Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Here's a better version

Latest comment: 16 years ago28 comments11 people in discussion

[1] This is the version of the article we should revert to after protection ceases. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs to stay protected until consensus is reached on the content of the lead section. Dreadstar † 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, keep protected riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's going to cause a fight...1Z (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the lead issues the version linked to by SA looks pretty informative and NPOV to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That version is full of original research, a view which has been confirmed at least twice by consensus after major disputes. Going back to that version is completely unacceptable. Dreadstar † 07:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with JoshuaZ here. The lead is still a bit fluffy (no need to give a laundry list of every topic touched upon by the film). Ante lan ^talk 07:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, just a little rewording of the lead for conciseness. Jefffire (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can see including a new lead in that version and then working to source the various points. Maybe something along the lines of the above section. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My question is: What are the "various points" that should be in this lead.....I have seen multiple incarnations of this lead with multiple points many of which were agreed on by at aleast some editors, some of which had achieved consensus. Could these points be articulated and delineated clearly.(olive (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Since you've mentioned that some points have achieved consensus, perhaps you could list them here for addition to that lead? Ante lan ^talk 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just another attempt to add Original research to the article. The version ScienceApologist is recommending here is clearly full of OR, and this version was subjected to intensive discussions, revert warring, protection and had to be taken through several steps of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Consensus was found on that occasion that the disputed content violated WP:NOR. There have been two additional attempts by ScienceApologist and others to introduce OR to this article.here and here

This is an unacceptable path to go down yet again. But if we have to, we'll do it again. Dreadstar † 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, this is an attempt to return the article to a better state than it is currently. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've been misunderstood. I am not referring to specific additions to the article but rather what needs to be in the lead. What general issues...points... information whatever we want to call it should this lead contain. Possibly if we all know what these fundamental points are, appropriate sources, and an appropriate syntactic structure for the lead could be more easily decided on.(olive (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

I understand you Littleolive oil. I think that we can deal with this in a separate section. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be provocative to return to a version that so many editors have objected to, and it does contain OR. The thing to do in a situation like this is just report what reliable sources have said about the film without embellishment. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been no OR documented. There isn't any embellishment in that version either. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the OR was well documented and each item was discussed in detail, finally reaching consensus that it was indeed material that violated WP:NOR. Read the links I provided in my post above...all the details are there. The embellishment is the additional critical comment from unrelated sources. You'll need to find consensus to go back to that version. I doubt you'll find it. Dreadstar † 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You are incorrect. You are linking to metadiscussions, not discussions on article content. There is this persistent myth that we can only quote and not summarize. However, this version of the article can be cited extensively to actual movie reviews as a summary of the various issues critics have had with the film. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we simply return to a version and offer our selected critical citations. It's that simple. We are in a position now where people agree (see above) that we can have sections regarding individual issues in the movie. I'm not saying that we have to stick with this version, I'm just saying that it's better. There is precedent for doing this. See Cold fusion for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim Virgin put it perfectly. I agree completely with Dreadstar here. Let's stop going in circles and just move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not going in circles. There's plenty of good text in here that simply doesn't appear in this article. The water crystal nonsense is barely mentioned here, yet is prominently mentioned in the movie. This has even been criticized by critics of the movie itself. Slim just let me know that she only saw the first 20 minutes of the film and judged it to be pop-philosophy. While there certainly is a lot of pop-philosophy in the film, there's also quite a bit of pseudoscience being promoted as fact throughout the film. There isn't anything wrong with documenting this since we have sources which point it out. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We are going in circles ScienceApologist. If you take the time to read through the so-called "metadiscussions" you would indeed find that the content was discussed in detail line-by-line and source-by-by source, a poll was taken and consensus found. Not once, but at least twice, which included an undeniable consensus, with additional pushing by you on the WP:NOR talk page. If you want to go back to that version, then you'll need to bring each item here, with sources to support all the content you wish to revert to. Your proposed version is full of WP:NOR, so you'll need to provide details on new sources for it to be considered. Dreadstar † 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop talking about what "I" am doing and start focusing on the proposals at hand? I see a use of "you" or a derivative in respect to me 13 times in this section used by User:Dreadstar. This is getting very close to a personal attack. Please remove all references to myself and stick to talking about the proposal (which has nothing to do with "you"). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's your proposal and we have focused on it. I suggest you follow WP:CON and WP:DR where the other proposals and straw polls are concerned, which you've told other editors here to ignore.

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, so there's no reason to remove "all references" to yourself. If you think you've been personally attacked, then by all means take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Dreadstar, Slrubenstein, and SlimVirgin, who wrote: "it would be provocative to return to a version that so many editors have objected to, and it does contain OR. The thing to do in a situation like this is just report what reliable sources have said about the film without embellishment." I do not question that many of the scientific facts in the film are wrong. But this is an article about a film, not about science. The only way to address the facts in the film is to use WP:RS that mention the film. There are plenty of experts who have done so. I don't see what the problem is, just quote them stating their ideas about the way the science is presented in the film. Using science sources that do not discuss the film is WP:SYN. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, we are asking to use that version as a starting point and will go ahead and reference the points as they go through. Did you not understand that? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that perhaps a draft intro might be useful since the current choices do have their weakness. Jefffire (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure I started one below. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

View from the "middle" on language used here?

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I am only peripherally and casually interested here, and after reviewing the straw poll above I declined to vote because I'd like to remain so. So I attempt to speak from the "middle" and on that basis ask a bit of indulgence from both sides.

I share many of the criticisms directed at the film, but the film is, at it's heart, asking a question: can science and "some" form of 'G-d' be reconciled? Certainly the film (a) has a POV about the answer to it's own question, and (b) has taken (IMHO) far too much liberty in presenting certain "research" as "science". It's a typical pop-cultural sensationalization, therefore it is (by definition) entertaining to many and also (by definition) reprehensible to strictly scientific and rational viewers.

Now, may I suggest that some discussion here about the language used might be helpful? For example there are perfectly good words historically used frequently by scientists and academics -- "metaphysics" and "metascience", that can be used more frequently here or as a substitute for the pejorative "pseudoscience". There is a good example (in proper context) here.

Case: In the '80s John Wheeler initiated a trend in physics that has been widely discussed by serious physists (remains respectable to this day) that posits that the universe is made up entirely of information and that matter and energy are merely "incidental". Meanwhile, the first bullet of the Bleep synopsis here states that "The universe is best seen as constructed from thought (or ideas) rather than from substance." Now, I am quite familiar with Satinover's work and can assure all that he is not a "quack" for entertaining the philosophical questions clearly implied in this similarity of views. Essentially Satinover is putting the question into the philosophical context of "Spinoza's G-d", the "god" of Einstein.

So, my suggestion here that perhaps the use of the pejorative "pseudoscience" here (and argument over it's placement) can be solved or mitigated by use of the less pejorative "metaphysics" and "metascience", where appropriate. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are sources that say "pseudoscience." Are there sources that say "metaphysics" or "metascience"? (I'm not implying that there aren't.) Ante lan ^talk 18:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now we're talking. But yes, the movie ties into the historical tradition to philosphise over the big questions, but is updated on empirical facts. For example black holes and big bang are very rigirously defined by hard physics, but they have huge consequences for philosophy, and by proxy the opinion of the individual scientists that works with the field. So obviously this generates most fuzz in the popular culture and polarized communities, in this case debunkers and new age communities. But the subject isn't very unknown to those "in the know". Totally, this results the subject to be considered by the various groups to be pseudoscience, empirical science, existentialism, philosophy of mind, consciousness science, mythology and parapsychology. And I don't think mainstream is the most authoritarian POV here. Anyway, great take on the subject WNDL42 --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which sources are good or bad, but this google news archive search yields a pretty diverse range.

Also, in case anyone is interested in having some fun here, we might even agree that the film has spawned an entirely new lexicon of words to convey the psuedo-scientific aspects, and some of them are precious. My favorite is "quantum-flapdoodle". Perhaps we could have a section (written in a tongue-in-cheek yet encyclopedic tone) to convey in good humor some of this crticism. I expect those who like the film might even enjoy joining the effort...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning to Antelan's question (in response to my proposal on meta vs pseudo); "There are sources that say "pseudoscience." Are there sources that say "metaphysics" or "metascience"? (I'm not implying that there aren't.)"

Now...Google is not a good source unless certain "safeguards" are used. For example, I find an explicitly constructed search restricted to Google's news archive generally provides a pretty good filter to get closer to what the sum total of reliable sources say. Our goal here is to reflect this.

So, the results are ("bleep"), combined with at least one of:

"meta*" (science, physics, physical) = 138 hits

"Pseudo*" (science, scientific, physics) = 17 hits

I think these results are statistically more than significant as a representation of how the film is characterized outside the world of Wikipedia, indicating an overwhelming preference among reliable sources for "metaphysical" over "pseudoscience".

And please (all), examine and comment on the construction of my query before lambasting the method...I gave unfair advantage to the "pseudo" constructions by including the hyphenated variants -- I did not do so for the "meta" characterizations. Summary is that I think we need to be careful not to give undue weight to the more pejorative characterizations based on "pseudo". riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick example, I can't see any reason why our characterization here needs to be any harsher than this article; "How quantum physicists 'review' the 'Bleep' movie". riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert filed on Dreadstar

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have filed a Wikiquette alert on User:Dreadstar in relation to his continued posturing regarding ownership of this page and his inability to discuss content rather than contributors. Please comment there. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

False claims of consensus

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There is no consensus on the following issues:

That the article is better now than it was in the past.
That previous versions of the article are not better than the article is now.
That previous version of the article contained original research that cannot possibly be cited to reliable sources.
That criticizing pseudoscience in the movie is necessarily WP:OR.
That the movie isn't about science but rather philosophy.

In fact, there is substantial amount of controversy over each of these issues. I would say that all of these contentions are substantively wrong.

I will from now on refer all false claims of consensus to this thread.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone claim there was consensus on these points.(olive (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

I get the impression that that was happening above. I just want to be clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any kind of suggestion that these claims had a consensus, or that anyone thought there was a consensus on these points, as far as I can remember.Just clarifying.(olive (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

I'm glad we have consensus on this ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An objection to workshopping the lead

Latest comment: 16 years ago40 comments7 people in discussion

I'm not sure how that's going to work. I have big concerns with the syntax and structure of this version that would require more than some copy editing, but closer to a rewrite. Editors will have a difficult time knowing what's going on if there are constant reverts.I would think this has to be about what all of the editors agree on rather than on one who reverts what he doesn't like. This may not work very well.(olive (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Instead of complaining, why not try making some of your edits? Who knows, maybe I'll like some of them! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No complaining just pointing out some obvious concerns. I guess I don't feel its worth my time to copy edit this version unless multiple editors are involved. With respect, I don't consider you to be the definitive expert on the lead version of this article, although like all of us you have opinions of course.(olive (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Can you name one syntactical issue in that lead? I'll gladly fix it for you. Ante lan ^talk 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get caught up in the whole "version mania" that has plagued this article as of late. The problem is that I've seen many different versions that are all basically the same without any direct discussion of why certain things should or should not be discussed. Instead of workshopping the versions people re-include errors and old nonsense. I was blocked for adding quantum mysticism to the lead simply because an observer thought that including this was controversial. Lo-and-behold, when I explicitly stated it needed to be in the lead nobody but nobody objected. The current status quo simply is not working. If you aren't going to offer any better alternatives and refuse to take part in helping move us further, then that is your decision, but don't hold us back. I'm relegating this discussion to a new section since it's basically irrelevant to content (once again). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SA... this is a community of editors. If you want ... really want an article that is a reflection of an editing community then you don't say,"I'll revert anything I dislike. Editors who haven't agreed with you in the past are likely not going to want to edit something you have assumed sole revert rights to. As I said, for me to work on this version would take quite possibly a rewrite which I am quite capable of doing, but I'm not going to work on something when I know that it will be reverted in all likelihood. We are standing on different platforms here. I could care less about this movie, but I want neutrality.You see my version of neutrality to be non-neutral. I know the physics/science connections are highly flawed. I have a very good friend who is a brilliant physicist.I know what he thinks, and I know he knows what he's talking about. That's not the issue for me. The solution is not to say to me in so many words, get out of our way if you don't like it, but is to find a way that provides input and a consensus from all editors who are interested and involved. I don't know what the answer is . We've tried lots of ways to come up with a workable version. I suspect consensus takes compromise. Are there multiple ways of saying something as riverguy42 suggests above, that although not exactly the wording you want is very close, always remembering that this is an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge rather than a place to uphold views on truth. Truth is the ultimate beauty for me, but I know an encyclopedia is not about truth but about collecting knowledge. Sorry this has turned into an essay and wasn't intended. I could write a version tomorrow - bare bones - and maybe rather than take material out material can be added a bit at a time, until we have full fledged section. You are not alone in your frustration. I expect all editors who have been involved are fed up. Not sure what else to do.(olive (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive, I'm still interested in the syntactical issue that you said you had found. Can you identify it so it can be fixed? Thanks. Ante lan ^talk 23:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan ...I apologize. I had to close down and was rushing so didn't get to this. Now, I'm afraid I don't really have the heart to deal with this article .(olive (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Olive, there is nothing to stop you from you doing the same thing I'm doing. I am posting a version that anyone can edit subject to my approval. You are free to edit it if you want, you are free to not edit it. But objecting to it and then refusing to provide an explanation is simply obstructionist for no reason. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It really sounds like you are advocating an edit-war approach, instead of a consensus approach, that is entirely contrary to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. Dlabtot (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that edits should be 'subject to your approval' is particularly egregious. Dlabtot (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Get the fuck over it! I'm simply offering my version in talk space and telling people to mercilessly edit it and I'll mercilessly edit back. We are in fucking talk, for crying out loud! We are not talking about the article space, there is no issue of edit warring because I'm not editing the article right now. It's fucking locked in any case. If you prefer, I'll make a subpage and we can hash it out there if your offended by the suggestion of doing it directly on talk. Of, if you want, you can go ahead and make your own version and allow others to edit it as well, that's cool with me. It's this one editor-one version nonsense that I'm trying to get us past. I saw no fewer than ten lead versions over the last month that were carefully guarded by the authors. Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaboration and that means I'm inviting the involved editors no matter who they are to fucking collaborate. Yeah, they might find that I dislike their contribution. I'll revert it. It's my version. But I might like it. Jesus, what's so goddamn hard to understand about this? The goal I have is to make a semi-collaborative version based on my overall vision of what should be in the lead. If someone has a drastically different idea of what kind of version they would like to see, I'm all for them workshopping their own version. If they'll let me in, I'll even make some edits myself. Dear lord, people on this page don't so much assume as outright accuse others of bad faith. If you don't want to edit my version, don't edit my version! If you do, go for it. I won't be offended if you fuck with it as long as you're not offended if I change it back. But who knows? Maybe I'll fucking like what you have to write. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to use foul, offensive language here. I would like to see the above message cleaned up, archived, refactored, whatever needs to be done to get rid of it.

If you want to put up a version where you can "revert anything I dislike", then you should put it in a sandbox. Reverting an active article talk page over and over again isn't the best way to do this. Nor do I believe it to be the best way to decide on a version. Dreadstar † 22:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing intrinsically better or worse with this approach than with the many-versions approach. They both have upsides and downsides. There is nothing from preventing other people from setting up a parallel to this on the same talk page, and seeing how they evolve over time. Ante lan ^talk 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but setting up a situation for edit warring on an article's talk page isn't a good idea all, especially with one as contentious as this one is. Plus there's no real room for comparison between versions, if editors are even aware that there were different variations - having to comb through the revision history isn't efficient. Take it to a sandbox, edit war there. Dreadstar † 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have spelled out one drawback to this approach (potential for edit warring), I'll point out a benefit. Whereas with the many-versions approach, it is easy to get lost in the dozens of largely-similar-except-for-a-few-sentences versions, this approach invites just a small handful of competing versions. As I said before, there are always drawbacks, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this way of doing things. Ante lan ^talk 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another drawback is the edits of various editors becomes difficult to follow since SA will continuously revert/edit his version on the talk page. You run the risk of not knowing if a particular permutation has already been tried and rejected. A review of the history would make it possible to view all edits but that would be time consuming and cumbersome. Anthon01 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And in a situation with a lot of page reversions going on, innocent and unrelated edits may get inadvertantly reverted as well. WP:3RR also applies to talk pages, and I don't think we want to start trying to sort out 'good' reverts from 'bad' reverts. Bad idea. Much cleaner and easier to sort out in a sandbox. Dreadstar † 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting doesn't mean undoing all intermediate changes. You can easily "revert" changes by hand, no harm done to innocent intermediate changes. There is no need to invent problems with this process; it has real flaws, but this is not one. Ante lan ^talk 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but there's no indication of what type of reversion is taking place. Regardless, constant reverting on an article talk page is not recommended. Are you seriously pushing for this? What is the problem with using a sandbox? Dreadstar † 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, "reverting" can mean undoing all intermediate changes, per Wikipedia:Reverting - and that's really the general meaning of "reverting" on Wikipedia, where reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism or its like. Dreadstar † 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pushing for it? No. Willing to let him try it? Sure. It's a new idea, one that we haven't tried here. If we're going to do it, it should be here, not in a sandbox, so that everyone is aware of new ideas that are proposed. I'm not sure what the link to Wikipedia:Reverting is meant to accomplish, but clearly the assumption should be that SA will do exactly what he said he would do - revert changes to his segment - and not simply go about reverting the talk page willy-nilly whenever he pleases. There is nothing disruptive about this process; at worst, it will just be as fruitless as the attempts, above, to find a lead. Again, I'm more than willing to let SA try this approach. Ante lan ^talk 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as Antelan says, we've tried all the other bad ways, so what's one more? I do suggest that it is done on a page that ScienceApologist can edit when he's blocked, or the whole process will have to take the occasional 24-hour, 48-hour, or 72-hour breaks.Kww (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)
Antelan. I thought we were making progress with Levine's tally. I was certainly getting a clearer read on what each editor agreed with, rejected or found acceptable as a compromise. Regarding this technique,

in the short run how do we keep track of what's been tried and rejected?
In the long run how do editors review what has been transpired?

