Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removing faculty reference for now

For now I am deleting the lines referring to Hagelin'd mention of himself as faculty. It is perfectly acceptable to use the word faculty for any of the postions mentioned in the Wikipedia reference . As well professorship is usually the highest most tenured postion , but there are several other faculty positions including lecturer , researcher, assistant and associate professorships, and so on . If the writer of this section finds information indicating that this is not the case at Stanford then perhaps that could be added back to the article in this section.

"In North American English, the word "faculty" has also come to be used as a collective noun for the academic staff of a university: senior teachers, lecturers, and/or researchers.(olive 15:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

I performed some major cuts to that entire section, and some rewriting. It was way too much detail on those individuals, some of it looking very biased, some OR in there, and some of it poorly written. It still needs some work. Dreadstar ☥ 07:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Hagelin's own presidential candidate profile at [1], he was "Research Associate, Theoretical Physics Group, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, CA, 1982-1983." At the SLAC Theory Group page, [2], we see that there is a clear distinction between "Faculty and Permanent Staff" on the one hand, and "Research Associates" on the other. Surely this meets the requirement laid out above ("If the writer…" "…is not the case at Stanford…"). Just for completeness, let me establish that research associates at SLAC are indeed post-docs; see the Stanford newspaper article [3] that describes Hagelin as a post-doc. Reuqr 11:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OR in "Conflicting facts" (Factual errors)

Wow, that "Conflicting facts" section was major OR. The article needs to contain information directly about the subject printed in reliable sources. To take something the film says and find a source that contradicts that fact - but doesn't mention the subject of the article, is synthesis and OR:

Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.'

The topic of the article is "What the Bleep Do We Know!?". Read this section for further detail. Dreadstar ☥ 08:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I separated the discussion of the "Conflicting facts" section from that of the "faculty" reference Reuqr 11:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT "Conflicting facts" is currently entitled "factual errors" 1Z 19:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Factual errors is full of OR/Synthesis of published material service to advance a position. Better sourcing or removal is necessary. Dreadstar † 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article

I do not see what is being joined to what, or what position is being advanced. The factual inaccuracies section is just a list. 1Z 20:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What "position" do you see being advanced here, Dreadstar? More importantly, how is this "original research"? The movie is controversial, because it makes extraordinary claims. These sections provide factual information on critics' responses to these claims, in the interest of NPOV. I cannot see how this article can be fairly balanced if you remove this information. Bennie Noakes 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One minor correction to what you stated Bennie, the information I've tagged or removed is not critic's responses to these claims, they are general statements having no relation to the movie itself. I welcome any information that can be added to the article from critic's responses to claims made in the movie...but they must clearly be responses to the movie...else they are OR because it is then OUR response to information presented in the movie - meaning responses from Wikipedia editors. Does that help explain the synthesis that I'm seeing in the article? Dreadstar † 23:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. Let's take the first item in that section.

At the beginning of the movie, it is stated that humans only use 10% of their brains. This is incorrect: while the majority of the brain may not be active at any one moment, all of it is essential for normal function. [4].

1. The source is published by a reliable source.
2. The issue is mentioned in the movie, which is published by a reliable source.
3. The source does not discuss the issue in relation to the topic of the article (the movie)
4. An editor joined #1 and #2 to present a "factual inaccuracy" in the movie.
5. Therefore this is an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, (inaccurate movie, pseudoscience, etc...) and as such it constitutes original research. "1 and 2, therefore 3" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

While one can argue that the subject is mentioned in the article and can therefore be refuted by infomation that refutes that subject, it would be incorrect to do so. The subject of this article is the movie. The source used would be appropriate for the human brain, but not this article. We would need a source that publishes the information in relation to the movie. Dreadstar † 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So the synthesis is claiming that it that it is wrong in the movie that people use 10% of their brains. The claim "people use 10% of their brains" is not wrong in any all-embracing sense. It is not just wrong per se. The movie exists in its own epistemic bubble. A scientist cannot just prove that it is true that people use more than 10% of their brain, she has to prove that it is What The Bleep true. 1Z 21:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're starting to get the idea! For the purposes of Wikipedia, we need to provide sourced information about the subject of the article - in this case the movie. If a reliable source has published a statement or criticism that says something like "The 10% use of the human brain mentioned in the movie "Bleep" is contradicted by a scientific study that says we use 100% of our brain.", that would be acceptable to include in the article. Just taking any source unrelated to the movie that contradicts the fact, is not acceptable. It is only acceptable if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Just because it's presented as a list doesn't exempt it from Wikipedia policy.

