User talk:VegKilla/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie

New talk page
Here's the new talk page. Just comments from editors, that's it. The old one is gone for good, so please focus your attention on the content of the article. Thank-you! VegKilla (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems inappropriate
From what I can gather, you are trying to make a list of all factual claims in the film, and then find sources that will support them. I don't know why you're doing this, or what purpose it will serve &mdash; what's the point? --Haemo (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<"This is not original research, but rather an attempt to recreate, or verify the research that was done by the creators of the film. * " Um, that is original research. Pairadox (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify Pairadox's point, according to the No original research policy, there is no difference between what you are doing, and what we consider to be original research. Wikipedia is not the place to fact-check the Zeitgeist movie. You might want to consider checking out Alternative outlets-- RoninBK T C 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Zeitgeist movie cites many facts, such as quotes taken from the bible, etc. Some people have accused the makers of the film of downright lying about what these sources say.  My goal is to create a list of facts claimed by the movie, and the source that the movie is claiming shows this fact.  Original research (according to the link you gave above) "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."  According to the Original Research article, OR is "is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."


 * '''My very detailed talk * page is an attempt to create research that IS exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * VegKilla (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You are trying to tie claims in the film to reality. Unless such an analysis has been published and you are using that as a source, you are engaging in original research. Pairadox (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not "a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position clearly advance by the sources." This article is a summary of Zeitgeist, the Movie; and Zeitgeist, the Movie is "a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position clearly advance by the sources."  which is the whole reason I am so interested in it Do you understand what I am saying?  The movie is the published analysis! And I am using that as a source.  VegKilla (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand. You are taking a fact in a published source, and then checking it. *  The "checking" * you are doing, and publishing here, is original research, since you are are synthesizing outside sources to provide a new fact &mdash; i.e. is the statement true, or false.  That's original synthesis &mdash; it's no different from a historian who collects facts from a bunch of sources and puts them together to provide a new conclusion which has never been published before.  Your conclusion (i.e. Zeitgiest the Movie is correct/incorrect about fact X) * is exactly the same thing. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on (i.e. no "fact checking" or anything else except comments). VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

MBanak Writes

In the development of every institution, a time comes when the framework is stressed by the intoduction of unexpected elements. This Wiki entry seems to be such a case, and it is normal to expect stuff like this to come up. After thinking this over, I discovered why it was hard, at first, to find a clear and cogent reason to delete this article: The article is also hard to categorize. I don't like to add rules to a system unless they are absolutley necessary. Adding a rule to preclude "Lists of claims in movies" seems artificially narrow.

There is a statement of purpose already published within Wiki, to preclude this article. In the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, we find the following rule: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

The difficulty in categorizing this article, amplifies the impression that this article makes Wikipedia an indiscriminate "collection of information".

One other barrier exists to the acceptability of this article. That is the matter of overcategorization. The categorization of this article is so elusive, that I believe any attempt at categorization will result in over-categorization. Please review the rules on the over-categorization page, and give them consideration.

Finally, a word on what to expect if this article stands: It is also said on the Wiki page "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", that "Wikipedia is not a battle ground". Unfortunately, this happens all the time. The controversial nature of this article will invite scholarly battles. I happen to be quite familiar with the topics raised by "Zeitgeist, The Movie", and the ultimate, inevitable refutation of the claims in this article will undoubtedly turn this Wikipedia page into another Internet Armageddon. Controversy, alone, is not a reason to leave out material, but the eclectic nature of this article, and the exected rebuttals, all guarantee a long, long entry. Respectfully, Mbanak (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the previous 2 comments (by Haemo and Mbanak), this article does not, and would never be allowed ** to state that any claim made by the Zeitgeist movie is either true or false, and would also never be allowed ** to imply that any claim in the movie is either true or false by the references it cites. This article could, however, become a useful cross-reference tool for people interested in finding the sources that the Zeitgeist movie itself cites.  As far as the "checking" you are talking about, you have misunderstood the talk page.  So many people misunderstood it that I have blanked it, so please consider only the article itself if you are going to support its deletion.  The intent was never to categorize any facts as confirmed or denied, but rather to use that terminology on the talk * page only so that the editors of the article could have a sense of what information still needed to be researched.  There is no room here for "finding" sources that support or deny anything—the movie cites it's own sources, this is merely an attempt to find those sources (such as the bible, ancient Egyptian text about Horus, etc) and present them in a way where someone doing research on the movie can find those resources in an organized way.  VegKilla (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ** by me or most other editors.

* Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)