Anthon01 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Other discussions (arbitrary break)

^ I don't understand why this 'arbitrary break' was inserted... my comment below is not part of "another discusion", it is a direct reply to the comment above it. I don't really understand why an editor would edit a talk page in such a way to make it appear that I am saying something other than what I actually meant, and WP:AGF requires me to assume that there was some noble goal involved. But it still piques my curiosity. So I ask you, SA, why did you insert this 'arbitrary' break? What was your goal with this? Dlabtot (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired of big hulking sections. Let's keep them smaller. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"The goal I have is to make a semi-collaborative version based on my overall vision "diff - umm, ok, if there was any doubt before, it has been dispelled - quite forcefully. Now we are clear about your goal. Dlabtot (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. My goal, in case you're wondering, is to make a semi-collaborative version of the lead as my submission. People were asking for my opinion on the lead. I gave it. My opinion is this is my favorite version. I would like input. The way I would like input on my version is not for people to !vote or make comments but to directly edit the version. But it is still my version. It's not your version, it's not the article's version, it's my version. Only I invite others to actively edit it and provide their own opinions by changing things around. This is opposed to the multiple versions of the lead above which were subject to single authorship and couldn't be modified at all. After I'm done with the workshop, hell, people can say what they think of the version. They may decide they hate my version. They may decide it's not so bad. They can even workshop their own version in the same way I did if they are so inclined. All I'm doing is offering the opportunity to collaborate on my version. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. And what are the words that I supposedly put in your mouth? Dlabtot (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You piped OWN into my mouth, James. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your point in calling me 'James'? What is that about? Dlabtot (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seemed like a mini-bang, is all. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing important. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF requires me to assume that there is some point to your comment, and that it is in some way intended to further the discussion about how to write a better encyclopdia article about this film, rather than an attempt to disrupt by starting some sort of argument. So I respectfully ask you to explain, what is your point? Why did you call me 'James', instead of 'Dlabtot' and what does: "Seemed like a mini-bang" refer to? Dlabtot (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Shhh, it's a secret! ScienceApologist (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you aware that non-responsive comments like this are going to affect people's ability to take you seriously? What are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Gents, care to move this to a user_talk page? Some of us here are both trying to preserve our sanity and follow this talk page. Ante lan ^talk 09:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to know what SA is talking about. He doesn't seem to want to say, but if he wants to explain what he said on this page, on some other page, that would be okay with me, as long as someone tells me about it, so that I get to read it. Dlabtot (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to direct involved editors to a remark made by slrubinstein on SA's talk page. [2] I commented on SA's talk page and he deleted my comment and ask me to stay off his talk page.[3]So I place my comments here.

I am in complete agreement with Slrubenstein. My comments on the [Bleep] talk page would confirm that. I would like to underscore that your suggestion is to add a sentence. I think if we could agree to the points that you have made, the article writing will move forward quickly. Anthon01 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial scientists

Latest comment: 16 years ago28 comments6 people in discussion

The scientists interviewed for this film, by and large, are remarkable for the controversial nature of their theories. That is, what is remarkable about them is not that they are experts, but that they are at the center of controversy. They may be construed as experts, but not in the mainstream way presumed by the use of "expert". Ante lan ^talk 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who lives in the 21st century knows you can get an "expert" to say absolutely posomicklutely anything. Some were fringe, perhaps, others were not. What about the guy crying about being mis-represented? He's one of the experts. Anyway, we don't have sources for controversial, but we do for expert- such as the American Chemical Society one which says the credentials were impressive. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking over sources discussing all of the contributors to this movie, I can find only one who is not considered controversial or non-mainstream... and he is the one who takes umbrage at the film's misuse of his statements. For some of the others, I have quotations that are as forceful as labeling them "on the fringes of mainstream science." Fringe researchers aren't usually the type of people you would label "experts" in the lead of an article, at least not in a way that makes it seem like they are experts in what most people consider science. Ante lan ^talk 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sources? They are all experts, but not all controversial. So, what would you do? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sources that are listed in this article. But it's strange - these individuals are, by and large, on the fringes of science. There are sources to back this, but none have been referenced so far in this article. This is important, insofar as this article is making them look so run-of-the-mill. When Newsweek is calling you fringe, you know you're out there. Why, then, is this article obfuscating the fact that these folks are on the fringe? Ante lan ^talk 07:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not obfucation: we are summarizing. While they are all experts of one sort or another, not all are fringe. That will come later. The lead as a whole gives the reader proper context. I'm putting in a compromise. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask you this, but do you know the definition of ersatz? To back your claim that these folks are experts, you cited an article from the American Chemical Society that calls them ersatz scientific experts. This completely supports my point. Ante lan ^talk 07:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be moot with the changes, but I think it's easy enough to source "experts" if needed. Dreadstar † 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From their promotional site? That hardly seems like a reliable source for stating that outright. --Philosophus ^T 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that agree with that statement, check out the Sep 10, 2004 Chicago Sun Times review by Roger Ebert, or the article by Catrina Coyle in the Aug 19, 2004 Monterey County Weekly Newspaper. As for their promotional site, yes we can use that per WP:SELFPUB. Dreadstar † 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger Ebert does not approach being a reliable source for determining scientific expertise.Kww (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't claim he was. Dreadstar † 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar, WP:SELFPUB says this type of sourcing is valid if "it does not involve claims about third parties." This is explicitly about third parties ('experts'). Shouldn't an admin know this, or at least read over it, before posting it to this page as an attempted justification? Ante lan ^talk 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all Antelan, I recommend you restrict your remarks to the editorial content of the article instead of making insulting, rude comments about other editors. Secondly, the site isn't referencing "third parties", it's referencing participants in the movie. It's not really "third parties" at all. I'm sure it can be argued the other way, but it's not nearly as clear cut as you seem to think it is. There are also other considerations to take into account as well, the documentary nature of the film, the obvious linkage to and from the 'expert's' webstites from the bleep website...etc. No, not clear-cut at all. Dreadstar † 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the articles on the "experts" themselves. If it were, we could certainly say that they claim to be experts, if there are self-sources to back that. But to conflate these individuals with the movie itself is incorrect. Is there a place where we could ask other administrators for clarification? Ante lan ^talk 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been a slew of other admins involved on this very talk page an the article over the last few days. You can also take it to Wikipedia:Village Pump if you think it's that important. The term 'experts' is sourced and part of the movie, plus their credentials include Ph.D's and M.D.'s I can't see how that can be disputed successfully. And to be honest, it just looks more and more like an attempt to push a pov into the article. Participants in a thing are not third-parties to that thing. Using "claim" violates WP:WTA and I think anything along those lines is just an attempt to add bias to the article. The description of the movie should be true to the description provided by the makers, participants and the movie itself says; then the view of the critics can be added. Dreadstar † 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise, instead of saying 'experts', perhaps we can substitute "Ph.D's and M.D's , etc"? But you know, 'experts' is sourced by the movie and number of it's articles, promotional sites, books, etc. Dreadstar † 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A degree does not an expert make. Ante lan ^talk 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? ;D Yeah, but the degrees and the work they've done lend credence to the statement that they are 'experts', can't just cherry-pick things out of the whole picture. We should also take into consideration the context of that expertise, the context in the area in which they speak, work and have studied - in addition to the context of the movie - a movie that is the subject of this article. Dreadstar † 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha. OK, what I will say is that what is well-sourced (not in this article, per its current slant, but in others) is the degree to which these "experts" differ from the mainstream. Some do so wildly, being labeled "fringe" by major publications. Others do so to a lesser degree. I will provide references after my flight. Ante lan ^talk 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Have a safe flight! Dreadstar † 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this has now been referenced from a different discussion, I want to point out that this portion had been archived within a week of its occurrence, and I recently de-archived it so we could continue the discussion. Now about the sources... Let me grab a few. Ante lan ^talk 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fred Alan Wolf "Two of the “teachers” in the film are identified as quantum physicists, which they are, although on the fringes of mainstream science. One, Fred Alan Wolf, is mostly an author of science books with a quasi-mystical bent" (Newsweek text available in copy here.) Ante lan ^talk 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John Hagelin "Two of the "teachers" in the film are identified as quantum physicists, which they are, although on the fringes of mainstream science. ... the other, John Hagelin (who has run for president on the Natural Law ticket), is affiliated with Maharishi University of Management, in Fairfield, Iowa, which does research on transcendental meditation." (from the same Newsweek article, supra) Ante lan ^talk 05:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The credentials and status of the movie paricipants is sourced by the flim itself. Also, be cautious of WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE when adding material that contradicts other sources. Dreadstar † 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain that Newsweek trumps this movie in terms of being a reliable source. Do you disagree? Ante lan ^talk 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of "trumps", it's a matter of presenting all views per WP:NPOV. Presenting the views presented by the subject of an article is something that cannot just be ignored. Dreadstar † 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do disagree with Antelan. The Newsweek quote "identified as quantum physicists, which they are, although on the fringes of mainstream science..., merely the use of the word "fringe" in a sentence absolutely does not justify our use of the term "fringe scientists", which conveys a FAR MORE pejorative POV than the Newsweek use of the word, which characterizes the science as being on the "fringes of (the) mainstream". "Fringe scientists" is unacceptable on this basis, it's highly pejorative, and it's a "synthesized" name for them.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing the participant's credentials

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Anyone besides SA and me have an opinion? Lots of chatting in the above section about standards and guidelines, but I think the issue should probaby be settled by consensus. Dreadstar † 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary was that "Dr" was an appeal to authority. If that's true, SA will immediately go over to Quackwatch and change "Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director." Anyway, the edit was done because it was an appeal to authority to have the titles [4]. I see nothing in WP rules saying that this is necessary. It is customary to use such titles. I do seem to remember a rule about only using it the first time a person is mentioned, but I can't find it. The rule from biographies is irrelevant. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the same thing with "Stephen Barrett, M.D." in Quackwatch, and it should be changed in Stephen Barrett's own article as well. Dreadstar † 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an issue to be decided by consensus for this article alone. In my opinion the credentials certainly shouldn't be added in that manner in articles like this, or Quackwatch, but making the same argument for a biography, where the correct post-name credentials are useful information, seems very pointy. As for pre-name titles (again, outside of biographies), I think the issue isn't so clear: in lists, they seem rather annoying, but in the text itself, for the first mention of the name, they might be acceptable. --Philosophus ^T 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it may be best to use it the first time the name appears, then refer to that individual by their last name in other instances. But in a list where the whole name is used, along with a short summary of the history of the person, it seems right to include the pre or post titles, if for nothing besides being complete. Not sure why that would be annoying..seems like listing just the names alone would be annoying. It's possible that there may be room for variations in different types of articles, depending on the nature of the article and the relevance of the title to the subject of the article. But it would be nice to have a consistent standard across the board.

As for it being pointy to make the same argument for a biography..I'm not sure what you mean. It says,"Postnominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.", how is that pointy? Do you mean the guideline is pointy or am I totally misunderstanding your...um...point? :) Dreadstar † 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the distinction made between different types of postnominal letters. --Philosophus ^T 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

However, note that the same part of the MOS also precludes use of Dr in almost all cases as well. --Philosophus ^T 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost sure I read somewhere that this is correct what Philosophus and others are saying. That we use the title the first time (I don't see any difference between whether it comes before or after the name), and then just the name thereafter. If the first mention is on a list, that should include the title. However, come to think of it, a list is probably a special case and should include the title to be complete.

Notice that this issue isn't one of annoyance or writing, but merely that SA doesn't like them to have titles because it makes them sound educated.

I honor Philosophus' edit here [5]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too, nicely done Philosophus. Dreadstar † 04:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly honorable. But it also needs a consensus discussion at that article, not here, so I've reverted it. The ref to the WTBDWK's talk page in the edit summary brought me here, by the way. Yet another film I want to see... life's too short. What the bleep am I doing editing WP anyway? Avb 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Lead section discussion

There has been an ongoing dispute about the neutrality and contents of the lead section of this film article.

Several editors have worked on multiple versions of the lead in attempts to reach consensus, but without success. Comments on the most neutral and most appropriate version for the lead to an article would be appreciated.

New version proposals

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion

V. Rracecarr

Reactions to Bleep have been mixed. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received, playing in 200 theaters across the US and grossing over $10 million. It attracted the attention of scientists as well; the scientific community has criticized the film for inappropriately applying quantum mechanical principles and concluding, erroneously, that human consciousness directly influences the physical world.Rracecarr (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Have been convinced by Kww that paragraph needs a straightforward statement that the science is wrong.Rracecarr (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

or (working toward verifiability per Dreadstar)

Reactions to Bleep have been mixed. It was well received by many members of the New Age spiritual community, playing in 200 theaters across the US and grossing over $10 million. Presenting many ideas not supported by science, the film attracted the attention of scientists as well, a number of whom have criticized it as pseudoscientific, saying that it inappropriately applies quantum mechanical principles and thereby concludes, erroneously, that human consciousness directly influences the physical world. Rracecarr (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments V.R

V.Anthon01

"Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received (needs a little more here). Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience concepts, like a relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics, and modification of ice crystals by thought." Anthon01 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

or for those not comfortable with the perjorative

"Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for many ideas which are not supported by science, such as a relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics, and modification of ice crystals by thought." Anthon01 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

V.olive - Version A with possible additions/addition

Reactions to Bleep have been mixed. The film, a moderately inexpensive, low budget production played in 200 theaters across the US, and grossed over $10 million. The film has been criticized for making connections between new age, spiritual concepts and established scientific theories. These critics say that the connections, speculations and conclusions in the film appear to be based on scientific understanding, but in reality are not.

or

Among the New Age spiritual communities, the film was well received. or In the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received.The film has been criticized for making connections between new age, spiritual concepts and established scientific theories. These critics say that the connections, speculations and conclusions made in the film appear to be based on scientific understanding, but in reality are not.(olive (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

V.awotter - My idea of a simplified concise lead section

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that seeks to explore the relationship between spirituality and science. The film combines special effects and documentary interviews with the fictional story of the life and struggles of a deaf photographer (Marlee Matlin).

Considered a moderate to low budget film, Bleep grossed over $10 million dollars, a success some see as the result of grassroots and guerrilla marketing to members of New Age spiritual groups. ^[1]^[2] Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Bleep features extensive interviews with the school's controversial director, Judy Zebra Knight.^[3] Knight and others interviewed in the film explain their views of the supposed impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry.

Some members of the scientific community have criticized the film, believing it supports what they consider unscientific theories such as quantum mysticism, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.^[4]^[5]^[6]David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to misrepresent his views, making him appear to agree with the ideas presented in the film.^[7]

~~Refs (Named refs following unscientific theory that appear later in body of text are remarked out in text)~~

V.Kww

What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that misrepresents science as supporting New Age beliefs. The film combines special effects and interviews with the story of the life and struggles of a fictional deaf photographer, played by Marlee Matlin. Considered a moderate to low budget film, Bleep grossed over $10 million dollars, a success some see as the result of grassroots and guerrilla marketing to members of New Age spiritual groups. Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Bleep features extensive interviews with the school's controversial director, Judy Zebra Knight. Knight and others interviewed in the film explain their views of the supposed impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry. Members of the scientific community that have commented on the film have criticized the film for supporting unscientific theories such as quantum mysticism, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to misrepresent his views, making him appear to agree with the ideas presented in the film. Kww (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

V.SlimVirgin

I'm sorry to see that was reverted. I'll post it here as requested. This is instead of the current final paragraph of the lead:

The film presents ideas about the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness — such as that the shape of ice crystals can be influenced by thought — that have been criticized by members of the scientific community. Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenbaum, physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today, that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins."^[8] David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make him appear to agree with the ideas presented.^[7]

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

POV via faint criticism. "ideas ... that have been criticized by the scientific community" holds out the possibility that they are correct. There isn't such a possibility, and we have sufficient sourcing that we don't have to pretend that there is. Minimizes the "Physics Today" letter, which are reviewed ... not equivalent to a standard "Letter to the Editor." Kww (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revision of first part of sentence:

"The film presents ideas positing a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness — ..."

The previous wording suggests that such a relationship is a given, and the wikilinking of the entire phrase risks getting interpreted as POV editorializing. I'm not sure if my revision of the wikilink is any better....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this version a lot and would support it. I agree with Fyslee, though, it needs some sort of rewording to reflect that it is an interpretation of QM, not a given idea in QM. Here's my shot at it: "The film presents ideas about [a] relationship between quantum physics and consciousness [found in some interpretations of quantum mechanics]" <- or something like that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to see that it was reverted also. IMO, your version is encyclopedic. Hence the problem with these pages were pseudoscience may be an issue. Perhaps you will persist in helping bring sanity to these topics. Resolving this here may help resolve it in other similar pages. Some folks here will not accept the removal of the term pseudoscience. For some it is a mantra.