I was trying to be sarcastic. The guidelines relate to synthesised conclusions.There is no actual synthesis in "factual errors", so they do not apply. The movie makes factually inaccurate statements, and the article correctly points this out. So there is no problem. 1Z 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that might be the case, but I preferred to answer in a manner consistent with assuming good faith and civility. You are wrong, it is clearly a conclusion to say something is a "factual error", whether it's right or wrong. It is clearly synthesis because it takes a source unrelated to the movie, and joins it together with a statement from the movie - that is the very definition of synthesis. The resulting statement, that it is a a 'factual error,' is clearly a comment being made by a Wikipedia Editor and not by a third party, reliable source. It is very clearly Original Resarch and a Synthesis of sources. I suggest you carefully study the Wikipedia Policy No Original Research that I have provided links to. Dreadstar † 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I will go through the article and find another example of OR besides that one section. Perhaps we should also open an Wikipedia:RfC or get a WP:3O on this. Dreadstar † 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Bennie Noakes 00:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Part one is done, see the bleep sandbox for more examples. Part two (RfC) is no longer necessary since the view that the content is indeed OR/Synthesis has been confirmed by an administrator on the NOR talkpage, as I indicated at the end of this subsection. Now all that needs to be done is to properly source all the OR content so it can be included in the article. Dreadstar † 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dreadstar. I find that every bullet point in Factual errors is OR. Additionally, only one point has a reliable citation. This whole section does not belong in Wikipedia. —WikiLen 00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's information, I requested clarification assistance on the WP:NOR talk page, here is the information on that request, and what needs to be done in order to keep the information being discussed here in the article: OR/Synthesis dispute. Dreadstar † 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There was another significant point made on the WP:NOR talk page, one that I probably haven't highlighted sufficiently, but this states it very well:

"That is definitely original research. Remember that OR is "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Taking inaccurate claims from the movie and comparing them to other published material (unrelated to the movie) to advance the position that the movie uses incorrect/inaccurate science is very clearly original research. It is certainly an "unpublished analysis" of the claims made in the movie. The movie has been widely reviewed and discussed. Many of the distinct claims and persons in the movie have been extensively written about. If you wish to advance the position the science in the movie is inaccurate, there are plenty of reliable sources available for such a point of view. Just be cautious to ensure that the article is balanced in proportion to the references."

The key is that the content is an "unpublished analysis" of the claims made in the movie. Dreadstar † 01:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What's "analysis"? Anything that isn't synthesis? 1Z 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

An analysis is a review of the material. Critical analysis would be a critique of the material. Synthesis#Philosophical synthesis, by comparison, is "the final result of attempts to reconcile the inherent contradiction between thesis and antithesis." One is a review, possibly critique, the other is an attempt to reconcile critiques. In terms of OR, both need to have been published. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements about quantum physics

The section Statements about quantum physics is also full of OR and needs to be properly referenced or removed. The section is appropriately tagged. Most of it has no sources at all! Dreadstar † 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is unclear and less than accurate, but not, I think, OR. 1Z 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We can figure that out. The first thing that needs to be done is to properly source all those statements, and from those sources make the information clear and accurate. That, in turn, should address the OR concerns I have raised. I took the liberty of creating a sandbox for this to be done. I look forward to the sources you can bring to that information. Here is the sandbox: Bleep sandbox - Dreadstar † 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I just wanted to give you a link to a paper entitled "100 Years of Quantum," written by renowned physicist and expert in quantum mechanics and the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) Max Tegmark of MIT. There's a paragraph in this "statements about quantum mechanics" section that rightly states that the majority of physicists in the field no longer favor the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Tegmark's paper tallies the results of an informal poll among experts in quantum mechanics. The results, found on page 6 of the paper (linked below), show that of 90 respondents, only 4 favored Copenhagen. Many Worlds got 30 votes. Of the 5 choices, the majority (50) went to none of the above/undecided. Still, the poll clearly shows a lack of confidence in Copenhagen. It also shows a strong second-place showing for Many Worlds.

The poll was conducted in July of 1999 at conference on quantum computation at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge. It would be interesting to see the results of a more recent poll (Copenhagen would probably get even less votes now.)

Tegmark's paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101077v1

Which is directly linked from (and referenced in) an article published in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448023a.html#B2

Madscribbler 11:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Other editors will need to evaluate the links and decide whether to include them; it's not something an admin can unilaterally do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But all interpretations of QM make the same predictions for outcome of experiments (except for Tegmark's Quantum Suicide Experiment, but even this is disputed). So, this is a Red Herring. Count Iblis 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify.

First, I'm referencing only the third paragraph in "Statements About Quantum Physics."

I'm not arguing with the point that most physicists don't believe in the notion of creating your own reality.

I'm merely providing evidence that most physicists who are expert in quantum mechanics don't even believe in Copenhagen. Thus, it's inappropriate to suggest that most physicists support that interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Second, as to the "red herring" of Copenhagen and MWI producing the same experimental predictions ... not so. Quantum computers can only output solutions to quantum algorithms if the Multiverse exists; they draw on the resources of other universes where other quantum computers are also performing calculations. Quantum computers operating in a lone universe functioning under Copenhagen wouldn't have the needed resources.

