendo generally does not get one very far--be it in DRV comments or in conspiracy-mongering films like the one we're discussing here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. Agree with others that sending this back to AfD may be a bit premature, but the Irish Times, Stranger (certainly a respectable weekly newspaper, it is indeed like the Village Voice but I don't see why that's a problem), and Globe and Mail articles do establish at least a low level of notability in my opinion. It probably would have been better to wait until after the screening at the film festival for this (too late now obviously), but by the time this hits AfD maybe there will be new sources to talk about. I feel it's inevitable that we will (and should) have some article about this film as it is quite a phenomenon and presumably will be for awhile (personally I haven't seen it and don't intend to anytime soon). Pdelongchamp's version seems like a decent first effort and has the advantage of not being written by a rabid partisan of the film (though I'm sure they will be drawn to any new article with a quickness).
- FYI, I did a Lexis/Nexis search on the phrase "Zeitgeist the movie" (which turns up exact instances of that phrase, including those with a comma after the first word) and got exactly 5 hits for the last year on all newspapers, blogs, tv transcripts, etc. In other words there do not appear to be other significant sources that we are missing, at least not yet. Thus I think the film passes the notability bar barely and arguably not at all, though the screening at the film festival will increase its notability somewhat.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pdelongchamp contacted me out of the blue asking me to comment on this article, which I duly did. As I don't think he agreed with my views on the film he is continuing to badger me about it on my talk page. I've told him there and I'm telling him here that I don't think this film is notable and I don't think it should be on Wikipedia and no amount of um..pleading on its behalf by him is going to change my mind. He apparently thinks the film is rubbish as well but takes issue with my disdain for it, which is a bit um, strange. He states on his first comment here that he thinks the film is 'bullshit' but then writes that it's had 'massive' interest and includes virtually no material pointing out that its claims are idiotic. One might think the lady doth protest too much but assuming good faith I've added a couple of short quotes from the Irish Times article he is so keen to trumpet here. The Irish Times called it 'unhinged' and 'surreal' of course but as he is so eager to proclaim a disinterested stance about the films veracity, however strangely that sits with his obsessive interest in seeing it on Wikipedia, then somebody who really thinks it is 'bullshit' won't be jumping to remove them again. We'll see. Nick mallory 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would invite everyone to review Nick Mallory's talk page before jumping to any conclusions. Everything after "He apparently..." in the above comment was added after he thankfully decided to read through the DRV. Nick, I removed your Irish times Review quote from the introduction. Let's wait until the festival is held and then we can create a formal review section. Pdelongchamp 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- why remove the quotes? You yourself called the Irish Times piece an 'excellent' source earlier on and now you remove a quote or two from it from the article. You think the film is 'bullshit' but remove a quote which agrees with your opinion? Your rationale here is making no sense whatsover. Remember you asked me, out of the blue, to comment on this film, which I have. I'm not close to this film at all, I'm simply giving my opinion on its notability, as you asked me to do. Nick mallory 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion of yet another conspiracy theory notable only to its promoters and within its walled garden. Tom Harrison Talk 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many of the people posting here, particularly Nick Mallory and Pdelongchamp, are too close to this issue to offer an unbiased opinion as to what should be done. I think it's more than reasonable to wait until after the premier at the Artivist Film Festival to make decisions about this article. A side note: for me, the issue of this article is upsetting because of wikipedia's inability to incorporate or validate underground media. If an article is on a topic that isn't in the mainstream, then people jump on it and send it down the river with little consideration for the fact that there have been very few films in recent years to gain such widespread distribution without mainstream media backing. This is a deep flaw in wikipedia, even though there isn't much alternative. Were I in the mainstream media, I would absolutely discourage my peers from publishing anything relating to Zeitgeist, the Movie because it would be dangerous to my source of livelihood. If someone can make a movie with nothing more than editing software and distribute it to literally millions of viewers for free, why would people go to the movie theatres? (I don't know how to sign my posts because I'm an idiot when it comes to using wikipedia, but if someone knows how to and wants to do it for me, I would appreciate it if someone deleted this parenthetical text and replaced it with a signature for me.)
- I realize the issue is the reliability of the sources that cover a given topic. But, does anyone have any reason that The Stranger is an unreliable source other than that it has a smaller readership than Washington Post? Or is that enough? The Stranger isn't mainstream enough, therefore it's completely unreliable. Everyone who has seen the movie and read the article knows that the journalist is completely reliable in his report on the subject. (I don't know how to sign my posts because I'm an idiot when it comes to using wikipedia, but if someone knows how to and wants to do it for me, I would appreciate it if someone deleted this parenthetical text and replaced it with a signature for me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foisenolk (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:SPAM does not really apply here in my opinion, I think endorse deletion comments need to revolve around lack of notability, which is obviously a perfectly legitimate point of view on this. The userfied article is certainly not clear-cut spam, and in order to think that it was I think we'd have to assume the user who made it was misleading us when they deemed it a "bullshit movie." Certainly other past creations of this article were probably blatant spam, but this current version seems like a good-faith effort to create something encyclopedic--at least so far I see no evidence to the contrary.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, only lack of notability (substantial new information) needs to be addressed. For this article, there are two hurdles. The first is behavior. E.g., will the SPAs come out of the woodwork to muck things up? Mongo's WP:SPAM post seems to address the first hurdle. The second is lack of notability addressed at a new AfD. Only if the closer of this DRV thinks that behavior related to this topic is no longer a significant issue will we get to the new AfD. The initiation of this DRV fifteen hours after the close of the prior DRV brings up "Asking the other parent" issues. Also, there seems to be some troubling posts above. -- Jreferee t/c 20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe a low number of SPA editors is a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, the previous DRV related to the fact that Zeitgeist (video) was incorrectly nominated and deleted per CSD G4. In the end, though G4 was found to be technically inappropriate as criteria, it was decided that the article would need to be userfied and sent through DRV before being relisted. Which is what I'm doing. It's not an issue of "Asking the other parent", SPAs, and certainly not WP:SPAM. Pdelongchamp 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the possibility of SPA's coming "out of the woodwork to muck things up" is seriously a "hurdle" we must surmount in order to decide whether or not it's okay for us to have an article about something than we are in serious trouble. First of all, there's no policy along those lines of which I'm aware, second of all it would be total folly to create such a policy. Notability is what matters here--not the fact that the topic (like many) attracts annoying SPA's. We have many ways of dealing with them obviously, and saying that we won't create an article until SPA spamming on the topic is "no longer a significant issue" has the de facto effect of turning over control over that topic to those spamming SPA's. Also Jreferee's reference to "some troubling posts above" without explaining what or who specifically is causing trouble is, in my opinion, troublesome. Vague insinuations are usually not helpful in any forum.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist as per above. I don't see why editors are arguing about the films content, when this should be an argument about notability. Even if you disagree with the content, that is no reason to have the article deleted or have it remain deleted. It is amazing how some of the american editors above, who claim to support the ideals of the American constitution and the concept of free speech, in practice here on wikipedia, squelch it by agressively deleting content which does not match their own POV, using wikipolicy as a facade. Travb (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