Anthon01 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to rename this one SlimVersion..;) Dreadstar † 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue - that have been criticized by members of the scientific community is true, but doesn't convey the degree to which this movie's ideas lack any support within that community. Ante lan ^talk 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SV V.2

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Per Nealparr's suggestion:

"The film presents ideas positing a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness — such as that the shape of ice crystals can be influenced by thought — that have been criticized by many members of the scientific community. Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenbaum, physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today, that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins."^[8] David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make him appear to agree with the ideas presented.^[7]

SV V.2 discussion

How's this appeal to everyone? Dreadstar † 00:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Take out the word "many." If there were "many" there would be better sources. But overall, it looks fine to me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, that was like the only change Martinphi : ) Many -- amounting to a large but indefinite number;more than a few, more than several is supported by the sources already in the article. If it requires digging up more sources to support it, there's plenty, especially considering the example used in this sentence is the segment on thought influencing water. That's a form of psychokinesis and I'm sure you're familiar with the number of detractors on that topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The other important point to consider on sourcing this statement is that it's talking directly about ideas presented in the film, not the film itself. While the film may have been ignored by the greater scientific community, the idea that thought can influence water (PK) has been covered in science, through parapsychology, and has gained no acceptance in mainstream science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Change "have been criticized by many members of the scientific community" to "have no scientific support."Kww (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be wrong. However, Kww, we agree that this edit [6] would be good.

Nealparr- kay, I'm out of the loop (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Version corrected for syntax and grammar. Hey, its my field (one of them) - I can't help myself, and with a possible insert for Kww's view.(olive (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

"The film presents ideas, for example, that the shape of ice crystals can be influenced by thought, that posit a relationship between quantum physics and consciousness, and that have no identified support in the scientific community. Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenbaum, physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today, that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins."^[8] David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview so that he appears to agree with the ideas presented.^[7]

and another version... lets choose one so we can finish this and get on with something else.....Yes, I am resorting to begging.(olive (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

The film presents many concepts that have been criticized by members of the scientific community and are considered unlikely according to sources in mainstream science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and can be influenced by thought. Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenbaum, physicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today, that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins."^[8] David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make him appear to agree with the ideas presented.^[7]

In most of the several versions above, I'd suggest condensing "wrote in a letter about the film to Physics Today" to simply "wrote in Physics Today". It's been suggested above that the letter was peer reviewed, and that should be explained or, preferably, the word 'letter' should be left out. Also it must be obvious that they were writing "about the film". --Hordaland (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that shows the letter was subject to peer-review? "Wrote in Physics Today" implies an article, so if the source is viable and peer reviewed, then the fact that it's a letter should be pointed out. Dreadstar † 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How other encyclopedias handle pseudoscience

Latest comment: 16 years ago113 comments16 people in discussion

Please check the entry for astrology in other encyclopedias.

Encarta [7]
Astrology, the study of the positions and movements of astronomical bodies—particularly the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars—in the belief that they correspond to events on Earth.
Astrologers believe that the position of astronomical bodies at the exact moment of a person’s birth and the subsequent movements of the bodies reflect that person’s character and, therefore, his or her destiny. Scientists have long rejected the principles of astrology, but millions of people continue to believe in or practice it.

Britannica [8]
Divination that consists of interpreting the influence of stars and planets on earthly affairs and human destinies. In ancient times it was inseparable from astronomy. It originated in Mesopotamia (c. 3rd millennium BC) and spread to India, but it developed its Western form in Greek civilization during the Hellenistic period. Astrology entered Islamic culture as part of the Greek tradition and was returned to European culture through Arabic learning during the Middle Ages. According to the Greek tradition, the heavens are divided according to the 12 constellations of the zodiac, and the bright stars that rise at intervals cast a spiritual influence over human affairs. Astrology was also important in ancient China, and in imperial times it became standard practice to have a horoscope cast for each newborn child and at all decisive junctures of life. Though the Copernican system shattered the geocentric worldview that astrology requires, interest in astrology has continued into modern times and astrological signs are still widely believed to influence personality.

HighBeam [9]
Study of the influence supposedly exerted by stars and planets on the natures and lives of human beings. Western astrology draws specifically on the movements of the Sun, Moon and major planets of the Solar System in relation to the stars that make up the 12 constellations known as the zodiac. Astrology originated in ancient Babylon and Persia c.4000 years ago, and rapidly spread through Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. In Europe, the growing influence of Christianity saw the demise of astrologers. Popular horoscopes still appear in some daily newspapers.

Worldbook Astrology, Play this Pronunciation. «uh STROL uh jee», is the study of how the sun, moon, planets, and stars are supposedly related to life and events on Earth. Astrology is based on the belief that the stars and planets in the sky influence events on Earth through their mathematical relationships to one another and to Earth. An astrologer is a person who claims to read the patterns of the stars and planets and to tell people’s fortunes and characters from them. Many people around the world believe in astrology, though scientists have found no evidence that it is valid. Many other people see astrology as a form of entertainment.

Columbia Encyclopedia http://www.bartleby.com/65/as/astrolog.html

Wikipedia | Astrology

None of these mention pseudoscience, except wikipedia. Anthon01 (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters, here's Encarta:

Psychology was predated and somewhat influenced by various pseudoscientific schools of thought[10].
Astrology listed under "Pseudoscience" category [11].
European philosophers became preoccupied with alchemy, a secretive and mystical pseudoscience[12].

Ante lan ^talk 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this present discussion? It doesn't seem like it's heading anywhere. Ante lan ^talk 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added worldbook above. I'm specifically addressing the text of the article. How can you make that determination when the discussion hasn't even begun? Anthon01 (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "Psychology" link mentions pseudo science on page 6 of 10.
Your "European philosophers" link mentions pseudo science on page 5 of 8.

Neither are in the lead. Anthon01 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are not allowed to call pseudoscience pseudoscience, then we are not serving our readership well. If it hurts your feelings, too bad. My condolences. Lets think about the readers not your feelings. --Filll (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. Stop with the condescending comments. Please observe WP:CIVIL. It just doesn't appear that wikipedia is dealing with this issue in an encyclopedic manner. I don't have a problem with the term, just the prominence that it is being given here. Anthon01 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue here. Again, this should be closed. Ante lan ^talk 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Anthon01 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to the extent that this is an issue, it's an issue that should be discussed on a relevant policy page. Arguing here that a Wikipedia article can't use a word in the lead because a Britannica article doesn't do the same is not productive. Ante lan ^talk 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be in a hurry to end this discussion? How about waiting for some feedback from the editors who have been discussing the issue of how to approach pseudoscience in the lead? Anthon01 (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm encouraging you to move it to a policy talk page, where it would be relevant. Ante lan ^talk 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is overarching. What policy does it apply to? I see it relates to many many policies. FRINGE, PSEUDOSCIENCE, NPOV, even RS too since fringe sources are often argued to be Non-RS... Actually, I feel the usage of the word Science in policy is US-centric, as it does not accept that soft sciences are also science. And that policies introduces bias in such way that fringe subjects and claims are not able to be neutrally described. Meanwhile we should rather aim for consensuss among editors rather than trying to fiure out who is right according to policies here IMO Benjaminbruheim (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is an RS that says "what is stated in the movie is pseudoscience" (or similar words to that effect) then case closed. Shot info (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there seems to be a bit of canvassing going on... Shot info (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In about 15 seconds with google, I found a dozen WP:RS that state it is pseudoscience. So you think that is a high hurdle to pass? Good heavens.--Filll (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did it in 14 seconds.:) This issue I am raising is a MOS issue. Encyclopedias don't put this term in their leads. Anthon01 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the rules of Wikipedia. Review WP:LEAD.--Filll (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do. The term pseudoscience is not mandated by WP:LEAD. Anthon01 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. It is far more. -- Fyslee / talk 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon's research is interesting. Still, it does not really relate to WP. We have our own rules. One of those rules is ATT. So, we'll stick to it. (And about Canvassing- see Fringe noticeboard, that's just a legal form of canvassing). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. Currently, in terms of pseudoscience, the lead of this article states: Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience. This statement seems to be briefly describing a notable controversy which is detailed and supported in the robust section "Academic reaction". If there is any imaginable way for the word "pseudoscience" to be removed from the lead, it would first have to be justified by its removal from the "Academic reaction" section in terms of how the scientific critics describe the film. Currently, I think "Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience." is a pretty accurate summary. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! A perfect explanation of policy on this matter. -- Fyslee / talk 06:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I could agree to that sentence.(olive (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

The bigger issue is that pseudoscience is not really an academic concept. It is really just a perojative that some scientists use in their rhetoric. Many scientists find it entirely wrong to dismiss things on a priori reasoning, and this issue is reflected in articles all over wikipedia. Now, the reason it is on wikipedia is that many tech savvy internet users has grown up with Randi and that entertainment and become deluded to believe that this is science. There are enough papers on the subject, and they point out this kind of skepticism is hurting science. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which may be why so many other encyclopedias treat the term pseudoscience in a different manner. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll look around for sources stating these issues, but the history of CSICOP contains lot of discussions that are critical of how "debunkers" dismiss things on a unscientific foundation. This paper is a good read: Rejecting highly cited paper states "The most common problem were rejection of the manuscript, and skepticism, ignorance and incomprehension".

this well-sourced paper also contains a lot of quotes from skeptics pointing out the problems that skeptics activism such as CSICOP brings about. I don't have access to scientific papers now, but the debate is on-going. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the phrasing "criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience" let's the reader know of the subjective and pejorative nature of this term. It would be one thing if we were using the criticism to outright label the film as "pseudoscience" in the lead. We are not. "Pseudoscience" can in fact be an academic term; however, more often than not it is abused by pseudoskeptical critiques. Anyhow, as long as the criticism which describes the film as "promulgating pseudoscience" is of a notable weight and continues to fill so much of this article, keeping the lead sentence as is seems justified per WP:LEAD. Again, before looking at the lead which is merely a summary of the criticism, I would suggest first looking at the criticism itself. If the bulk of the criticism which describes the film as "promulgating pseudoscience" were to be removed from the "Academic reaction" section (by consensus), then removing such a statement from the lead would be justified. This discussion is trying to treat the "effect" (the lead) and not the "cause" (the content), so in fact, if it continues on this course, it will go nowhere.

The name of this discussion thread is: How other encyclopedias handle pseudoscience. For a relevant look into how Wikipedia handles pseudoscience, please consider this policy: WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. The pseudoscience policy may need to be amended as much time is being wasted on these pages. Anyone know how we do that? SA has posted on his talk page his version of how pseudoscience policy should read. Regarding the lead, WP:LEAD does not mandate the use of pseudoscience in the lead even though it appears in the body of the article. --Anthon01 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that WP:LEAD mandates the use of pseudoscience in the lead. Ante lan ^talk 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Levine is suggesting that if its in the body, then it has to be in the lead as per WP:LEAD. Anthon01 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Consider my two suggestions (A and B) below. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that pseudoscience should be in the lead as long as it is in the body. The criticism should be rewritten to be about the specific problems people have with the movie instead of their subjective opinion. But well, this off-topic discussions are about the problems with the policy. Issue is that "mainstream science" is not really such a great source for subjects where hard science doesn't apply. The policy ain't too bad, but it seems mostly to be about fringe mentions in mainstream subjects. Also, it seems to suggest that fringe subjects should not be mentioned at all. However, there are also other policies which ties into this, so a central place to place such a discussion is not obvious. Any suggestions? Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think that this paragraph in the lead gets a little redundant and a little to detailed and should be trimmed down:

Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience. The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.

How about instead it just reads:

A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience.

Or, if removing pseudoscience is more to your liking but essentially we will spell it out and say the same thing:

B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

In my opinion, either A or B would be better choices than what is currently there because they are more to the point and satisfy the spirit of WP:LEAD more. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I posted almost the same above. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs)

Either of your suggestions are better than what is there now too. Essentially these two sentences are redundant and should be combined: Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience. The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. And the David Albert piece is too specific for the lead. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The lead needs to make it clear that the movie distorts science, and, if people won't allow that specific phrasing to appear, the specific citation of Albert's accusation needs to appear to convey that message.Kww (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think something along the lines of... Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. ...makes it all too clear that the movie distorts science. Remember, the lead should provide a concise overview of the article and briefly describe its notable controversies. The David Albert point, while damn interesting, is too specific for a concise overview. The point is made by a simple summary of the scientific communities reception of the ideas presented in the film. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I also made the same criticism above about

Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience. The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science ...,

as being redundant. I couldn't find it; maybe it was archive. Someone might accuse us of being sockpuppets. ;-) Anthon01 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kww: I think that the statements by Levine and myself make it abundantly clear without belaboring the point. What do you think a reader will hear when they read, "Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science"? Anthon01 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That some handful of scientists disagree. Much like "Some members of the scientific community feel that global warming is not a serious issue." The lead has to convey, within the limits of NPOV, the absolute revulsion the critics have expressed, and the fact that several have accused the film of going beyond misstatement into active fraud.Kww (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of this section is How other encyclopedias handle pseudoscience, which we have determined is not a way to determine if the word may be used in a Wikipedia lead. We have also determined that WP:LEAD does not mandate the use of the word in the lead, though that was never suggested. Ultimately, we are back to where we started - we may use the word in the lead, and now we just have to determine if we want to, and how so. Ante lan ^talk 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on reducing the paragraph in question down to either of these suggests?

Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience.
Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As said above, the movie has been accused of going into active and conscious distortion, which must be stated in the lead, either by the Albert citation or by paraphrasing.Kww (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I hear you. It doesn't all need to be in the lead. The issue of fraud can be taken up in the body. The phrase doesn't say some members it says members. How much stronger can we make that statement without violating WP:NPOV? How many members of the scientific community have criticized the movie? You can't take the criticism of lets say 100 scientists and turn it into the whole or most of the scientific community has ... You would have to have a scientific body denouncing the movie to justify the comment you are trying to make. Are there any promiment members of the scientific community critizing the movie? If yes then you could say "Prominent members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science ..." Anthon01 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We have prominent scientists making these statements. We have the letters in the ACS. All of the criticisms can and have been compared to mainstream texts (which, unfortunately, don't contain movie reviews, so we can't include them directly in the article without violating WP:OR). I believe we can stay within the bounds of NPOV while including statements as strong as "The movie misrepresents scientific issues to support New Age spiritualism, and has been criticized for this by prominent scientists, including David Albert, who accuses the filmmakers of selectively editing his interviews to make it appear that he supports positions taken in the movie."Kww (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to accomplish. First prominent scientists cannot be used, so should not be considered. Next, IMO, you are conflating two things together in trying get across the idea that this movie is bad. The juxtaposition of the two comments is inflammatory. One issue is did they distort science. They other is did they distort the words of a scientist. IMO, I think you are trying to hard to have your POV reflected in the text. Anthon01 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because it reflects the comments made in all reliable sources about the science in the film? At the very least, leave the Albert citation in the lead. That is why it is there ... to represent the issue without any accusations of synthesis. Kww (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are that far apart. Conflating two things together to get your POV across violated WP:NPOV. I understand your urgency. The text should reflect the RS that are usable and not those from mainstream textbooks. I think from what you said above, saying "has been criticized for this by prominent scientists" would be OR? It should be "has been criticized for this by a prominent scientist ...," is that correct. My objection to Albert citation is a MOS issue and conflation. Separating and rewording the Albert citation may resolve the latter. Omitting the former in the lead would be the only way to resolve the MOS issue. Anthon01 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would yield to consensus on the MOS issue. Anthon01 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this - we can cite a specific instance of the film clearly distorting science for the sake of supporting its message. In the segment regarding wave/particle duality with a particle passing through slits and creating an interference pattern, the film clearly implies that the use of a passive observation system caused the particle/wave to behave differently according to the thoughts of the experimenters. In reality, the observation system was active, not passive, and functioned by creating and monitoring an electric field - which was directly responsible for the observed changes in the particle/wave's behavior. The film omitted the well-established scientific explanation and lied about the experiment. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, "criticized by prominent scientists" is not OR. The Guardian article quoted three, the ACS letter was written by two, there's a handful more. The problem is that most scientists made no public comment about this movie. Thus, while all scientists that made a comment said negative things(with the exception of those associated with the Institute of Noetic Sciences, an organization that doesn't pass the criterion for reliable sourcing), editors are nervous about claiming this as a consensus on the movie, even though it can be readily demonstrated that the criticisms have consensus behind them. The reason I want to use the word "misrepresent" is because it actually is a fairly neutral word...misrepresentation can occur by good faith error or by active intent. I'd love a verifiable source on 205.175.225.22's comment (one that actually mentions the movie).Kww (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kww - the portion of the movie I'm thinking of can be found on Youtube, located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rQiF2cRKdc . At about 4 minutes into it, they misrepresent the kind of device that was used to observe the particle. It's the classic double-slit experiment, which other wiki users have explained very well at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment . That wiki article, under the "Quantum version of experiment" section, explains that the fact their detectors must INTERACT with the particle instead of merely OBSERVING it is what causes the behavior to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I need a link to a reliable source that specifically discusses the WTB performance of the experiment. Even if their method was obviously wrong, Wikipedia editors can't draw the conclusion ... a verifiable, third-party analysis is required.Kww (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At first, Anthon01's claim was convincing, but then I thought about it, and this seems to tie in with WP:Wikipedia is not paper. The encyclopedias above all have to rely on sales, which can influence their objectivity (see Political correctness). If they fail to mention scientific criticism, then their articles are inaccurate. If they include scientific criticism, that will hurt sales, however, because astrologists, New Agers, and so on, will be turned off by such assertions, and not purchase the encyclopedia. In this regard, all the above proves is that Wikipedia is superior. Anthon01 himself seemed to acknowledge the above are pseudoscience. I admit, though, that including criticism in the lead often seems tacky. On Astrology, for instance, it seems unnecessary. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are definitely some NPOV issues to be worked out. Whether something is in fact science or pseudoscience is a matter of opinion. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. My claim is stil convincing.;-) Jokes aside, I didn't object to the term, but the use of it in the lead. We don't have to sell paper but we have to make WP attractive to readers, otherwise all this is a waste of time. MOS is important (tacky). Criticism is a necessary. How it is presented makes all the difference. Anthon01 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought."