But David Deutsch says it much better -- and with infinitely more authority:

"Quantum computers provide irresistible evidence that the multiverse is real. One especially convincing argument is provided by quantum algorithms — even more powerful than Grover’s — which calculate more intermediate results in the course of a single computation than there are atoms in the visible universe. When a quantum computer delivers the output of such a computation, we shall know that those intermediate results must have been computed somewhere, because they were needed to produce the right answer. So I issue this challenge to those who still cling to a single-universe world view: if the universe we see around us is all there is, where are quantum computations performed? I have yet to receive a plausible reply."

-- http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/Frontiers.html

He wrote this in 1998.

See all the recent developments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing

Madscribbler 14:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

External link check

If someone could check the very last entry in the External links section to see if it's truly related to the article's subject, that would be fantastic. This is the one: Information on Buddhism and Quantum Physics, very similar ideas as What the Bleep Do We Know? Dreadstar ☥ 21:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am travelling so difficult to make this check but think you have made excellent changes to the article .... was lots of POV, synthesis and maybe OR ...Hagelin section and some others was too long, I thought, so happy to see you clean things up.(olive 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks olive! I appreciate the kind words - it was a lot of cutting! Dreadstar ☥ 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made a check on this entry. This is a personal, professional web page of Jeffrey Grupp, and does not seem to reference the film nor does it really correspond to material in the film a far as I can remeber except that it is one of numerous ways of understanding existence, matter. I don`t beleive it belongs in this article. To include it would be to open the door for almost any philosophical expalnation for existence no matter how remotely related to the film. If someone else has already dealt with this apologies.(olive 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

That's excellent Olive! I'm glad you took the time to review the link, a constructive effort! Dreadstar † 16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

More on Hagelin

While I grant that the Hagelin section was much too big (I had indeed planned to move most of it to the main Hagelin article, but just didn't get to doing it yet), let me be clear what I was trying to do. On the one hand, Hagelin's role in the film crucially depends on his physics credentials. These need defending, especially in view of articles such as the "Bleep of faith" at Salon.com [5], which refers to Hagelin as a scientist in quotes, and could generally be read as doubting his scientific credentials. In fact, Hagelin's involvement with various Maharishi projects would arguably immediately paint him as a quack in the eyes of many readers. This is why it is appropriate to establish that his credentials as a physicist are impeccable, whatever one may think of the Maharishi connections; thus I said he got his Ph.D. at Harvard, and published extensively what by all accounts is notable scientific work (the info I gave on citations and the h-index supports this latter claim). I really think that at least some of the information highlighting his mainstream physics contributions should be included in the article.

At the same time, some of Hagelin's recent activities are sufficiently unusual as to needing consideration when evaluating his credibility on subjects other than technical physics calculations. The inflated (by a factor of 2) publication count and embellished CV (see the discussion on "faculty reference" above) say even more about his attitude (at the time of filming) towards facts and evidence. Finally, the plan to teach technical aspects of string theory to undergraduates also speaks volumes about his recent state of mind (at least it should, to anyone who knows anything about string theory), and again I was just citing, with no distorsion, what was on the referenced web site. I think that a balanced view of Hagelin—and of what he says in the film—requires the mentioning of at least some of these facts also. Reuqr 11:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue in my mind is to make sure that we are just citing information. OR, synthesis of other material, becomes a sticking point. Although one may feel Hagelin is operating in an unusual way, we can't really approach the topic unless we can cite a reliable source who or which states this position. We should also note that this is biographical material on a living person and perhaps we should be scrupulous about our information and sources as is consistent with biographical articles in Wikipedia. I felt that whoever had written some of this material was an excellent writer but whose approach was more consistent with an academic paper. We are unfortunatley or fortunately somewhat more limited. Just some thoughts on this article. (olive 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

See also section

Do all of those entries in the See also section need to be there? Seems to be a lot of them. I removed some dups and some that didn't appear to be connected with the movie - but there may be more that need to be removed. Dreadstar ☥ 03:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on Ramtha claim

