User talk:Dustin184

Zeitgest
Hi, Dustin. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for contacting me. Feel free to do so if you ever have questions in the future. If you haven't already done, one good place to start if you're new to the project is Five pillars, which gives a very condensed summary of Wikipedia's rules in a nutshell. Another is Simplified ruleset. The one most relevant to your question is Wikipedia's Neutrality policy.

Wikipedia, being an enyclopedia, is a reference source, so it can only refer to what reliable sources say. It cannot endorse one side as being "right", or the "winner". Where it concerns matters are subject to controversy, conflict, or strong opinions, like say, the Creation–evolution controversy, Wikipedia is required to summarize each side's position accurately, without conveying even the appearance that the site itself favors one position over another, or that one is "right" and the other is "wrong", either through the wording of the material, or with the use of original research, which is forbidden. Even with something less controversial than evolution, like say, the quality of a movie, we cannot say "This movie sequel was better than the original". We can, however say, "Roger Ebert opined that this sequel was better than the original.[source]" To pick a random example, look at the reviews section of the Spider-Man 3 article (which has been granted Good Article status), to see how a varied set of opinions may be summarized.

I understand that a film like Zeitgeist may represent a interesting cross between my two examples, because it's a film like Spider-Man 3, but one that's highly controversial because it ties into sociopolitical, historical and religious subject matter that are an ongoing source of debate, much like the evolution/creationism conflict. To avoid the back-and-forth tennis match of continuing arguments that you are quite right to point out, we summarize the material. One of the problems that is sometimes seen in Wikipedia is that enthusiastic editors, especially if they're new to the project or don't edit that often, is that they feel the need to describe everything in a minutely detailed blow-by-blow, whether it's the synopsis of a movie or TV episode, or the arguments of each side in a controversy. But you really don't have to. An general use encyclopedia does not have to list every single piece of trivia like an index or almanac, as some of those more fannish Star Wars or Star Trek encyclopedias do (and I'm not knockin' those, because I like those too!). It should simply summarize the topic so that a reader unacquainted with it can gain an understanding of it. Obviously, some degree of detail is warranted, but how much should depend on the nature of the topic, how much weight and space is given to a particular subsection, and overall, how it helps to create a better-written article. For other examples on how differing views are represented in articles about controversial films, see Sicko and Expelled, the latter of which admittedly has more of its content devoted to the contested aspects of the film's content. We're also fortunate that usually, those litigants involved in such debates don't usually do that much back-and-forth debating on individual points. At least, I'm not aware of that much of it regarding Zeitgeist.

And remember, if you're new, don't be discouraged. Just keep reading and writing, and you'll get better. I take pride that I can write episode synopses that look like this, but that's only because others told me that I was making them too long when they looked like this, and they were right! Nightscream (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. One question though: Is the notion that Ra is the Egyptian god of the Sun a matter of dispute? If it's a historical fact that's not subject to any debate among historians or Egyptologists, then I think "points out" would be more accurate than "claims", which implies that it's merely a notion advocated by Forbes alone. Nightscream (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't know that. Is that in the article? Is there a source for that? Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why the talk page didn't move along with it, since usually, it does. But the old discussions were not lost--they could be accessed by clicking on the talk page tab at the top of the redirect page when doing a search for the old article name (with the lowercase "t"). You can see it here. I moved the old discussions, along with the archived ones to date. I don't know how to format the archive links in with the archive box, as it was on the old talk page, so I just links for them at the top of the new talk page. I'll ask someone at the Help Desk if they can format those properly. Thanks for pointing that out. Nightscream (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed in this discussion on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie
Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)