This one is best, but per weight should probably have a bit of explication of why the film was liked. IPOF, some scientists do support some parts of the film (see Physics Today), but nevermind. The only problem I see here is the wish to include the statement which is against the mainstream sources that the film "is" pseudoscience, rather than that it contains it. The WEIGHT issue is also there, so perhaps people should weight the lead same as the article, which would require a word count. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Antelan's done the word count several times... we need to approximately triple the criticism in the lead to obtain balance.Kww (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As chance would have it, suggestion "B" has almost precisely a 3-to-1 word count in terms of praise versus criticism. (Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be readable. Word counts don't matter. One sentence can counter the claim of 20 others. It is not the count that makes the difference but the weight of the words of the sentence that does. Anthon01 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be Kww. We don't, however, have any discussion of the themes from the movie's POV. However, I hardly find that credible, as the criticism is about a 4th to a third of the lead already, and having it mostly criticism would not in any way reflect the article ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

This non-binding straw poll is meant only to summarize our feeling about two suggested wordings to go in place of second paragraph in the lead. This is not a vote, but merely a chance to see if we are close to a resolve or consensus.

Please place either a -1, 00, or +1 below the two suggested wordings. Here's what it will mean:

-1 = I don't like it at all.
00 = I like it.
+1 = I like this one more.

Please vote on both suggestions. Thanks!

Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience.

00 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-1Unacceptable. Criticism section is excessively brief, although I think the word "pseudoscience" is fine.Kww (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-1 promulgating pseudoscience isn't descriptive enough; tacky as per Zenwhat. Anthon01 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-1 -- per Anthon01. Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 - Am OK with a brief overview, actually. Ante lan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

+1 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 This one says more to the reader. Anthon01 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Could be made acceptable by reincluding the Albert criticism. Would prefer stronger phrasing. "Pseudoscientific ideas" preferable to "ideas".Kww (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) - per Kww. This should have pseudoscientific ideas in the phrasing. That might make it ok. It is better than some of the other ones we've had around here though. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- Agree with Kww on including Albert criticism, which is notable enough to mention in lead. No need for "pseudoscience" which is covered by "ideas which are not supported by science" Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 - Doesn't address some major issues, such as the misrepresentation of David Albert. Ante lan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New suggestions, narrowing it down

From the responses above, I have formulated four more suggestions. It is clear that Suggestion B. above is preferred but there are some caveats. Please reply the survey with the same scheme (-1, 00, +1) as above:

Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film

00 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

00 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

00 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many pseudoscientific ideas such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film

00 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 -- Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 - Still not quite right regarding the reactions of the scientific community, but close enough for a compromise lead. Ante lan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 Dlabtot (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

00 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

00 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion C. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

+1 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 - (Repetition of another suggestion above.) Ante lan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 See below. Anthon01 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

00 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion D. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many pseudoscientific ideas such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

00 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 -- Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

00 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion E. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.

+1 -- No need for the examples of the unsupported science, they're detailed in the text. Dreadstar † 07:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 - Doesn't fairly represent the criticism. Ante lan ^talk 07:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 MOS. Concise is better. Agree with DreadStar. Elucidate in the body. Anthon01 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 I think it would be better without the word "many" --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

00 Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion F. The film had a mixed reception, with members of the scientific community criticizing it for presenting as fact many ideas which are not supported by science such as parts of the film's presentation of quantum physics (see quantum mysticism) and ideas that ice crystals can be influenced by thought or transcendental meditation can reduce violent crime.^[4] Scientists have expressed concern that the pseudoscience found in the film has the effect of misleading the audience about science.^[4]^[5]^[6] Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film when in fact he does not.^[7]

-1 Dlabtot (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 Anthon01 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

-1 -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll comments

This straw poll is pointless. I suggest people ignore it. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this from WP:DR:

If consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, consider conducting a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion. Note that a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it.

In a conversation with Antelan, I found that he/she like me found this discussion a bit messy (and thus difficult to gauge a consensus). So, per the advice of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, I set up this straw poll as a non-binding survey to help us understand where consensus might exist. I'm sorry that you find it to be a pointless process as I would like to see everyone's thoughts expressed on this issue and see if we can end this dispute in an amicable manner. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting is not evil, and as Levine2112 points out, polling or conducting a survey, is an accepted part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process, to help clarify the issues and assist in "understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions." I find this attempt to convince other editors to ignore a standard step in dispute resolution and consensus discussions to be troubling..to say the least. Dreadstar † 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This diff has already been considered and dismissed by the arbitration committee. Let's get back to work here. Ante lan ^talk 07:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two different things Antelan. The ArbCom case has nothing to do with my comment above. Dreadstar † 20:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, I'd urge you to reconsider your position, and rather than pursuing a version of your own, try to work with the other editors to produce a consensus version... perhaps one that no one is happy with - one definition of a successful compromise. Dlabtot (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism needs to be in the lead

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I don't care how you do it, but quantum mysticism needs to be in the lead at least as a piped link. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, it depends on who you ask really. Quantum consciousness is a concept which is a valid hypothesis and should be linked, but if attributed to critics quantum mysticism is very related in order to understand why the critics dislike the concept. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Our Quantum mind article is really quite poor, and the validity of the hypothesis is really up for debate. What is true is that consciousness is generally a derided term in physics and the people proposing "quantum consciousness" are generally on the very fringes if not completely immersed in pseudoscientific claptrap. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it describes the hypothesises properly. And I am quite happy that it isn't filled with POV from uninformed skeptics; we get that you subscribe to some kind of radical materialism. Really, these people in physics who deride consciousness are probably not even studying the topic. And it is not like physics has made much progress lately because of the limits that reality sets on people, so perhaps you should take a hint and read up on Bohm and follow his suggestion that spirituality is the next logical step for physics in order to understand the deeper concepts of reality. Because the field of spirituality is sorely needing people who can cut the crap, and you rational skeptics has so far thrown the baby out with the water. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This commentary on what you believe my personal prejudices are is quite irrelevant to this discussion. In the meantime, I'm gald we agree on including quantum mysticism. I'll see you at quantum mind in the future when I start decimating that article with my radical materialism. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are sources that use the exact words "quantum mysticism", and it's a term that is correct, and this film isn't about the interaction of quantum consciousness. It's about quantum mysticism. It takes the idea of quantum consciousness and adds several unrelated ideas so that it appears quantum consciousness supports mysticism, which is an idea strongly contested by both mainstream physicists and mainstream mystics themselves. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is 'quantum mysticism' to be placed in the lead? Dreadstar † 22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I cleaned up [14] quantum mysticism. It now reflects a suitable label for the film. Still needs some work, but at least now it doesn't (incorrectly) say it's just a pejorative. It's just an idea no one takes seriously. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Particular science issues with the movie

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

There are particular science issues with the movie. I propose we have sections about these issues including sections detailing the criticisms on:

Quantum mechanics and quantum mysticism
Water memory and ice crystal pseudoscience
Transcendental Meditation study bullshit
Neuroscience psychobabble
Ahistorical lies

etc.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but this should also include the original idea; preferably sourced in the original papers. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The last three need a NPOV check : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like enough for a whole article of it's own... you might even be able to get a reliable source to publish it, that is, if there were actually any interest in this movie beyond a small group of Wikipedia editors. Which seems doubtful. Dlabtot (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

An older version of the article more-or-less did.1Z (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, see below. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Length/Reclassification to Occult/Paronormal

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Came across this by accident. Have to say, this is a very long article for what is a DVD review. Does this work of fiction - it is a fictional story after about a hearing impaired person who gains the secret to create her own reality, physical reality that is not psychosocial - and hardly a "cult or cinematic classic by any description. Or are we supposed to take it seriously?

If the latter, then surely it should be classified under WIKIs "occult"/Parnormal" category? As the true belief in the manipulation of reality by force of will, symbol, rituals etc are the ultimate goal of the occult sciences - at least in some respects. From what I have seen of the movie one of it's suggested examples of getting what you want is a young lad told to cut out a picture of a cycle he wants and keep concentrating on it. Another person keeps some sort of board with pictures of all the things they want and then maintain by keeping this board they actually get them. This - as I am sure many are aware is very very simplified Sigil magick as popularized by Austin Osman Spare. Indeed, its simplicity would suggest the influence of the non ceremonial magic of the Chaos magicians - I'm thinking here of Phil Hine rather than Carroll's more intricate form.

So, DVD review or reclassification in the occult/paranormal "section"? Indeed, I think a discussion of it should certainly take place in the sigil/chaos magick entries in WIKI as an interesting development of non ceremonial magick. Thought? Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Do you have any sources which connect these ideas? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As a rather paranoid Dane once said: "Now there's the rub." I am not sure if anything has been published in a "peer reviewed Journal". Indeed, this the problem with the esoteric "sciences" there is very little peer review in the traditional sense. However, the arguments to the links are obvious - I saw them within - well minutes. But then, the use/misuse of badly understood "quantum physics" has a long history in this field. However, that what the bleep has used a very simplified version of sigil magic - who's origins are in sex magic rather then ceremonial as I said - and then supported it with pseudoscience and some daft unified Field theory is so obvious that some "authorities" must have noticed it. Hang on, I shall go a looking. In the meantime here is wikis entry on Chaos magic - sound in anyway familier? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic. Admitly more sophisticated the what the bleep - whos version has even further simplified Phil Hines version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hine. Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, and perhaps wikis entry for magick might be equally enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. But unfortunately we cannot explicitly connect chaos magic, Phil Hine, and magick to WTBDWK without an outside source. There's the WP:OR policy and all. Still, I like your idea. If you find anything, let us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a link with chaos magic - and perhaps in that respect I seem a little "head of the game" or more likely its so bloody obvious no one else has bothered to comment on it. However, the Llewellyn Online Encyclopedia - whicjh could be described as a reliable source in the magical esoteric sciences - attempts to clearly define magick in particular. Here it quotes Crowley - who is certainly an expert in this area and, one might argue, well published. Regarding Crowley's definition it says: "According to the famous occultist Aleister Crowley, magick is "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." ... In fact, Crowley... says that "every intentional act is a Magickal Act." If you follow his line of reasoning, there is a great deal of validity in what he says, although it is not what we are seeking at this time. We need to make the definition of magick a bit longer: Magick is the science and art of causing change (in consciousness) to occur in conformity with will, using means not currently understood by traditional Western science. http://www.llewellynencyclopedia.com/term/Magick. Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this a very close, if not identical, to the core "message" or principles put forward in WBDWTWK? If this is so, it would surely allow a reclassification of this article? Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, another quote given from the same source from Donald Tyson says: "Magic is the art of affecting the manifest through the Unmanifest. The manifest is all that can be seen, touched, perceived, manipulated, imagined, or understood. The Unmanifest is none of these things. It is the place, or rather the non-place, from which everything issues. All that comes into being comes from the Unmanifest. All that passes away goes back to the Unmanifest. source: Truth about Ritual Magic - Donald Tyson"

Actually, that actually sounds like the stuff sprouted by Ming The Merciless or whatever the name of the, "alien intelligence" channeled by JZ Knight Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that I am not the only one in Beyond the Bleep: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to What the Bleep Do We Know - a book sympathetic to the movie and writen by someone who seems much published within the esoteric "sciences" has also made the link between this movie and magick. Beyond the Bleep : The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to What the Bleep Do We Know!? (Paperback) by Alexandra Bruce Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct classification would be New Age/Metaphysics, not Occult/Paranormal. There's a substantial difference and there's plenty of sources for New Age (read the article if you're not familiar with the term and you'll see why it's a better fit). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I see WIKI includes the influence of Ritual Magic in it's definition of Newage - Wicca perhaps. Well spotted Nealparr. New Age/Paranormal it is then. So how do we go about reclassifying it, if no one has any objections? Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently the article is locked due to a dispute, but when it is unlocked you just add the appropriate code, in this case:

[[Category:New Age]]

It makes the category links you see at the bottom of the page (New Age is already linked up). You may want to add [[Category:Metaphysics]] and [[Category:Paranormal]] as well in the same fashion. See more at WP:Categories.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey above, please let us know your thoughts

Latest comment: 16 years ago35 comments6 people in discussion

The survey above is really helping (me at least) to better understand the issues we all have with the lead. If you have not weighed in yet, please consider doing so above. Thanks all! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please let us know your feeling on each and every suggestion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather people just edit the draft. Jefffire (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Although you have clearly stated that: "The goal I have is to make a semi-collaborative version based on my overall vision "diff, you may end up having to accept a truly collaborative version that is not based on your overall vision. WP:CONSENSUS means that sometimes you have to accept a compromise. Dlabtot (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A difference of opinion. Perhaps a survey is in order? Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The survey is above. Survey --Anthon01 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Anthon - I meant having a survey on whether to have a survey? My, "bad" as they say in certain parts of the world I believe.Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Working on the draft will be fine, once we understand where we all stand with regards to the second paragraph. I will add the current draft version of the second paragraph to the survey above, please come back (if you have responded already) and let us know your thoughts on that version as well. If you have not replied to the survey, I urge you to do so, so we can have a broad look at each others feelings in one spot. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A better idea would be for people to discuss their ideas for achieving an intelligent and amicable solution to any pertinent concerns in the draft discussion section, and eventually incorporating it into the draft. This survey is just fostering the "version mania" which got us into this mess. To put it simply, a survey cannot hope to convey the complexity of the issue compared to a dialog. Jefffire (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, that draft is irredeemably flawed, and not useful as a starting point. Still, it has now rightly been included in the survey. We didn't get into this mess through "version mania", we got here through an unwillingness to compromise and a lack of a genuine desire to reach consensus. No one is saying that the survey should take the place of dialog, rather, the survey is meant to foster dialog by making apparent what are the specific items of contention and who exactly disagrees with what. Dlabtot (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The current draft is only marginally different to all the current static versions, I'm at a loss as to how it can be "irredeemably flawed" since only a few choice edits would make it functionally identical to any one of them. Jefffire (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that we have different understandings of what the phrase "marginally different" means, as well as the phrase "functionally identical". I'm pretty sure we also diverge on what would constitute "choice edits". Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on the "fundamental flaws"? I'd sincerely like for there to be a working draft article and I am open to your suggestions for its improvement. Jefffire (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the fundamental flaws are that it doesn't follow the guidelines of WP:LEAD. Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be obtuse, but could you elaborate on how the current draft violates WP:LEAD, and if possible some of your possible suggestions. Jefffire (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. Those are the guidelines that it does not meet. I already offered my suggestion - which that this version is too irredeemably flawed to serve as a starting point, and to work with others to find a compromise version. You apparently disagree - fine. It's okay for us to disagree. WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity of opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the current version is not too bad, except for: (1)the clause about New Age reception should be taken out as I explained below, (2)the third sentence is unnecessary, and (3)I think the wording about David Albert was better in this version, (which however, I don't think should include the clause about the LttE). Dlabtot (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty good news, because the current draft is really just a slightly more streamlined version of the current intro :)! If you can detail what you think is important that's been removed in the draft discussion section I think we can make a pretty good job. Jefffire (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about; I totally disagree with your characterization. Are you referring to 'Suggestion F' in the ongoing discussion? It's not 'streamlined' - exactly the opposite. It's clumsy, clunky, and polemical. Dlabtot (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think we've been talking on mixed wires. I've moved the draft to the bottom now, it's in its own section . "Suggestion F" was Levine's attempt to have people vote on a past incarnation of a paragraph in the draft. Given how often it changes, this turned out to be unwise. I hope you'll participate in the draft. Jefffire (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I came to this article was to help foster a consensus. There was plenty of edit warring going on before I arrived and lots of opinions about lots of parts of the article strewn about this talk page. So my line of thought was: 1) Let's take this one step at a time. There is disagreement about the LEAD, why not start there. 2) Let's consolidate everyone's opinions into a survey per WP:DR. 3) Let's see if we can formulate some kind of consensus based upon the results of this survey.