The claim that the ideas presented in the movie were based on Ramtha's School of Enlightenment is not backed up by the source presented, Salon.com. I admit that I may have missed it...the article on Salon is long, and somewhat difficult to read, but while it implies that everything is Ramtha-based, it does not seem to explicitly say so. As a matter of fact, the statement it quotes from the directors of the movie, is that it is not Ramtha-based. Also read through WP:LEAD for more information on what the contents of the lead section should be. Dreadstar † 06:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to look into this, as well as your other concerns. I'm sure others will too. Please don't go deleting stuff just because you don't agree with it. Bennie Noakes 01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not that I "don't agree with it", what I removed was material that violated Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Edit warring will not get your version into place, so I suggest you take your own advice and discuss before adding all this material again. Dreadstar † 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read this section. Please also read my other posts and edit summaries, I very carefully explained in great detail each change I made and why I made them. Dreadstar † 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did, but you DID NOT discuss them and achieve consensus on how the article should be presented. You simply went in and deleted all of these people's work, because, according to you, it violated Wikipedia's policies. There has to be discussion of each alleged violation, and then changes can be made as a community. Please follow established process on this. I would rather not get into a revert war with you. Bennie Noakes 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not required for removal of information that violates Wikipedia policy, in this case virtually all the information you have re-added is clearly OR/Synthesis. Dreadstar † 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clearly OR/synth, the question is currently being disputed. 1Z 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't agree, but a highly respected, veteran Wikipedia Administrator with vast experience in the relevant Wikipedia Policies responded to my plea for assistance on the WP:NOR Policy talk page by examining the disputed content then weighing in on the matter, agreeing that it indeed is OR/Synthesis that needs to be properly sourced to remain in the article. I believe that should resolve any concerns you have about the material being OR and help you move on to the next step of working to find appropriate sources per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Dreadstar † 17:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All that stuff you deleted (the Factual errors section and Controversial studies) are well-cited. It addresses important controversial aspects of this film. How is it "original research"? Bennie Noakes 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that material was not "well-cited" if was even cited at all. I believe I've thoroughly addressed your question about how it is Original Research per Wikipedia policy in the OR in Conflicting facts/Factual errors section. Now is the time to properly source it in the bleep sandbox I created, if it's possible to find such references. Dreadstar † 07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the material you removed was cited. Some could easily have been. Lack of citation is not a reason for removing material, it should be removed if it cannot be verified, ie if no citation can be found. That involves trying to find citations. 1Z 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of the material was indeed cited, however those citations did not meet the WP:NOR policy requirements and some also violated WP:Verifiability policy. None of the citations were appropriate for this article. Please go to the sandbox and focus your efforts there or elsewhere to find good sources for the material you believe should be in the article, instead of continuing to argue policy application. Dreadstar † 17:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Failed_verification may be the tag you're looking for. There are many other tags you could add to the article to mark problems you have with citations, POV, etc. instead of just deleting them. Bennie Noakes 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores the material. That is you, sir. Please do not threaten an edit war, that will get you nowhere. Dreadstar † 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note. In watching the film I learned that the lady with the thick accent was named Ramtha, period. It did not mention anyone named J.D. Knight, promote, promulgate, or prosletyze a cult, or mention warriors from Atlantis. I only learned about this from someone's OR here. I know nothing about the correlation of views between the movie and the cult, and while I find this somewhat disheartening, it doesn't require cult membership to hold the views expressed in the movie, and if they beleive in channeling Atlantean warriors, they obviously have veiws very different and beyond what the movie expresses. A link to Ramtha and/or J.D. Knight would suffice and you could use those pages to throw as much paranormal bashing contempt as you see fit. It just seems non sequitur to the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.137.241 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 July 2007

Pseudoscience

Wikipedia consideres "pseudoscience" to be a pejorative, thus requiring a high standard of sourcing from mainstream science. This is especially true for it to be placed prominently in the lead section of an article. The information recently put in the lead is already in the body of the article. Upon further review of the sourcing for that statement, it appears to be a letter posted on Physics Today org. I'm not certain that a letter is a reliable source - especially for including it as a reference for a comment in the lead section. Dreadstar † 06:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My major concern with the pseudoscience statement is that it be properly sourced and follow NPOV. Many editors have serious reservations about using a pejorative term like "pseudoscience", and we must be careful to avoid prima facie saying, in Wikipedia's editorial voice, that this movie is a pseudoscience. It needs to be adequately sourced and attributed. Plus stating that a movie is pseudoscience...well...kinda weird sounding, huh? It's a movie with acting and all that....;) Dreadstar † 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more little thing, to the editor who added the "Physics Today" reference, the reference was already there, so the edit added a duplicate reference (#2 and #13) to the references section. Just fyi. Dreadstar † 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Something that jumped out at me

" applicable only to matter on the scale of the de Broglie Wavelength."

No. Everything has a de Broglie wave, hence de Broglie wavelength, so there is no one de Broglie wavelength to have a scale. Better would be "applicable only to objects whose mass is so small that their de Broglie wavelengths are an appreciable percentage or multiple of their diameters."

For enormous macro-objects taken as a whole, the dual wave/particle nature is so far shifted to the particle side that any double-slit-type quantum experiment would require, as my link shows, a slit only 10^-31 mm wide.

Similarly, macro objects are assemblages of micro-objects, all of which, according to the Standard Model, have wave-like and particle-like properties, with the importance of the wavelike nature being dominant as your particles become smaller. The same applies to (resolution of) the superposition of states in quantum theory.

In all cases, random chance and the law of large numbers ensure that quantum differences cancel out for macro objects with a probability approaching certainty.

What makes WTBDWK pseudoscience is that it ignores the computational and manipulative requirements for inducing macro change with micro-level determination of quantum events. Ironically, the Uncertainty Principle is not their friend here, but a big part of the reason they're wrong according to the Standard Model. Even the "Choose your Own Adventure" model of a particulate soul-like consciousness choosing which of the "many worlds" paths it will follow non-randomly assigns tremendous computational abilities to the consciousness involved. You might as well embrace a religion and get it over with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarionADelgado (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 July 2007

The comment regarding the de Broglie Wavelength isn't even sourced and will probably be removed soon if it isn't properly referenced according to WP:CITE. While I agree that some or all of the subjects presented in the movie may be pseudoscience or at best a fringe or questionable science, a statement about it needs to be properly sourced and follow NPOV. I've never heard someone saying that a film is pseudoscience, even if the concepts presented therein are indeed that very thing. A subtle, but I think important difference. It's like saying a person who's presenting a pseudoscientific concept is pseudoscience..."Bob is pseudoscience because he ascribes to Time Cube theory.... Dreadstar † 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing that line will make the article more accurate. By the way, people use WTBDWK as shorthand for "the thesis of WTBDWK," just as astronomers said "Worlds In Collision" was bad science. Synechdoche is not an error, and the key difference is whether a film or book makes a serious claim or is solely fiction. MarionADelgado 07:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 12:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll probably have to wait until the current edit-warring has been addressed before we can truly make progress with this article. Dreadstar † 17:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've had the article protected to stop the edit warring. We need to discuss the issues, the primary one being the OR/Synthesis material as discussed in this section. That all needs to be sourced or removed. Dreadstar † 18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in movies

Anyone who think movies are immune from criticism on the basis of inaccuracy simply by being movies should consider the case of U-571 (film) 1Z 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No one here is saying that the movie is immune from criticism. The problem is that the article violates Wikipedia policy by containing original research, synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. The sources provided do not mention the movie at all. Dreadstar † 20:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the movie could no tbe pseudoscience was made in an edit summary. 1Z

Indeed, the ideas and concepts in the move may be pseudoscience,and the subject may be pseudoscience. But this needs to be well sourced and cited per WP:RS and WP:CITE. While I doubt anyone can legitimately call a movie a pseudoscience, the subject matter can certainly be. It's a minor point. There is so much OR/Synthesis in the article that this issue is merely a distraction from the real issues. Dreadstar † 20:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Replying to this:

...immune from criticism on the basis of inaccuracy simply by being movies...

Not quite... a movie is immune from criticism in Wikipedia articles when there is no published reliable source criticizing the movie. Actually, this is true for any claim a notable person or organization might make. Immunity, to pursue that line, comes from not being worthy of attention by critics not from being a movie. —WikiLen 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Albert quote

The film makers are apparently convinced that such a collapse would straightforwardly resuscitate the old metaphysics of God and spirit and so fourth, but they offer no reasons whatsoever for thinking that, and I cannot imagine what such a reason might be.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/02/david_albert_wh_1

1Z 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a blog, which is not a [[WP:|RS]] according to WP:V: "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." And although it's a very interesting source of information, I don't know if an online tabloid that claims to be "Seattle's only newspaper" and which pushes the envelope of science, and has such socially significant sections can be used as a Wikipedia source.  ;) - Dreadstar † 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Are movies reliable sources? 1Z 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on context. Should be a RS for itself. Read through WP:RS and the related policies and guidelines it links to. Dreadstar † 02:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox for sourcing

In case it gets lost in the above, I've created a sandbox for everyone to source the statements there: Bleep sandbox.

Dreadstar † 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have copied a fair amount of material to the sandbox, where everyone can work on sourcing, commenting, and rewriting. Hopefully this can be done in short order and in an orderly manner. Dreadstar † 03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage of double and single quotation marks

There seems to be a misunderstanding on how quotes should be applied grammatically.

Specifically use double quotes when you are quoting relevant direct text only, which cannot be rewritten or expressed in any other way. A source for the quote must be provided in the footnotes.

Also avoid coy quotation marks. Many students put quotation marks about any expression which they regard as in any way exotic or clever. For example:

The settler was really 'flummoxed' when faced with the problem of building a bark roof with an internal gutter.

This should never be done.

Single quotation marks around individual words should be used for terms coined by the author in question, and when such a word is not commonly understood by the general public. The word should be the preceded with an explanation and be sourced.

Now how this relates to the article. An example can be found in the Experts section, in the following sentence.

The most severe criticism of this film is that the ideas and theories presented are based upon the beliefs of JZ Knight[17], a medium who claims to channel a "Lemurian" warrior Ramtha who raised an army and fought against the Atlantians over 35,000 years ago.[18][19]

Grammatically there should be no double quotes around the word Lemurian (in effect there shouldn't be any), as it is incorrect.

I have stated this before however the change was reverted. Consider getting rid of the quotation marks after the article becomes unprotected. 61.68.149.210 05:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: OR/Synthesis and Reliable Sources

There is a dispute over content in this article that has been described as original research or synthesis per WP:NOR; and whether or not the references used to cite the disputed content are reliable sources per WP:RS.

• Update: See consensus note. Dreadstar † 22:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• To try and sum up this dispute, the article, including the Factual errors section, is full of OR/Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Better sourcing or removal is necessary. Additional OR/Synthesis and unsourced content from the article is contained in the Bleep sandbox, where sources should be presented and discussed.
  