Agreed. Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus far, most people have weighed in to the survey. Jefffire and ScienceApologist, you are two notable exception. Please weigh in there so we have everyone's thoughts on this specific issue in one consolidated area of this talk page. If we have faith in WP:DR, this will help achieve a consensus version. Then we can formulate a draft version as you have done and then we can see if there is a consensus version to include in the article. Let's take this step-by-step. Together. Please. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One's thoughts cannot be reduced to a choice between these different version, and for that reason I am not, nor will I ever, participate in this survey which I regard as a folly. As you suggest, I think we should move on. Jefffire (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we can ask you to participate in discussions designed to work towards consensus, but we can't force you to do so. I do remain hopeful, however, that you will reconsider you position and participate. Your lack of participation will not keep the discussion from continuing, however. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My decision to forgo the survey does not mean I do not intend to work towards consensus. Indeed, my entire point is that the survey is anathema to that aim. I think you'll find that we are very much co-operating already. Jefffire (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

One's thoughts cannot be reduced to a choice between these different version Please, Jefffire, don't misunderstand. These versions are not the only choices nor are they intended to be so. These are merely suggestions based on individual preferences working towards actual choices. We are not trying to reduce your thoughts down to anything but rather looking for your feedback (good = +1, alright = 00, not good = -1) on these suggestions. That way we all know your position and work our way to tailoring a consensus version which addresses your concerns as much as it addresses everyone else's. What's the harm in at least trying this suggested dispute resolution method? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The "harm" is that I sincerely believe that the survey is creating a negative attitude towards editing. Jefffire (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any negative feedback about the survey other than from ScienceApologist (and now from yourself, to a much lesser degree). Every other editor participating in these discussions have contributed their thoughts. It would be a "positive" step if we could all at least agree to just participate in a dispute resolution method. I don't think this is a matter great enough to go to mediation about, so please be a sport and just let us know how you feel about the suggestions... even if it is just to tell us that you think all of them are "not good". I'd really appreciate it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire: I don't see the negative attitude you're speaking of? Last week we were having a lively constructive discussion under the "How other encyclopedias handle pseudoscience" section. The survey came as a result of that discussion and many of the same editors have participated in the survey. THe survey is helping to clarify many different POV all in one location, concisely and clearly. Anthon01 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking Levine suggestion and moving on from this issue. I invite others to continue with helpful discussions on the lead, as Dlabtot is doing. Jefffire (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine if you want to "move on" while we continue to discuss a consensus version. However, I still think it would be better if you participated in the process with the rest of us. Otherwise we run the danger of ending up with two versions, one written by you and ScienceApologist, and another written by everyone else, which seems like a recipe for further conflict and edit-warring. Dlabtot (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above. I assure you for one thing SA wouldn't approve of the draft, since it leaves out a number of things he considers critical. Now, I am participating in building a consensus. I suggest we all move on from this survey obsession. Jefffire (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you aren't willing to work with anyone other than ScienceApologist on what you and he call, "the draft", while no one else agrees that it is, "the draft", I would have to say that no, you are not participating in building a consensus. No doubt you believe you are working for the best of the project, but insisting that cooperation with the rest of the involved editors is impossible looks more like obstruction than participation to me. Dlabtot (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea where you are getting this from. I've incorporated a number of your ideas into the draft, and maintain an open invitation to you to give your suggestions. Jefffire (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received... says who?

Latest comment: 16 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

Have we really established this? AFAIK, the only reference that has been put forward to support this is the beliefnet review which does note the money it made and the box office receipts, but does not actually say anything specifically about how the film was recieved "among the New Age spiritual community". It doesn't quote anyone from "among the New Age spiritual community". Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the draft has a different intro. What are your opinion on the "mixed reception"? Jefffire (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What reliable source did that come from? Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, surely the fact that it has had positive and negative reviews qualify as "mixed"? Jefffire (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlabtot (talk • contribs)

I don't really know what 'mixed reception' means in this context. As far as I know, there exists absolutely no evidence to indicate that "Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received". So what exactly is the 'mixed reception' that is being refered to? Dlabtot (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we are risking synthesis here, but I'm not an anal stickler about it. The Institute of Noetic Sciences published a guide to the movie that was quite positive. There is an independently created guide to the movie. Those would tend to indicate a positive reception among the new agers, and the scientific reception was obviously negative, thus "mixed" may be appropriate. The chief problem I see is that the Institute of Noetic Sciences loudly rejects the "New Age" label, although no one seems to take that rejection seriously.Kww (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mixed reception" means that some of it's reviews were positive, others negative. If you have a more elegant wording to capture that I'd be very happy for the suggestion. Jefffire (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

By that criteria, every film ever made received a "mixed reception". So the phrase is meaningless. My suggested wording is to only include in the article, content that can be cited to reliable sources, therefore, leave out "Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received" and leave out "The film had a mixed reception." The paragraph in question concerns the scientific criticism the film received. There's no reason to sugarcoat that with some unsourced original research about a counterweighting positive reaction that may not have even occurred. Dlabtot (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting original research, but that's academic. I think I might agree that the particular sentence is unneeded. I'll edit the draft to incorporate your idea and see how it looks. Jefffire (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect, but the movie did make millions and several sources, including BeliefNet, noted that the movie "exceed[ed] most theater owners' skeptical expectations". Obviously there was a positive reaction. Here's the passage from the source that is relevant (page 2) [15]:

... After months at art-house cinemas -- where "What the Bleep" remained for upward of 20 weeks, far exceeding most theater owners' skeptical expectations -- Samuel Goldwyn Films and Roadside Attractions noticed the numbers. The partnership picked up distribution, opening the movie Sept. 10 in selected cities around the country. It's shown no signs of slowing down. Its success stems in part from an apparent hunger for movies with explicitly spiritual themes...

Now the text can certainly be reworded as needed, but idea that no reliable sources mention that the movie got a positive reaction from someone is reaching. The article also identifies the movie as "a New Age" version of "The Passion of the Christ" and stated that the success of the film was due to marketing it to spiritual audiences. The movie was not universally criticized. If it had been, it wouldn't have been successful, and wouldn't be notable enough to include in Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All the beliefnet article says is that it sold a lot of tickets. It doesn't say anything about who bought those tickets. For all we know, scientists bought a lot of tickets so that they could see just how wrong it is about science. The beliefnet article says nothing specifically about the reaction from the New Age community. To do so, it would have to include the reaction of at least one person in the new age community. Also, no one has suggested, certainly not me, that the film did not receive a positive reaction from 'someone'. Dlabtot (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You said: "a counterweighting positive reaction that may not have even occurred" which is why I responded. What sort of sourcing do you need to be convinced that it actually did occur? This source says it is a New Age movie and that marketing to spiritual audiences is part of what made the movie successful. If that's not enough, it's easy to swap the source for something more explicit. Every pro website in Google searches that isn't just a DVD sales site like Amazon, but actually promotes the views in the film, is a New Age website. I don't see why a statement that the movie was well received by the New Age community would be so controversial. Instead of saying it should be removed because it may not have happened, let's just swap out the source because it obviously did happen. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Just swap the source for this one. It clearly identifies that it was well received by the New Age community and adds that it was well received in art-house theaters and won every independent film award it was nominated for. It also includes quoted reactions such as “Once in a while a film comes out that can change the world, and this is one of those films” and “I started crying in the middle of this movie because it was the first time in my life I had proof that there were lots of people who believe like I do.” This should be more than enough for the simple statement that it was well received by the New Age community and probably justifies adding "among others". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with convincing me of anything. It has to do with finding a reliable source that discusses the reaction the film received in the 'New Age community'. I'd like to ask you where in the wie.org review it talks about the film's "reception in the New Age community". It does quote two 'fans' from the film's website. That says nothing about the films reaction in the broader New Age community outside of the Ramtha cult. Dlabtot (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You said "there's no reason to sugarcoat [the scientific reaction] with some unsourced original research about a counterweighting positive reaction that may not have even occurred," so how does it having nothing to do with convincing you of anything? If the Ramtha cult is in the New Age community, and Ramtha adherents received the film well what the heck is original research about "well received in the New Age community"?. If you're just looking for verifiable evidence of a reason to counter the scientific reaction with a positive reaction (like you said), then drop New Age and say "was well received at art-house theaters and independent film awards". Either way, there was a strong positive reaction that "sugarcoats" the negative scientific reaction, reliably sourced. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's no doubt the film received a positive reaction in that it sold a lot of tickets and so forth. That's why paragraph three says that it grossed over $10 million. Perhaps that needs to be put into perspective somehow. For example, if it is 'an award-winning film', the lead could mention that. However I specifically said that it is NOT necessary to counter the scientific reaction - I believe the phrase was merely inserted to mollify some who may have commented that there was 'too much criticism' in the lead. Personally I think a short description of the scientific controversy is all this section of the lead requires, with the details in the body of the article, and no counterweight is necessary. Dlabtot (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that 'sales' do not equate to 'approval' or a 'positive reaction'. Just because I buy a book or DVD or go see a movie does not mean I like, agree with or approve of the ideas in that book or movie. Dlabtot (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sales do not equal approval, but awards do. Awards equate positive reaction. In any case, I don't know what the lead should say and gave up after making suggestions myself. I was responding to the "says who" question. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot. You need a reference that speaks for the New Age community that says, they like the movie. Is there a "New Age Association" or "Nirvana Film Club" etc ... that says we like the movie in order to make the claim? Anthon01 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

or at the very least some prominent New Age folks... someone suggested Deepak Chopra but when an interview with him was located, it was from the film's website, and he hadn't even seen the movie yet when he was interviewed. For all we know, once he saw it, he thought it was claptrap. Dlabtot (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick [16]. It's their website, but all the links are to independent reviews. Note the number of New Age periodicals and the positive review they give. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You pick. Anthon01 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That certainly would support the statement that "the film received many positive reviews". Dlabtot (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindented)
That certainly would support the statement that "the film received many positive reviews from both mainstream and alternative media". Anthon01 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

even better. Dlabtot (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you dlabot: There is a strong movement within "the newage" community that maintains it most likely impossible to "prove" "new-age" ideologies using empirical research and indeed, it is a mistake to try and do so. The two maybe incompatible and probably are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuxSC0DfBUk Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When y'all stop fighting over the wording of this, I'd like to request that this uncontroversial edit be restored, and comment that blanket rollbacks that remove uncontroversial edits don't do much to improve the encyclopedia. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

the film features extensive interviews with the school's director Judy Zebra Knight

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

That's what the lead says now, but it seems misleading to me - unless readers follow the wikilinks, they'll get the impression that these are prosaic interviews with a school's director... aren't these interviews actually with "Judy Zebra Knight speaking with the voice of 35,000 year old Lemurian warrior Ramtha" ? Therefore, I think that's what it should say. Or some other wording that makes that clear. Dlabtot (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What about "the film features extensive interviews with the school's director Judy Zebra Knight who during these interviews claims she is "channeling" Ramtha, a long dead warrior/philosopher from the mythical Continent of Atlantis, who lived 35,000 years ago" ? That help confirm the credentials of those responsible/taking part in this movie also. Might be very helpful. Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Really2012 wording seems the better. I'd like to see the reliable source to verify Judy Knight was really speaking with the voice of a Lemurian. Jefffire (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, the point is that the reader is informed that the movie was made by PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWRs. Dlabtot (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the draft to a version inspired by Really2012's version. It might not give the exact impression of PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWR, but it's getting there. Jefffire (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey above, please let us know your thoughts - please keep at bottom

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The survey above is really helping (me at least) to better understand the issues we all have with the lead. If you have not weighed in yet, please consider doing so above. Thanks all! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please let us know your feeling on each and every suggestion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Anthon01 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Slow motion train wreck in progress

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

What am I'm talking about? Two different groups of editors, both supposedly 'working towards consensus', but unwilling to work together on the effort. Seeing as discussion has stalled I'm going to ask that the page protection be extended indefinately until there is some sign that folks are willing to work together. Dlabtot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that discussion has stalled. You yourself have made a number of highly useful suggestions for the draft which have been incorporated, and other are also making the effort to work together. I do agree that unlocking is premature though. Jefffire (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've made suggestions. But the reality is that getting me to go along with whatever, is not going to be a problem, since I'm actually totally uninterested in this film and this article per se, have never edit-warred over it, and don't really care whether the article 'unjustly criticizes the movie' or whether the article 'lends false credence to pseudoscientific ideas', et cetera ad nauseum... my primary interests in this topic are because it has been staked as a battleground by two groups of editors, both pushing divergent agendas, and as a test case to see whether the Wikipedia model works. So the fact that both sides are able to discuss edits with me doesn't say anything about whether both sides will be able to work together to form a consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Viewing things as "sides" and "battles" isn't helpful. You've done some good work with our co-operation, and I'd like it to continue in a good nature. I believe other editors will join in as well in the same vein. Jefffire (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot: Do you consider all the editors taking part in the survey to be from the same side? BTW, you picked a tough one for a test case. Anthon01 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not continue the aggro, anthon. There is a possibility to actually make this work, please don't throw it away, Jefffire (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intention, but since you consider it such I will not press it. In that spirit, I'm not sure about the title of this section. Anthon01 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the section title is deeply unfortunate. Frankly I don't consider storming in and telling everyone how they are completely incapable of co-operating is the right behavior for someone who claims to be trying to aid dispute resolution, but that's Dlabtot's issue, and I hope he'll adopt a different tact. For example, my initial language choice was much blunter, but things have made much more progress with a different tone. Jefffire (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are relevant views of this matter on the Arbitration requests page, Jefffire. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey results thus far

Latest comment: 16 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion

From the survey above, it seems that we have a suggestion which didn't bother any of the participant, meaning that there was no "-1" votes for this suggestion, nor were there any suggested rewording:

Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.

Given this, it is reasonable to assume that Suggestion A provides us with a good solid step towards reaching a consensus version. Is there any further comments or revisions anyone would like see made to this suggestion? If so, we can perform another survey with the various versions and see which one(s) polls best. Thanks all! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you replace "members of the scientific community has criticized" with "members of the scientific community have condemned"? The words they used were a lot stronger than "criticism".Kww (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we can try that as a suggestion in a new survey. Let's see if there are any other suggestions like this before starting a new survey. Thanks for your cooperation! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kww, I think using "condemned" would be shooting yourself in the foot. The chief criticism of the scientific materialist viewpoint leveled by the film's producers is that "scientific materialism" has itself become a "religion". By co-opting the 14th century language of the Spanish Inquisition, you wind up validating the POV of the filmmakers. Perhaps "strongly criticized" is both more encyclopedic and less "religious" in tone than condemn, which derives from the religious concept of "to Damn". riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thought...among serious scientists and academics, the words "refuted" and "refutation" are used to represent the concept of "condemnation"... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tosh", "balderdash", and "intentional distortion" can't really be characterised as "refutation", either. They come under a class of words more like "condemn" or "vilify".Kww (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

42: You got it right. This is an encyclopedia. If someone claims that the movie is a piece of sh*t, we don't put that language in our encyclopedia. Perhaps the language of the criticism disqualifies those sources for inclusion. In any event, this is an encyclopedia and not a gossip column or a tabloid, the language needs to be appropriate for an encylopedia. Anthon01 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Condemned" is fine, and does capture some of the heated feelings which in some cases go beyond strict rationality which this movie engenders.

And frankly, come to think of it, if you wanted to use "vilified as tosh, balderdash, and intentionally distorted pseudoscience," would that really be unencyclopedic in this case? 'Cause that's what they said. I've seen other articles like homeopathy and Psychic surgery that use quotes like that. Just a question. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First paragraphy under "Explanation of the neutral point of view" WP:NPOV: "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

"Scientists condemn it" is fine. "Scientists call it balderdash" is fine too if that's in the source. Just can't say "It is balderdash" or "Scientists call it balderdash" and not say anything else (since it shouldn't be only pejoratively). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting suggestions, thanks, I'll add them to the draft. Also just a gentle reminder, Wikipedia is not a democracy.Jefffire (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, would people prefer it if the current 3rd paragraph of the draft were replaced with this one (minus the factual error)? Jefffire (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I already stated (above) why Albert should come out of the intro, and that he's not a physicist per se but a philosopher. Is there anyone else here who has seen Albert's extended interview on the DVD release? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

According to David Albert's faculty page at Columbia University, he has a B.S. in Physics, a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics, "and has published many articles on quantum mechanics, mostly in the Physical Review". Your claim that he is 'not a physicist' is specious at best. He stated to a reliable source that the filmmakers intentionally edited his interview in order to misrepresent his views. This is highly important when understanding this movie, and imho belongs in the lead. Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would observe that the POV's asserted above WRT "scientists condemn", "scientists vilify" etc., can be taken as our Null hypothesis for testing purposes, while taking "refute" as the Alternative hypothesis. We can test the Null Hypothesis per WP:Google. Please note that the methodology here and the proper interpretation of the results in resolving usage disputes like this are explicitly referenced in WP:Google in bullet #2.

Test #1 - Google News Archive; scientists "vilify" or "condemn"

scientists vilify = zero hits

The idea that "scientists vilify" is not, statistically speaking, supported.

Scientists do, on the other hand, as all scientists know, "refute" (alternative hypothesis):

scientists refute = 63 hits

And (in the context of this film) physicists explicitly fail to use "condemn or vilify", here yielding only 4 hits, and the only scientist quoted says "it would be unwise to condemn...". FYI, the search reveals that the Pope of the Cathoic church does, however, "condemn" (an unrelated film). The "control" yields 320 hits

Now, in a purely rational analysis, the ratio in favor of the alternative hypothesis versus "vilify" is: 63/0 = infinity. The rational number representing support for the Null Hypothesis "vilify" is exactly zero. The null hypotheis for "condemn" fails even worse, 320/0. Null hypothesis fails test one for both vilify and condemn.

Test #2 - Google Scholar; Physics Database "condemn/condemned/vilify/vilified"

We now refine the process specifically with regard to the movie, and specifically in the context of physics and science, using the "Google Scholar" physics database; again as per WP:Google.

The null hypothesis words condemn/condemned/vilify/vilified, as follows, yields zero hits in the context of "What the Bleep".