• Let me repeat this comment from the WP:NOR talk page by Vassyana: "That is definitely original research. Remember that OR is "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". Taking inaccurate claims from the movie and comparing them to other published material (unrelated to the movie) to advance the position that the movie uses incorrect/inaccurate science is very clearly original research. It is certainly an "unpublished analysis" of the claims made in the movie."

For everyone's convenience, here is a short guide to the various components of this dispute thus far:

1. This policy discussion started in the OR in "Conflicting facts" (Factual errors) section of this talk page.
2. This issue has also been discussed on the WP:NOR talk page: WP:NOR OR/Synthesis dispute.
3. The Bleep sandbox is for presenting and discussing sources for the OR.

Dreadstar † 10:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New source proposal

• A new source has been proposed for referncing some of the information in the Factual errors section. I copied the relevant content from the source and placed it in each section that the source seems to address (IMHO).
• Please review the content in the bleep sandbox FE section.

Dreadstar † 05:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I reiterate my view that simply pointing out each falsehood with a reliable source indicating that the scientific consensus is that the statement is false is not OR. It is unreasonable to expect scientists to re-research each issue every time somebody releases a new falsehood, or that someone researching the human brain (for example), would have even deigned to notice this movie. Extreme caution must be used to not draw the obvious conclusions (and in some spots, the existing list does go too far), but a simple laundry list of "BLEEP says "x", consensus is "not x") is not OR. Kww 12:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kww, you are incorrect about wikipedia's original research policy. In this article about a movie you may provide claims about this movie from reliable published sources and you may illumiate those claims but not other claims with material from reliable published sources that do not discuss the movie. The point is that you can not create your own claim about the movie. Illuminating a claim by showing it to be false is creating an additional claim that is called original research in wikipedia jargon. If you can find a reliable published source that claims some claim in the movie is false then you can illuminate that with material from reliable published sources that do not discuss the movie. Editorial judgement is required when doing this. Bring in people who are not involved when needed to help with NPOV wording. Good luck. WAS 4.250 13:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kww, your argument, in essence, is that even though it might be OR it should be in the article because it is relevant — invocation of the WP:Ignore all rules rule. In particular, you seem to be saying it is important to consider it as relevant because to not do so would put advancement of knowledge in the "unreasonable" position of requiring "scientists to re-research each issue every time somebody releases a new falsehood." True, but you are asking us to violate a well established consensus; the consensus that editors are not going to take on the task of policing the truth — just too much to take on. Instead, we are going to use reliable sources to do that for us. It is not a perfect system, but does have obvious efficiencies. —WikiLen 13:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No-one is saying that RS's are not needed at all. The question is whether you need a source for the fact per se , or a source for the fact in relation to whoever or whatever gets it wrong. 1Z 13:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By WP:OR policy you definitely do need a source for the "relation" stuff that is being argued. Arguments being made here for keeping this OR stuff are ones of relevancy not ones of citing what OR policy supports — hence these arguments are an appeal to WP:Ignore all rules. The argument seemly states: ignore policy because, for this situation, policy is wrong. —WikiLen

i've long thought this article was a bit problematic regarding POV pushing. I'm glad Dreadstar has put some attention on this, and glad to see that WikiLen is contributing, given the good job that he's done on The Secret. I do think that material in the article is OR. I haven't seen the movie, but was surprised that the tone of this article seemed to serve the purpose of actively discouraging people from seeing it. Dreadstar's revision simply presented the movie and then included a criticism section that stated some of the objections. I don't think there's any point, for example, to state that the movie errs in saying that the human body is 90% water. The truth is that it's a range, depending in part on the age. The figure of 90% isn't an egregious error. To highlight it so prominently seems a violation of undue weight/synthesis/OR and to my mind only serves the purpose of pushing POV. Maybe no critic has written about that simply because it didn't seem significant.

It's nice that Dreadstar has created a forum for working out these issues rather than just engaging in edit warring. Very constructive. I'm confident that with everyone's input a better article will result. TimidGuy 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TimidGuy for your kind words. —WikiLen 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks as well, TimidGuy! Kind compliments like yours make all the work worthwhile! Dreadstar † 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite restrained. I would have included this quote from David Albert, probably the only actual scientist to appear in the movie, as a part of the introductory summary: "swarming with scientific inaccuracies, and its overall thesis is ... wildly and irresponsibly wrong.”Kww 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's going to be called a "factual errors" section, it needs to be sourced to facts for verifiability. "The story in the film may be a garbled and mis-interpreted version of an incident described in Carl Sagan's Cosmos" is clearly opinion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"...across a synaptic cleft is not entirely incorrect but may be misleading" is opinion.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"However, there is no mention of this in any of the journals of those voyages, and the oral traditions of the local population were lost in the following 150 years of Spanish rule" needs something to make that verifiable. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the real problem with this section:

Statements such as "However, there is no mention of this in any of the journals of those voyages, and the oral traditions of the local population were lost in the following 150 years of Spanish rule" implies that someone took the time to read all the journals from those voyages looking for a mention of whether or not Native Americans were able to see the ships. That's a lot of work from a research perspective. Who did it? If it was the editor who added it to the article, that's the definition of WP:OR. If it was someone else who did it, then it falls under WP:ATT. Someone did that research work and deserves to get credit for it. Wikipedia can't just steal someone's research and include it in an article without giving them credit. If I took the time to personally read through all the journals and publish my findings, I'd be seriously upset if I didn't get credit for it. On one hand it's original research. On the other hand it's not attributing someone's work to them. In either case it's against Wikipedia guidelines. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Scientists don't have to re-do research every time someone tells a falsehood notable enough to be in Wikipedia. All they would have to do is refer people to their previous research, in relation to the movie. That's all it would take for us to include it and for it to not be OR. If they haven't even bothered to do that, then the issue is simply not very notable to them. However much editors might like to refute bunk, it's a hard-and-fast rule of Wikipedia that we don't say what others have not said: we only put it together and summarize what others have stated, and make our sources clear. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Content deleted per discussion below. -- Dreadstar † 19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Just to get an idea where all the commenting editors stand on the issue of OR in the article, I thought it might be good to conduct a straw poll non-binding survey.

• This section should be for voting only, with only a brief statement explaining your position.
• Any discussion or replies to the votes and short comments here, should be made in the Straw poll comments secton below.

---

• Statement: There is content in the current article that violates WP:NOR which needs to be appropriately sourced or removed. A brief statement about content identified as OR in the Bleep sandbox would be welcome.
• Clarification:This poll is primarily meant to address the issue of the content identified as OR in the Bleep sandbox; is a majority of that content unsourced or improperly sourced OR. I have posted update notifications to everyone who has voted to make sure we are all on the same page. Dreadstar † 08:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Update: Consensus has been reached that the OR identified needs to be properly sourced or removed. Article has been unprotected and the identified problematic content has been removed. Everyone is welcome to find and present reliable new sources and content that matches the source. Please present the material on the talk pages before inserting into the article. Improperly sourced material added to the article will be removed per WP:V. Dreadstar † 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Votes

For 07	Against 01	Abstain 02

---

• Agreed - Dreadstar † 06:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - There is a lot of OR in the article, or was last time I looked. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 06:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - Per my earlier comments TimidGuy 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - I do agree that in some cases "ignore all rules" should be invoked, but it's something that is usually avoided. I see no reason to reject WP:OR guidelines in this article. It's just a movie. The movie has been critically evaluated. Just use those published critiques in the article and leave the OR out. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree Most of what is being treated as OR can be found in reviews. Unfortunately, movie reviewers don't tend to concentrate on detailed citation of why the science is bad, but just issue fairly general condemnation. I think a combination of multiple review citations saying "the purported science is preposterous", in combination with citations that don't reference the movie specifically, but do address the points made in the movie, should be permissible. It may stretch the boundaries a bit, but I don't think it veers too far into "ignore all rules" territory. Kww 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain in protest. See comments. 1Z 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC) [updated] The issue is whether the material can be sourced. That depends almost entirely on the further issue of whether the source needs to relate to the movie. It is no difficult to source what percentage of the human body is water, it is not some contentious theological or political issue. 1Z

• Agreed. I was asked to comment here. When I last looked, there was a lot of OR on the page. The best way to handle objections to material is to stick closely to what published secondary sources have said about the movie, and not to add material from sources who weren't discussing the movie, which is a classic NOR violation. Editors' own descriptions of the movie can be added so long as the descriptions aren't contentious, but wherever there is a challenge, it's best to stick to reliable, appropriate, secondary sources, which in this case would be movie reviews. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed — By Wikipedia's definition of OR this article has lots of OR. Arguments that it is not OR seem to be suggesting Wikipedia has the definition of OR wrong. Regarding WP:IAR, I am inclined to say "no" to the question of ignoring Wikipedia's OR definition via the "WP:Ignore all rules" rule — not needed to get a good article. —WikiLen 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain - I agree with Dreadstar to an extent, but I think that he's taking it too far. I'm having trouble keeping up with the multiple dialogues and 3 talk pages. There may be a legitimate policy dispute here, too. It's just too big of a mess for me to sort out yet. Bennie Noakes 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - Although I am not in a position to do much on this article at this time, my experience here was that there was a fair amount of OR, and some synthesis of material. Especially when an article becomes highly contentious; I can`t see that there is any where else to go to reach a level of workability except to stick very closely to the Wikipedia guidelines.(olive 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