While the population of total hits in Google's physics data base on the film is only five hits, the ratio is nonetheless still 5/0. Standing alone, the small population is more indicative of either (a) lack of scientific interest among physicists in commenting, or (b), the "skeleton in our closets" hypothesis whereby physicists avoid the topic, as demonstrated by Rosenblum and Kuttner in "Quantum Enigma"(see American Journal of Physics, 2007)

Test #3 - Google Scholar; full academic database

Now, as encountered an unfortunately small control population in test #2, a third test is performed, permitting triangulation of results. Let's open up the query to include the entire Google Scholar database of all academia, a test sample of 134 hits on "What The Bleep". Our query now yields 19 hits for condemn/condemned/vilify/vilified in the context of "What the Bleep". Fortunately, 19 hits is a small enough sample to examine each reference, and in the short time I spent I found none that attributed any of those words to scientists describing the film. Absent any evidence to the contrary, we wind up with 134/~0. Further analysis might increase 134/~0 to as much as 134/19, but in light of the other two tests, the burden of proof is now clearly on supporters of the null hypothesis.

The three tests all strongly support the alternative hypothesis. They also support a consensus rejection of the null hypothesis.

Continuing claims in support of the null hypothesis are therefore, by WP:A definition exceptional claims, requiring exceptional sources. Also per WP:V as noted here. On Wikipedia, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and we as yet have none for the null hypothesis.

Conclusion: Any and all reliably sourced characterizations are fine in the body of the article, just not in the intro. We should embrace an introduction that is encyclopedic, characterized by the use of the common lexicon of science and academia in it's criticisms of controversial applications of quantum physics in non-scientific areas, and the "burden of proof" is on proponents supporting the use of non-scientific, non-academic pejoratives in the intro. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New survey based on comments above

I am bolding only to highlight difference, not to suggest formating. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Same scoring system (-1, 00, +1):

Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.

Suggestion B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have condemned the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.

Suggestion C. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

Suggestion D. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have condemned the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.

Levine2112...your efforts here are tremendous, but perhaps continuing to survey at this point might be counterproductive. I quickly note that at least four extremely good, well reasoned and logical arguments that have been made for or against various aspects of our approach remain unaddressed, unrefuted or unresolved - hence no oppty for concensus. Twice now I have made my own arguments and then, immediately thereafter, before all have had time to comment or offer counterarguments we go straight back to the straw poll...drawing attention away from the discussion(s) before matters regarding pretty fundamental Wikipedia guidelines (WP:Undue, WP:NPOV, WP:V) have been fully aired out. Let's hold off on more polling and let these "discussions" percolate through...I don't see a hurry. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Do you think we should incorporate the main tenets of our findings (especially "Suggestion A. above) into the draft version at this point, since this is the closest thing we have to consensus here? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to (a) review all the discussions, (b) move "open" discussions that are relevant to the intro to the bottom of this page, (c) make sure all interested editors are aware that we are trying to "close" open discussions, and (d) remind everyone that the intro is not the be-all and end-all. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is without a doubt one of the finest posts I've ever seen in WP!! And very funny too, applying this kind of analysis to such a subject!! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The noted philosopher Frank Zappa once famously asked, "Does Humor belong in Music?". I ask and assert that "Humour" does also belong in Science. I have to admit I was having some fun doing the analysis, and I'm glad it was noticed and seems to be at least somewhat welcome here...

Now, returning to a previous suggestion, let's get this article open for business again, by stripping the lead of contention, because I for one am looking forward to having some fun here -- we might even agree that the film has spawned an entirely new lexicon of words to convey the psuedo-scientific aspects, and some of them are precious. My favorite is "quantum-flapdoodle". A section (written in a tongue-in-cheek yet encyclopedic tone) to convey in good humor some of these new words would be reliably sourced, not OR and not synthesis...and I have not yet seen a Wikipedia guideline against having a little fun...

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for background, this film didn't spawn terms like "quantum-flapdoodle". The ideas presented in the film data back to the 1970s, with Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics. The film just added commentary and computer generated graphics. It didn't present anything novel. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, it might be useful to add some {{resolved}}, {{Unresolved}} templates to past sections of the talk page to help clarify the situation. --Salix alba (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago46 comments10 people in discussion

I think progress is good, lets talk about some of the contentious issues

1- Presentation of the film's pseudoscience.

It's fairly clear the film makes a number of claims which are factually incorrect, and could justly be reffered to as "pseudoscience", but what is that right way to present that in the intro?

~~2- Ditto for "quantum mysticism"~~

Feel free to modify and add to this framwork as you see fit. Jefffire (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We had a discussion about quantum mysticism above. I think that it fairly characterizes the problems that scientists have outlined with the film. Pseudoscience is actually used in the ACS review, so I think that's a fine word as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record -- contrary to the Wikipedia article on the topic that needs cleanup -- quantum mysticism isn't just a pejorative like quantum quakery. Quantum mysticism is a term readily adopted by proponents of the idea as well[17][18] and shouldn't be excluded just because editors may feel it carries negative connotations. It's a correct, notable label used by both proponents and detractors alike. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove it from the list. Jefffire (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the current criticisms of the draft? Jefffire (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)?

We might want to consider the intro of Natural_Cures_"They"_Don't_Want_You_to_Know_About as some inspiration. Jefffire (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the intro has some major flaws that need correction.

1) The film is notable primarily because it is controversial, so I think the very first adjective we use should reflect this immediately, as in "...is a controversial 2004 film..."

2) As has been discussed and demonstrated here and (still unrefuted) here, the word "pseudoscience" is neither prevalent (even among critics) nor encyclopedic. The word is also uninformative without context, in the same way the "heresy" and "heretical" do not inform until the worldview that uses the label is described. A pejorative in the lead will turn readers off.

The lead sentence of the American Chemical Society review calls the film "a pseudoscientific docudrama". I support the use of this word when describing the film because it sums up in one common word a concept that otherwise must be described with a phrase or two at a minimum. I find arguments that the word is somehow foreign to people or uninformative to be without weight. I'd welcome an RfC on the question "Is psuedoscience a commonly understood word?' Also there does exist a previous ArbCom decision on the use of the term 'pseudoscience' which seems to support the use of term in a case like this where it is sourced to a respectable reliable source. Nowhere in the ArbCom is the word described as a 'pejorative'. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

3) David Albert should not be presented as a "physicist" in the lead. Albert is not a "physicist" per se. Albert is a philosopher in the context of physics, and his philosophy is a materialistic world view. Describing him as a physicist when he has never held any position as a "physicist" outside the context of philosophy is misleading.

As I have already pointed out to you David Albert IS a physicist. According to David Albert's faculty page at Columbia University, he has a B.S. in Physics, a Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics, "and has published many articles on quantum mechanics, mostly in the Physical Review". He's certainly is more qualified in terms of credentials than Albert Einstein in 1905. Was Einstein not a physicist? Dlabtot (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

David Albert's bio at his employer, the philosophy department of Columbia University, indicates that he got his Ph.D. from [[19]], a "private university focusing primarily on basic research in the biomedical fields". William Arntz was a research physicist at Pratt and Whitney. Seems that using the lead to describe Albert as a "physicist" and Arntz as a "member of the Ramtha School" is WP:NPOV. Amit Goswami is the most qualified physicist of the bunch, why single out Albert's minority dissenting view as the "most important"? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

4) Albert's objections to the editing controversy need reframing and should be presented in a following section. The twelve heated words that he spoke in 2004 to Popular Science associate editor and novelist Gregory Mone (who also lacks serious scientific credentials) (a) do not deserve the undue weight they are given by including them in the lead, and (b) do nothing to inform the reader of the far more important topic -- the basis of Albert's excellent critique of the film's content. The "editing controversy" is real, notable and important...but should be placed in context in a following section. I can confidently say this only after just watchhing Albert's extended twenty-one minute and sixteen second rebuttal and clarification he was invited to give for the DVD release. Mone's twelve "selected" words quoting Albert in 2004 clearly reflected Albert's anger at the time, but utterly fail to convey his scientific critique of the film, which is far more important to our readers than the editing controversy.

Now, I am among those who wish to see the film's "believers" drawn in and provided with a reasoned and scientific rationale from the POV of the materialist, but we need to be encyclopedic and welcoming in order to draw them in. I sympathize with the "fight against pseudoscience" (to a point), but my "pov" here is to draw the audience in, not turn them off from the outset with pejorative characterizations in the lead. BTW, this was exactly the reason Albert gave for agreeing to continue to work with the producers on the film, and to remain in the second version (DVD) of the film. Here is an extended interview with Albert that supports a less pejorative treatment. Albert himself does not use the word, nor do most of the films most strident critics, for good reason IMHO.

I think the lead will be much more effective and serve all POVs better if it were a single sentence reflecting the concepts of controversiality, mysticism and metaphysics. For example, "a film for the metaphysical left" are Arntz' own words. Let's go for intrigue rather than insult, and then let science lead readers back up and out of the Bleep's "rabbit hole" (to paraphrase Satinover's words). riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are some very good points. I've already change the draft for point 3, since it's a clear factual inaccuracy. I feel 1 might be controversial, and possible PoV, but I'm open to further discussion. 2 is certainly an ongoing debate. The "metaphysical left" would fit in very nicely. I have to say I disagree with the idea of putting all the controversy into one sentence though, it seems too brief. Jefffire (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are not meant to be intriguing. They are meant to present factual information, and the lead is a place to summarize it. I'll go for a short sentence if it is direct and factual ... i.e. "WTB is a 2004 movie that misrepresents science" or something similar. A short sentence that says it is "controversial" is unacceptable. The science in the movie is not controversial. The movie is simply wrong. The points of view that are in favor of the movie are New Ageism and mysticism, points of view which have no weight in an encyclopedic discussion of science. Our existing policy in discussing science is here and here . In short, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience and Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. There is no legitimate scientific disagreement, and there are reliable sources describing the science in the movie as pseudoscience.Kww (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on above (sorry to break in late), but I have personally found it useful to read this frequently. I mention this because (a) it is non-negotiable, and (b) I know how difficult it is to write from a neutral point-of-view, and (c) it is non-negotiable. Everyone here to one degree or another seems to be struggling with WP:NPOV to one degree or another -- that's just the reality of life here. That being said, the comment above; "The movie is simply wrong." is simply false. It reflects a POV, and does not even reflect the views of the films most ardent and respected critics. In his overall 2006 critique of the film (on the DVD release), David Albert says repeatedly that the film "does a good job", is "on balance" accurate in many areas, is "addressing an important topic" and (using his words), "the one criticism" he has is of the idea that individuals create their own reality. Of this, Albert says "we (scientists) don't know that". Albert does not say the film is "wrong", and in fact he spends the last five minutes of his 21 minute extended (2006) rebuttal interview "dreaming" of a future in which science might someday be able to "prove" that the ideas in the film are wrong. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What does without more mean? Also, we are talking about the lead. The function of a lead is to draw readers into the body of the article and not "send them on their way." In writing the lead we need to consider that most readers aren't Pseudoscientists. ^{[citation needed]} :) Anthon01 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Without more means that you don't have to qualify it or present a daft opposing view.Kww (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuing, and including reply to comments from KWW above: (a) "The points of view that are in favor of the movie are New Ageism and mysticism, points of view which have no weight in an encyclopedic discussion of science.".; and (b) "...don't have to qualify it or present a daft opposing view." -- KWW, your blanket presumptions on the POV's here are false and unwarranted, and I take some offense at this, and also take offense to your characterizations of opposing views as "daft", it's uncivil.

I (for one) am interested in WTB mainly because I believe that Princeton's John Archibald Wheeler (Albert Einstein's student) may be right, and the the universe may indeed be "made up of nothing but information, with matter and energy are incidentals", and I see some interesting parallels in the film (see the film's synopsis, first bullet "The universe is best seen as constructed from thought (or ideas) rather than from substance). I note that physicists are watching the demise of string theory and that Wheeler's ideas could quickly move to the front of the line to pick up the ball, and might even lead to a "grand unification theory". You know, John Archibald Wheeler, the scientist who petitioned the AAAS to have parapsychology expelled because he said it was pseudoscience? THAT John Wheeler. So, while indulging anyone's incessant "need to uncover the POV's" of everyone here is as distasteful to me as indulging McCarthyism, I do so anyway and there you have it, my personal POV. This is not "New Ageism" or "Mysticism"...if you need a name for it call me "wheelerish", and please don't continue to "paint" POVs on all those who disagree with you. Furthermore, you leave no room for POV's here that are merely interested in seeing an encyclopedic entry on the film and a discussion of the ideas it presents, which is also my hope. Suggestion: perhaps a little less time and effort spent in blanket categorizations of editors and assumptions of their agendas as either "for" or "against" the film on your part....might allow some more nuanced perceptions to emerge into your views of "us". Fair enough? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking of sources, not editors, and the sources do align exactly as I said ... all sources that say positive things about the science in this movie can be reasonably characterized as "New Age" or "mysticism." The views of New Age sources about science are not worthy of consideration in discussion of the science. They warrant mention under audience reception, target markets, "see also", but the IONS saying something may be so does not constitute scientific controversy of any kind.Kww (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When speaking in absolutes, as in "...all sources that say positive things about the science in this movie can be reasonably characterized as "New Age" or "mysticism.", it's easy to be incorrect. 32 years worth of grad students in physics who've studied Quantum Mechanics under Amit Goswami easily overwhelm that POV, if not the thousands who studied it using his highly regarded university text, in case you weren't aware. A significant number, if not a majority, would not characterize Amit Goswami as "New age" or a "mystic" you do, any more that Joel Primack's students would. I'm beginning to wonder if you've seen the film? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:JZ Knight doesn't claim to channel Ramtha in the film. The film identifies her as channeling Ramtha, which is a little different. If she said, "OK, here comes Ramtha", the attribution would be on her. If the tag line beneath her says "JZ Knight Channeling Ramtha" (it was something similar to that), that's a claim attributable to the film makers. It's a claim she makes herself, but not in this particular film. Here it's a claim made by her students, the film makers. It should be changed to "Judy Zebra Knight, who the film claims is channeling "Ramtha", a long dead warrior/philosopher from the mythical continent of Lemuria, who lived 35,000 years ago." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::Another problem with the draft below... It labels Albert as a non-descript "philosopher", presumably because he's the Professor of Philosophy at Columbia. That's only half his job. David Albert is also Director of the M.A. Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Colombia and has a doctorate in theoretical physics. He should be called a "theoretical physicist" as he earned the title. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done

Unresolved

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::Also "...has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film when in fact he does not" is not Wikipedia-style. We don't know what he agrees with, only what he has stated. For all we know, he may have agreed at the time of filming and changed his mind after being ridiculed later. It should read "...has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film; Albert affirms that he does not." --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Two things noticeably absent from the current draft below:

#The film did well at art-house theaters before getting picked up by a major distributor, and has won several independent film awards. There's at least two sources for this and it's notable lead stuff. That needs to be summarized and belongs in the intro draft near, or in, this line: "A moderately low-budget independent production, the film was promoted using unusual grass-roots marketing methods and grossed over $10 million." Done --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The notable thing about this movie is that it included a panel of fringe scientists talking about quantum physics. The intro draft doesn't say anything about these people who were interviewed. The second paragraph is all about how their ideas were criticized, but it seems out of place because the first paragraph doesn't even mention the interviews or the panel giving them. Instead it's all about Ramtha -- who was barely even mentioned in the film. If it were just a movie about Ramtha, it wouldn't be notable. It's notable because it featured a panel of interviewees with fringe science backgrounds that made it seem at least that the film was about science. If the second paragraph is going to dispute that, what's being disputed needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph, probably one sentence before the last. The live intro says "The film employs a panel of interviewees who speculate about the impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry. Many are affiliated with New Age organizations, and some hold academic degrees." It probably doesn't need that much wording, but something needs to be there saying the same thing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts... the statement "The notable thing about this movie is that it included a panel of fringe scientists..." is WP:OR. Arntz was a research physicist with Pratt and Whitney, Amit Goswami is not "fringe", Jeffrey Satinover is not "fringe", and we could continue with the rest of the cast. JZ Knight is "fringe", but Albert Einstein, who believed in "Spinoza's God", the "Ancient One" of Lurianic Kabbalah, is not "fringe". Einstein denied the existence of a "personal God", and so does "what the Bleep". You may be able to define scientists who believe in a "peronal god" as a minority (14% or 40%, depending on the survey), and perhaps even on the "fringe", but the POVs of scientists in the movie are entirely compatible with the large number of scientists who believe in some form of non-personal god, and that cannot be characterized as "fringe". riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR is something not in sources. There's numerous sources that question the scientist's affiliation with fringe science groups like IONS, and I'm pretty sure some of them even say "fringe". If not, swap it for something else that lends context. The point is that there's no mention of any interviewee besides JZ Knight, which doesn't make sense because the next paragraph goes into how those interviews are wrong or misleading. However it should be worded, there is an absence of mentioning the panel in this draft, and that should be corrected for notability and clarity's sake. Example wording might be: ... The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life. Interspersed with this narrative are interviews with a panel of [insert whatever here] who discuss issues in quantum physics, psychology, and spirituality. Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment ... --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: " There's numerous sources that question the scientist's affiliation with fringe science..." sure there are, but no matter. Turning their "questions" into "fact" is WP:OR, specifically, synthesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way: There are a number of sources that say they are "fringe scientists" exactly, exact words, not as a question but as a statement, and it's not original research [20]. People appeal to WP:OR way too much. If you have a question about something I'm saying, please just ask for a source instead of calling it original research. I'll be happy to provide one as I don't just make stuff up. If you'll forgive me for pointing it out, this is the sort of thing that side-tracks people and prevents real progress from being made. Note that above and in the draft I left a [insert whatever here] and didn't say it had to say fringe scientists, so please feel free to offer an alternative. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(a) In the analysis I did per WP:Google see below, I believe I have shown that there is no support among reliable sources for our referring to "scientists on the fringes of mainstream science" (Newsweek????) as "fringe scientists". (b) there are as yet no reliable source presented (nor any source I am aware of) that characterizes all, or even most of the scientists as "fringe scientists", unless I missed something(??), and (strangely), (c) even the quote that purportedly came from Newsweek cannot be found anywhere, on the www or in the Google News archives. The only "hits" are those here on Wikipedia or in sources that picked up the supposed quote from Wikipedia...again, unless I missed something (and I could have...please do examine my query constructions. ~~Does anyone have a source for this Newsweek quote?~~ riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WRT (c), I found the "on the fringes" quote, as follows. The statement refers to Fred Alan Wolf and John Hagelin (exclusively) and in the context of a different movie, "The Secret". And lest we think that Wolf has no professional boundaries of "conscience", it's pretty funny the way he trashes the "science" in "The Secret"... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

re David Albert: the fact that the filmmakers were being intentionally deceptive and misleading is certainly more important than any particular bit of science they got wrong. That's why it belongs in the lead. Dlabtot (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

here's what he says in the salon inteview:

"I don't think it's quite right to say I was 'tricked' into appearing, but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed. I certainly do not subscribe to the 'Ramtha School on Enlightenment,' whatever that is!"

This kind of deception, so typical of cult practices, along with the information that the makers are the film are PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWRs are surely the most significant bits of information that need to be conveyed to the reader. Dlabtot (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Represented, yes, just not in the lead, because that is WP:UNDUE. 74.39.72.109 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Could you point to the relevant part of WP:UNDUE that states that the most important information should not be in the lead? Dlabtot (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Most important" is a POV (opinion) that has not been established either in fact or consensus. Please make your case that this minority opinion of one of the scientists in the film is "the most important" information?

While we're at it, can we find a reliable source to say that most or even some viewers felt they were being solicited to become students of Ramtha's school? My POV-opinion (having seen the film in 2004) is that I was being "recruited" -- to the "school" of John Archibald Wheeler and Joel Primack!! Most viewers (including virtually the entire audience I was in) left the theater before the credits rolled and any mention of Ramtha's "school" was made. I personally knew nothing about "ramtha" or the "school" until I read this article, and so it seems any anti-cult motivations here are shooting themselves in the foot by generating all this publicity for Ramtha...better than the film did!! Putting "Ramtha" in the lead in a Wikipedia article gives "Ramtha" undue publicity, and remember the old maxim, no publicity is bad publicity. Are you sure you want to draw more attention to Ramtha? Given how her ugly divorce was so great for her business, she'll probably want to kiss you... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I've been invited to quote "chapter and verse" of WP:UNDUE let me do so, by adding that it appears that a number of editors here represent the tiny minority viewpoint of those who live in some close proximity to the Ramtha School of Enlightenment and object to the film on that basis. As the film reached a global audience, any POV's that seek to promote the "importance" of the Ramtha aspect on that basis, are by Jimbo Wales definition, "fringe".

Quoting Jimbo: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

Now, can anybody cite a reliable source that says that "most" people on the planet think "Ramtha" was the most important aspect of the film? If your impression of the film was as mine was, JZ Knight was the least notable among all the interviewees, and while my personal POV doesn't count for a hill of beans, neither do any opinions to the contrary. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Next comment...calling David Albert a "physicist" is an appeal to authority. He does not and has never worked in a professional capacity as a "physicist" according to the generally accepted meaning of that word, so IF we agree that Albert is going to be in the lead (and we are not there yet), we need to call him either a "scientist" or a "philosopher of physics". riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This introduction is disputed on the basis of WP:Undue and WP:NPOV riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to explain yourself. (And you haven't). ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, please read the talk page, as I have explained and provided extensive supporting analyses in several areas, none of which you have refuted with any sources or analysis of your own. Given the extent and effort clearly apparent in my work, your characterizations of me as "needing to explain myself" and asserting that I "haven't" is a grossly pejorative mischaracterization of either (a) me as an editor, or (b) the quality of my work, or (c) both. On the other hand I could assume that this gross mischaracterization is not a personal attack, but rather that you have simply not read what I've written, and while this requires me to stretch WP:AGF beyond the limits for which it was intended, I ivnite your reply in good faith.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this but this part "Members of the scientific community have criticized parts of the film for misrepresenting science" wouldn't it be better to say: "Except for certain "fringe elements" - mainly those featured in the movie - members of the scientific community have criticized much of the film for misrepresenting science.

I'm quiet serious about this - if I get one more first year undergraduate student throwing up a question about quantum physics and consciousness again, based on the fact that they think a lot of scientists support this nonsense, I'll scream. Might be fine for a theology or philosophy lecture but there are limits. Really2012back (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the initial lead proposed above is a better estimation. adding the word fringe in the lead, whiel it may be true, is unncessarily inflammatory and just a bad idea for an article that is already currently blocked. it ould be better to say "Members of the scientific community have criticized parts of the film for misrepresenting science" and adding a few sources regarding hwihc scientists have misrepresented sources. Smith Jones (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes fringe might be a tad to much. However, using "Members of" might suggest a small handful or a lot. I think we need to make it clear that it is the majority - apart from the odd "loon" and "publicity hound" who disagree with the movies findings. But yes done with tact of course. I add this because if their theory is correct there is nothing stopping them - taking it to its extremes - of putting a "cursing on me". I don't wish to end up a toad or something should they prove to be correct after all. Really2012back (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just "The scientific community"? Let's try that. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Summarize points of contention for intro

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Maybe this will help, maybe not, but I see (having just spent another three hours reading and adding (insufficient) commentary...

1) The idea that the film was created to recruit students to Ramtha's School of Enlightenment is important.

2) The idea that the film presents the "boundary" questions at the border between physics and metaphysics in a way that misrepresents what science does and does not know is important.

3) The idea that the "scientists" featured in the film were largely selected because they all (with one exception - Dave Albert) have POVs that are unsympathetic to scientific materialism, or sympathetic to addressing the "Quantum Enigma" as an "enigma".

Does that characterize the competing POV's fairly, or did I miss something?

I agree that these are all important viewpoints, but I don't think these will be "lost" if they are not in the lead. I think the quickest way to get this article unlocked is to strip the lead of contentious issues (for now), and let the rest of the article develop, and then we all agree to "lock down" the lead for another couple of weeks, work on the body of the article and see how things look afterword. Thoughts?

I've also looked at The Great Global Warming Swindle, that film has all of the same issues with scientists, "hidden agendas" and so forth as "Bleep" does, and to a MUCH greater extent than Bleep. Anyway, maybe some ideas there? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro "lifted" from the "swindle" movie...

Latest comment: 16 years ago49 comments7 people in discussion

What the Bleep Do We Know is a 2004 documentary film that was followed by an extended 2006 DVD release that presents the conflict between Scientific Materialism and Spirituality in the context of a controversial interpretation of Quantum Physics, in which "consciousness is the ground of all being". Created by ~~physicist and filmmaker~~ William Arntz, the film showcases a group of scientists, philosophers, doctors and New Age "channeler" Ramtha who ~~are~~ represent minority, and in some cases pseudoscientific views ~~that are mostly sympathetic to~~ representing the film's assertion that individuals can "co-create" thier subjective realities based on the idea that the universe is composed of "thoughts or ideas", rather than matter and energy.

Thoughts??? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed intro (Arntz, etc.)

Not sure that the film presents any "conflict". In fact, the film tends to say the opposite (that their ideas are in harmony with science). ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, William Arntz is not a physicist in the usual sense. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SA - there is no analysis or counter argument of any-kind - that indeed is my biggest issue with the movie - if, as I have said before, we are to assume it is anything but a work of fiction. Also, to the sentence counting :"...group of scientists, philosophers, doctors..." I think we would need to confirm this further with "...a group of scientists, philosophers, doctors - with views well-outside mainstream thought and in counter to accepted thinking in their fields..." Or something like that. I think it needs to be confirmed here that these are not professionals in their respective fields expressing "normal"or majority views. Being in one of them myself I would hate for the "general public" to think otherwise Really2012back (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Not sure that the film presents any "conflict". In fact, the film tends to say the opposite (that their ideas are in harmony with science)."

Huh???, the first 20 minutes of the film is 100% devoted to the conflict between Scientific Materialism and religion, and I note that right now the article is entirely devoid of this. David Albert (in his extended interview) praises the film for doing a "good job" documenting this, and I found the animated "bashing heads" used to present this conflict hilarious.

Guess I didn't remember this part... hmm... weird. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You were using a bad script from "Drew's Script-O-Rama"...only has about 10% of the text, doesn't cover any of the science at all...see extended analysis of the source below. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Also, William Arntz is not a physicist in the usual sense."

Well, I can agree that "former physicist" or "former research physicist" would be more accurate, but as his 'Star Wars' R&D work at Pratt & Whitney on optics simulators for high-energy gas dynamic laser weapons didn't last that long (and remains classified), and was later eclipsed by his writing the world's most successful Unicenter_Autosys_Job_Management job-scheduler for large-scale supercomputing and database systems, I think it's prety clear that describing him merely by his association with the Ramtha school is clearly undue weight. Maybe we should just agree to call him "William Arntz". That would be less clumsy than "William Arntz, a 1972 graduate (summa cum laude) of Engineering Science at Penn State University, former 'Star Wars" research physicist, software developer, successful entrepreneur, filmaker and student of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment". Humourous note, looks like Arntz should have listened more carefully to his "buddhist teacher" at the RSE, if so he'd have been another Larry Ellison, as the Autosys software was the only meaningful product that Platinum had when CA bought them for $3.5billion. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather contentious to call him a physicist in any case. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, see my proposed change above... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the film as a source

And at the risk of stating the obvious, I would suggest that the film itself is the single most important and reliable source for the topic of THIS article, and perhaps any who are unfamiliar with the single most reliable source (have not seen the film) should recuse themselves from the discussion of the intro, as you appear to represent tertiary sources, at best. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I have seen the film, I'm happy to continue editing. Thanks for the vote of confidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, WNDL42. Well said."I would suggest that the film itself is the single most important and reliable source for the topic of THIS article."(olive (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

As usual, I strongly disagree. The use of primary sources is discouraged on Wikipedia, and a reliable secondary source is always better than a primary. Since our task is to compile the contents of reliable secondary sources, not seeing the primary could even be viewed as beneficial, since it helps to reduce bias on the part of the editor.Kww (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed WP:Primary source, I can find no basis for your statement "use of primary sources is discouraged " Specifically, this, this, and this appear to contradict your statement. I might add that the film's presentations of it's scientists are, by definition, secondary source presentations. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Review it more carefully. Primary sources are good for establishing what a primary source is saying. That's it. While it is important for us to establish what the film is saying, it is equally if not more important for us to make sure that the critical evaluation of the film's content gets properly made to reliable sources. That's the essence of WP:PSTS in conjunction with such guidelines as WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused - it should only be the primary source of reference if it is a work of fiction - then we could analyze it terms of narrative, structure, postmodernism, etc. However, it insists on "explaining" various branches of science. Once it does this it can only be analyzed in external terms using other references. Indeed, it must be the same in "spiritual" terms as it puts it self at odds with many spiritual, theological and indeed paranormal thoughts and teachings. For example, it is apparent that many of it's "spiritual" thought is lifted from in parts - in no particular order - Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism (philosophical as well as religious Taoism), Vedic "science", certain branches of what is called urban shamanism, Chaos Magick and indeed Ritual Magick - see Crowley's OTO for example or The Golden Dawn and indeed mentioning the golden dawn it owes a fair deal to Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy, with the odd springling of Alchemical studies. It can really only be correctly addressed by refering to sources in all of things and byy also adding refernces from "Michael Shermer's discussion:Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" or Thomas Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life Really2012back (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Characterization of scientists - analysis per WP:Google

Ok, in response to numerous comments...there are "mainstream" scientific POVs, "minority" scientific POV's and then there are "fringe" scientists. In the film, Albert represents "mainstream", most are "minority" and one or maybe two can reasonably called "fringe".

So...(rply to several above...) "OK, let me put it this way: There are a number of sources that say they are "fringe scientists" exactly, exact words, not as a question but as a statement, and it's not original research [21].

Not exactly. There are exactly zero reliable sources saying "they" are (all) fringe scientists. I was going to take this offline to user:nealparr, but I really think we all need a refresher on what we can say about search hits, and what we can't. It's best to take a look at WP:Google before proceeding further.

Any Google search test must be carefully constructed to avoid spurious results, as information theory predicts that "noise" will predominate the "hits" in this kind of search construction (above) to assert "fringe". For example, if I wanted to assert that "Scientific materialism is a religion", I could use an unconstructed search like this to prove my point, and this is identical to the seach used above. I would "win" this "niosy" argument, with a score of 125,000 "hits" to 5,970, but in reality we'd both be wrong to use that "hit count" to prove anything. On the other hand, I could construct an explit search, like this, and with only two hits I could try to "prove" the other side, that "scientific materialism is a religion" is merely a "fringe" viewpoint, but this is also faulty because the overly long explicit string excludes other constructions that a reliable source might say.

So both of the results I just provided are faulty, illustrating the logical fallacy of a "noisy" argument. A better approach looks like this, and the 28,800 hits shows that there are many web sites that explicitly refer to Scientific Materialism in the context of a religion, most of them saying that scientific materialism IS a religion. But even so, there is no real way of saying with any certainty (or even guessing) that the hit count represents reliable sources, and so I would rightly be refuted by atheists, who could also deny that there are any reliable sources to "prove" that atheism is a religion, but again, who knows if there is a reliable source, like a [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 legal decision] to prove that atheism is a religion.

So far, we still don't have anything of substance to say from a statistical perspective, because we have done nothing to filter out unreliable sources yet. This is where the tactic of using specialized search databases comes in handy. For example, a search of the Google News Archive or Google Scholar will "filter" out blogs, user comments or rants posted in response to articles on the topic, etc., and this is critical. Now, in the news archive, we find a "control population" of 429 articles in Google's news archives on "scientific materialism", and then (adding the word religion to the explicit string "scientific materialism", we could observe that the resulting 207 hits divided by the control population (429 hits) gives us a pretty fair idea that the idea is mainstream enough for inclusion -- "Scientific materialism is a religion" is a notable and valid criticism of philosopher David Albert, and this is not a "fringe" criticism.

While that's probably good enough for a Wikipedia entry on a pop-culture film (that IS what we're all editing), there is also a heated controversy about the scientific content of the film from psuedoscience-fighters and cult-fighters, these editors must be fairly represented here, so now we can turn to Google Scholar for a database of reliable sources from science and academia wherein we discover that the Google Scholar "physics specific" database" seems to indicate that "scientific materialism is a religion" is actually the mainstream view. A main point of the film is that scientific materialism is a religion and that that religion deserves as much scrutiny from a science perspective as any other religion, and so we find that the "What the Bleep" film actually represents a valid POV speaking from within the scientific mainstream viewpoint among physicists, that "scientific materialism is a religion".

And, if I wanted to, I could also use this control population 793 of reliable academic sources compared to 342 from the physics database reliable sources support my assertion that all of us here (and the keyboards we type on) are mere holographic illusions, and that all "matter" and "energy" are merely the hallucinations of some very cleverly designed wetware, so that all of us and everything we see, touch and feel are nothing but WP:Synthesis.

Meanwhile the film says "The universe is best seen as made up of thoughts or ideas, rather than matter and energy"

So..."In the beginning was the Information Structure, and the Information Structure was with G-d, and the Information Structure was G-d" - is a work of WP:Synthesis from the "Book of John (Archibald Wheeler)", which might represent a "Spinoza's G-d" minority (Albert Einstein), but certainly Wheeler and his teacher Einstein would see the similarity between this construction and that of the film... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See modifications to "lifted" intro above and comment? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Enumerated issues

This version is awful for the following reasons:

Film is not a documentary film
Point made - it's a "docu-drama" riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The conflict between Scientific Materialism and Spirituality is only seen very briefly in the very beginning of the film and is presented as "false".
Untrue. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
True. Just looked through the script of the movie again to confirm it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you will provide your source (link to the script) we can discuss, but I just re-checked the original theatrical release on DVD (a freely available source) and find that it refutes your source. The film trumps the "script" in any case. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/what-the-bleep-do-we-know-script.html]. Look it over yourself. Most of the film is about how science confirms the new age nonsense. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, NOW I get it...your selection of sources would explain the fallacious appearance of your assertions. The script you are using, provided by "Drew's Script-O-Rama" looks like it contains less than 10% of the films content.

I got through the first two minutes of dialog in each of a random selection of six "chapters" related to science from the theatrical release of the DVD, and noted 14 keywords used related to science. In the script provided by SA, the words I just heard are simply not there. The list was "slit", "entanglement", "random", "flatland", "classical mechanics", "organism", "conceptual", "Newton", "collapsible", "cat", "planck", "vacuum", "hydrogen", and (just for fun) "schrodinger" and "schroedinger" and I observed that not a single one of these words are in the "script" SA provided from "Drew's Script-O-Rama". , all words I hear in six minutes across various chapters related to the science in the movie. No wonder our POVs on the film's content are so different. [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/what-the-bleep-do-we-know-script.html Garbage in], garbage out. SA, with all the disagreements over what the film does and does not say, and in light of the above, do you still want to continue to assert that you have seen the film? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the film. It doesn't focus on conflict between materialism and spirituality. I just compared a random scene in Drew's scriptorama to one seen on YouTube. Identical. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record then, you are asserting that my examination of the source above is false - is that correct?

And FYI, I can tell you that the very first words at the top of your "Drew's Script-O-Rama" source do not appear in the first 30 minutes of the film, hence this explains your previous failure to recognze the conflict you assert does not exist, hence "Drew's Script-O-Rama" is not a reliable source to support your assertions. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I assert that there is more to the film than just analysis of a supposed conflict. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Did someone here say that there was not "more to the film than just analysis of a supposed conflict."? If so I missed that. Just want to make sure we're not mischaracterizing the debate. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A controversial interpretation of Quantum Physics it is not. It isn't an "interpretation" at all. Rather it is claptrap. Calling it a controversial interpretation is like calling astrology a "controversial interpretation of astronomy".
Incorrect. Please consider "There may be no such thing as the 'glittering central mechanism of the universe.'... Not machinery but magic may be the better description of the treasure that is waiting." -This is a quote from John Archibald Wheeler. One of the world's leading theoretical cosmologists, Joel Primack also shares this view based on his encounter with Isaac Luria and Lurianic Kabbalah in pre-envisioning the "Big Bang" theory 500 years before it was accepted among mainstream science. Albert Einstein said "Religion without Science is blind, science without religion is lame". Is Einstein now comparable to an astrologer as well? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of claptrap original research right there that alternatively yanks things out of context and signifies some real ignorance about science. You should take some science classes before asserting any knowledge on this subject. Anyway, my point still stands.
Ahhhh...the first refuge when logic fails...SA, please see WP:NPA.
Just a friendly suggestion, tis all. Before you make outrageous claims you might want to become familiar with the subject at hand. Have you solved the Shrodinger equation recently? Maybe when you do that you'll see how outlandish your claims are. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
1) If you are suggesting that a demonstrated proficiency in solving math from the 1920's is a requirement for editing here, then by all means, refer us to your master's thesis or equivalent reliable source, and then we can discuss the merits of your admissions criteria elsewhere. Here, it's just a disruption.

2) Nothing in any of the sourced research I've cited is demonstrated to be "outlandish claims", nor is anything at all in conflict with any results derived by Shrodinger, nor did Shrodinger "solve" this "problem" in physics. My claims are based on empirical observations of the recent statements of recent scientists and academics, all of whom I assume have better credentials than you (or I), else we would not be here wasting time on this silliness.

3) Just a friendly suggestion, perhaps you might be interesting more in current reading than in perching yourself atop math from the 1920's for a vantage point to look down on John Archibald Wheeler. You could begin reading either links that have been provided here on this talk page, or perhaps investing in a copy of Quantum Enigma. There you will get a good overview of why "mainstream" scientists themselves are widely believed to be part of the problem that allows this Quantum Flapdoodle to persist. I'm assuming by now you have familiarized yourself with the views of Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenblum, both of whom are reliable sources, and both of whom see POV's like yours, failing to acknowledge the "Enigma" and pretending that science has answers it doesn't have, as the biggest reason why "What the Bleep" has flourished, flapdoodle and all. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This almost doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response. "Math from the 1920s"? You've simply got to be kidding me with that. Obviously you have no idea what quantum mechanics is or how it is developed. I'm willing to bet that you've never even taken one physics class. No matter. You have your weird New-Age interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and it obviously coincides with quantum quackery. That's fine, except your attempts to legislate content here run dangerously close to pov-pushing since you basically have no idea what you're talking about and obviously can't even understand the sources you are reading. Since I am going to go visit Princeton in a few weeks and Wheeler always shows up at colloquium, I'll let him know about this little encounter. I'm sure he will be very amused (he's got a delightful sense of humor). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
SA, please stop -- your pejorative charge and characterization, "your attempts to legislate content here run dangerously close to pov-pushing" is a serious one, it is a personal attack, and unless you can support it, should be withdrawn. I have presented evidence, drawn conclusions and placed those conclusions in the context of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue, with suggestions based on them. Rather than presenting a supported counterargument of equal value, or any counterargument at all, you continue to respond in this way. I am admittedly a less experienced editor in this context, and perhaps I am somewhat ignorant, so please indicate how (provide a diff) you see me as attempting to "legislate content". Absent your clear response showing diffs supporting your charge, I will assume that you are either (a) still confused, or (b) you are merely the pot that creates it's own kettle for the purpose of calling it black, and this incessant use of the Straw Man attack is a personal attack. I await your diffs. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Your attempts to promote your POV above are all the evidence needed. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Please both of you stop, the above exchange has becoming pure WP:NPA and is not advancing the discussion. --Salix alba (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The film does not showcase a group of scientists, philosophers, doctors because most of the interviewees are not highly considered within the science, medical, and philosophy communities.
The statement I provided is true as written. Amit Goswami, Jeffrey Satinover and a number of others are absolutely highly considered, as a quick check of citeseer or Google Scholar will confirm, would you like me to invest the time proving this? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I laughed out loud reading this. Amit Goswami and Jeffrey Satinover are not highly considered in their field. They're nutjobs. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to side with SA on that one ... anyone associated with the Institute of Noetic Sciences abandoned any credibility they may have once had.Kww (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Abandoned any credibility" is a pretty strong claim, and statements based on hyperbole are generally "exceptional" claims, but I will buy it if it can be supported. Please provide a reliable source in support of it if you want the discussion to rest on that assertion. Suggest you use a query of the Google Scholar database to establish this....there's a tutorial above. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Members of IONS hold to pseudoscientific explanations that make them unreliable sources for describing mainstream science. WP:REDFLAG. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but WP:REDFLAG does not identify IONS, and the threshold for inclusion is verifyability, not truth. Again, not saying it isn't true, just unsupported. A quick check of Google Scholar does not indicate support for the idea, and a broader general web search also fails. Also, when I broadened the search to include any instance of "noetic", we get zero hits. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to find that at least Quackwatch would support the use of the word "psuedoscience" (if nothing else, to find at least ONE credible source in support, so we can end this noisy debate), but alas, even Quackwatch does not describe the institutions we're talking about as "pseudoscience". FYI, here's the current Wikipedia treatment of criticisms of IONS...and again, no "pseudoscience" found, but perhaps some Wikiprecedent there. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you cant find a source, then aviod the use of the term psuedo science. While its probably currect, adding it is as as I said before unnecessarily inflammatory and might lead to a srevert source. It owuld be better to impeach the IONS institute in the actual text of the article by linkingto sources that criticize the resaerch done by these people. a psuedoscience bog honestly isnt' necessary for every atticle it is better to do a verifable criticism of the IONS than to allow its uspporters to be able to say that this article violates WP:V. That's just my thought though, but I honeslty have to recommend against it unless you can find a source. Smith Jones (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Passes the duck test. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

the 'duck test you refer to is (unless I am mistaken) an essay on civility among editors. Can you help us understand how it applies to article content? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI on Amit Goswami, from the Google Scholar database, cited here per WP:Google. These records point to the academic papers and books Goswami has either authored or co-authored. Here are more specifics. Now, as we have already discussed the notion of whether Goswami's association with IONS represents "abandoned credibility" (see above), let's take up Satinover.

FYI on Satinover, after his 2004 completion of academic requirements for PhD in Physics at Yale University, Satinover's doctoral thesis ("A wavelet based hierarchical method for the decomposition and short term prediction of multiscaled chaotic discrete iD time-series") is presently being completed under Prof. Didier Sornette, and is currently in review. Satinover will be Sornette's twelfth PhD. I don't think Professor Sornette is accepting "nutjobs" as doctoral candidates, and apparently Satinover's association with WTBDWK hasn't disqualified him as a 'nutjob' either with Yale or Sornette. Satinover's work in Quantum Physics is quite rigorous by most accounts. That being said, at least one other reviewer took a [negative view of Satinover's work before reading it. See also Bernard Carr's Review of Satinover's "Quantum Brain" (among my favorite books), referenced here.

I am looking forward to seeing a little more objective evidence to support these characterizations of the scientists, and a little less [[22]]. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people have done good research even while they are crackpots in general. That doesn't make them any less crankish. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, I understand and agree, but my point is that there are solid and sincere scientists in the group of "them", the "scientists" in the movie run the gamut from "crackpot" to "wheelerish", and want us to be careful not to use too broad a brush.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What the Bleep are ya all Upset About?

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

The movie is a self described "spiritual" film, a typical new age hodgepodge of the usual fun New Age "quantum" hoopla. So? Is it trying to force it's way into high school physics curricula? Junior high school? elementary school? Nursing homes? Police academies? Breakfast cereals? Whats the big bleepin' deal? How 'bout this, my fellow eggheads. What does the average viewer of this film wind up knowing about quantum mechanics (or neurology, or whatever) after leaving this film. On average, nothing. Which is exactly what the average person on the street (POTS, for you Lieber enthusiasts) knows anyway. So I ask ya--whose fault is that (if we must assign blame and point fingers)? I'll tell ya this--you can no more blame that on Ramtha than you can on Mothra. However, it would be perfectly fair to point a few fingers and toes at the perfectly lame state of science education in our land. Oh you say, thats true, and it's the evil Bush's fault. Think again. Where exactly are the scientists who should be fighting this battle with the fervor of the great crusades of human history? (given that many of you seem to think that a movie such as this harkens the end of snivelization as we know it.) Take a look at the (very many) popular tomes on quantum mechanics on the shelves, and what do you see? Simple, straight ahead, humble elucidations of concepts that anyone can get a handle on if properly motivated? But nooooooooooooo, we get wannabe science celebrity rock stars further muddying the muck with tales of Wild Quantum Wierdness That Is SO Weird We'll give you Some Watered Down Version But Only Us SMART GUYS (women eggheads like Janna Levin and Lisa Randall are a lot easier to take in this respect) can REAAALY Get IT (and that dude from the NY Planetarium too is better too). So relax people, have some fun, get down with your 50,000 year old bad selves!

such a wickedly great post I had to create a separate section for comments

This goes into my hopper as one of the finest posts I've seen on Wikipedia...WNDL42 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But I do have a complaint about the knock on us guys. Some of the smart ones get married to really hot genius gals like Joel Primack's wife Nancy Abrams, and they go off and write really fun stuff together about Lurianic Kabbalah and such. Or Heinz Pagels and his hottie Yale divinity scholar wife Elaine Pagels. What I wouldn't give to see transcripts of thier pillow talk. Whoooo...can't go there. WNDL42 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call, WNDL42. Another way to put this in perspective…this article was viewed a whopping 630 times in January. Now that might seem like a whole lot, until you consider that 625 of those views were undoubtedly by y'all edit warriors. Meanwhile, a humble and uncontroversial article about an old pioneer road in Oregon racked up 746 views. So yeah…cool it, guys. Stop wasting all the pixels! -Pete (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this has to be the biggest tempest in the smallest teapot that I've ever seen. The idea that any rational person could read ANY of these versions and conclude that the science in this film is accurate is ludicrous. Dlabtot (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While I tend to agree that the amount of effort put into this article has been out of proportion to its importance, it doesn't seem reasonable to me to say Well, the film isn't important, so we can let the article about it be bad. Some of the leads above are pretty short and sweet and don't give any false credence to the film. I really don't understand why people fight for versions that are artificially favorable towards the film. If we simply put out lead that summarized the view of the film taken by reliable sources, it comes out pretty negative. If people would accept that, write the lead that way, and stop trying to portray new ageism and mysticism as credible, the argument would be over.Kww (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Try to assume a little good faith, no one is trying to skew this article to an artifically favorable view. All this focus on the purported intent and desire of opposing editors is not productive. This section was supposed to provide a little humor, and I thank Boodlesthecat for his wickedly funny post! Dreadstar † 21:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The point, Kww, is not to portray the film positively or negatively, or to portray "to portray new ageism and mysticism as credible" or incredible, but to write an WP:NPOV lead about the film. Yet it seems a number of sites in poor 'ol Wikiland receive regular visitations by a traveling band of keepers of the faith who just can't control the urge to insert the phrase "promulgates pseudoscience" (eeeek!! eeek!! Mommy! PSEUDOSCIENCE!!! make it stop!!!") everywhere it rears its psuedohead, lest the hapless rubes looking to this encyclopedia for enlightenment get led like lambs to the slaughter. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Boodlesthecat. Wickedly funny is right,especially the last post complete with appropriate pics. Still laughing, and can be heard rolling about on the floor.(olive (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)) (missing loo post restored by WNDL42 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

The point, Boodlesthecat, is that our job is to reflect our sources neutrally. We look for sources, validate them, weight them appropriately, and then summarize the results. If the reliable sources say the science in this movie is crap, we write, within the boundaries of good taste and appropriate word choices, the science in this movie is crap.Kww (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Now just a cotton pickin' minute there, Kww, I think your missing a few steps there, no? More like if the reliable sources say certain notable people criticized the movie because they didn't like or disagreed or were asphyxiated by the way science was portrayed in the movie, we say that. But I understand your worries; hey, I don't let the kids watch Star Trek, some of that stuff is just plain too.....illogical! for their tender minds, and I have every intention of insuring they take their place as respectable future upholders of the scientific creed!. Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Boodles, I didn't miss a thing. Perhaps if you would actually take the time to be serious for a moment instead of making jokes, you would be able to make a useful contribution to the discussion. Talk pages are places for discussing ways to improve articles, not comedy clubs.Kww (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just a harmless bunny. Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Boodlesthecat does have a point in that the film works best as a an essay in a philosophical/spiritual questions: who are we? what is reality? As such it draws on well established on concepts common to many eastern traditions. Indeed Descartes' Cogito ergo sum touches on similar questions: how do I know that the world is not an illusion created by a deceiving god or an evil demon? Where the film fails is in trying to justify these ideas through recourse to quantum mechanics. Taken as a metaphor this would be fine, our understanding of the workings of the mind through history have largely been drawn from metaphors from the prevailing science/technology, from a clockwork metaphor to todays digital computer metaphor. However the film posits these are more than just metaphor and strays into the world of quantum gibberish reminiscent of Penrose's Shadows of the Mind. I think the village voice review nicely captures the spiritual point of view in the film[23]

how 40 years of quantum theory (clearly illustrated, I thought) and biophysics have come to confirm the essential ideas of Buddhism and spiritual self-determination. [snip] Nobody mentions the ancient Asians, but isn't controlling your environment by way of "intention" and "spiritual" training where all of that martial arts came from?

--Salix alba (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the point of this last, since the quote taken from village voice echoes the "quantum gibberish" by saying that the film shows how 40 years of quantum physics...have confirmed eastern spiritual ideas. Much of this discussion has centered around the problem that while the film tries to make that point, it's a misconception. It was said earlier that by now no one thinks that the film portrays science accurately, but I think you would find that there are many who still think so, and besides, to reframe the film as "an essay in philosophical/spiritual questions" when the entire gist of the film is to portray its own ideas as science, would be original research as I understand the term.

I saw the film when it came out, knowing nothing about it except the hype that it was a "sleeper hit" and that it had the subtitle: "A Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics." I'm interested in anything that has to do with science, especially expressed in layman's language, so I went. It didn't take more than a few minutes to realize that it wasn't about quantum physics but about quantum "flapdoodle," was that the word? but I couldn't leave because I was with someone and we were right in the middle of the row, so I was stuck having to watch the whole thing. The idea that drove the central narrative, that you can change your emotional state by thinking differently, is a solid idea in psychology; it's the basis of cognitive therapy, one of the few types of therapy that's been demonstrated to be effective. So far so good. But that's all there is to it, there's no need to invoke quantum nonsense to make the point, and the idea that you can change not only your emotional state but your physical reality by thinking, whether or not it's supported by eastern religion, is certainly not supported by science. Woonpton (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I did not say that no one thinks the film portrays science accurately. What I said was that no rational person could read any of the competing versions of this Wikipedia article and believe that the film portrays science accurately. Dlabtot (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, KWW...I think you should remember the sense of humour you had back on Jan 29 at the mediation. In retrospect, that "...ten-thousand word criticism as the lead...Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!) edit summary was, on reflection, pretty funny...as you pointed out. WNDL42 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have a sense of humor. I just find Boodle's style of humor to be incivility and an assumption of bad faith wrapped up in a clown costume. SA says "POV pusher" and gets blocked, while Boodles refers to SA as a member of the Spanish Inquisition and gets people praising how humorous his posts are.Kww (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

^ What the Bleep do We Know!? IMDb.com
^ What the Bleep Do We Know!? - Official site whatthebleep.com
^ Review of Melton, J. Gordon Finding Enlightenment: Ramtha's School of Ancient Wisdom. Beyond Words Publishing Inc. 1998 ISBN 1-885223-61-7
^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference PW was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference beliefnet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference ACS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Mone, Gregory (October 2004). "Cult Science: Dressing up mysticism as quantum physics". Popular Science. Retrieved 2006-11-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference Physics-Today was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] What the Bleep do We Know!? IMDb.com

[BOS"-2] What the Bleep Do We Know!? - Official site whatthebleep.com

[3] Review of Melton, J. Gordon Finding Enlightenment: Ramtha's School of Ancient Wisdom. Beyond Words Publishing Inc. 1998 ISBN 1-885223-61-7

[PW-4] Cite error: The named reference PW was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[beliefnet-5] Cite error: The named reference beliefnet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ACS-6] Cite error: The named reference ACS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[popsci-7] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Mone, Gregory (October 2004). "Cult Science: Dressing up mysticism as quantum physics". Popular Science. Retrieved 2006-11-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[Physics-Today-8] Cite error: The named reference Physics-Today was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]