Straw poll comments

• Shouldn't this be a vote on what constitutes OR? There are unsourced statements on the page. The dispute is about what would constitute a source..1Z 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - This particular poll is to establish editor's opinions on whether or not the article contains OR, not what constitutes OR - the question on what constitutes OR has been fully addressed by WP:NOR Policy. One of the main disputes has been over whether or not the identified OR does, in fact, violate NOR - we need to establish if that fundamental disagreement has been fully addressed, so we can truly move forward. Next step is to present and discuss new sources for the OR, including any necessary discussions on how policy applies to those new sources. Dreadstar † 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

it hasn't been fully addressed, there is obviously still disagreement. This is increasingly looking like an exercise in railroading. 1Z 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While the case can be made for some OR, I think that many of Dreadstar's arguments about OR, what needs to be cited, what qualifies as a reliable source, etc. are stretching credibility. This may be wikilawyering. We've already overflowed Talk to the sandbox and another sandbox. It's overwhelming, to say the least. Is it time for mediation yet? Bennie Noakes 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying who agrees and disagrees with the OR assessment is the purpose of this poll. As for mediation, I would be more than happy to participate in formal mediation! Dreadstar † 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most of what is being treated as OR can be found in reviews. Unfortunately, movie reviewers don't tend to concentrate on detailed citation of why the science is bad, but just issue fairly general condemnation. I think a combination of multiple review citations saying "the purported science is preposterous", in combination with citations that don't reference the movie specifically, but do address the points made in the movie, should be permissible. It may stretch the boundaries a bit, but I don't think it veers too far into "ignore all rules" territory. Kww 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC) <copied>

Reply - That would violate WP:NOR. Combining "citations that don't reference the movie specifically, but do address the points made in the movie," with "multiple [movie] review citations" is the very definition of synthesis and/or analysis. We can't do that. Dreadstar † 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• @KWW If this section had "detailed citation of why the science is bad", it wouldn't be OR. It has virtually no citations. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of the Ship issue, everything in the section is verifiable as a fact. OR is lack of verifiability, not lack of citations. 1Z 18:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these statements are not facts:

"the film may be a garbled and mis-interpreted version of an incident described in Carl Sagan's Cosmos"

"...across a synaptic cleft is not entirely incorrect but may be misleading"

Whose opinions are they? How would I verify that the person had that opinion? WP:ATT --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sagan comment relates to teh Ship issue, which I specifically excluded.

I am glad to say that the way synaptic clefts work is not anyone's opinion.1Z 20:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the section ("is not entirely incorrect but may be misleading") is saying that 1) they didn't get it incorrect (no factual error), and 2) that it may (possibly) be misleading. That's neither fact, nor representative of a factual error. There's not even foundation that it has mislead anyone. These types of OR fact errors are not based on facts, but someone's (unsourced) analysis of the film. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ship issue needs to be rewritten in a less POV way. The "misleading" issue claim needs to be sourced or deleted. I see no reason for deleting the whole "factual errors" section when it has never even been tagged as OR. I have abstained from the vote precisely because it is almost inevitable that there is some OR, somewhere. It is all in the details. But we cannot settle those until we agree on what counts as OR. Lack of citation is not OR. If I say Tallinn is the capital of Estonia, that is not OR, even though I did not give a source. 1Z 17:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus there's other problems with this section. The header is "Factual errors", but in the content it lists off things as "misinterpretations" of facts. That's not actually a factual error, it's a non-accepted alternate view. An example is the part where it says the animation "may be misleading". That's not a factual error. That's someone worried that the viewer might get the wrong impression. A misinterpretation of Carl Sagan's Cosmos, if it's not an original research, is still not a factual error. Both statements above are also Synthesis#Philosophical synthesis, meaning that they are offering up explanations of why there may be a factual error "misinterpretation of such and such". Synthesis, when unplublished is expressly forbidden by WP:OR guidelines. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - That's the very purpose of this poll, to garner everyone's opinion on whether the content is OR or something else. From what I understand you to be saying here, you should be voting "Disagree" and not "Abstain". You don't see OR in the content, merely uncited material. Dreadstar † 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• This poll asks the wrong question. Any OR anywhere in the article forces an "agree" response. It ignores everything but the worst case, but what is important are the boundary cases. By important I mean that they're worth discussing, as opposed to merely fixing. -- BenRG 18:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - My impression from 1Z's response above is that he disagrees with the application of WP:NOR to the current set of citations for all the content that has been identified as OR in the Bleep sandbox - or indeed, anywhere in the article. He apparently believes OR is merely a "lack of verifiability" when it is a bit more complex than that.

I believe that all the involved editors are savvy enough to recognize that this poll is mainly meant to find out everyone's opinion on the OR identified in the Bleep sandbox, it is notably mentioned in the poll's statement above. I did not want to limit the poll, however, to just the sandbox - so comment about the rest of the article can be included. Please feel free to conduct your own poll if you like! Dreadstar † 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain - I agree with Dreadstar to an extent, but I think that he's taking it too far. I'm having trouble keeping up with the multiple dialogues and 3 talk pages. There may be a legitimate policy dispute here, too. It's just too big of a mess for me to sort out yet. Bennie Noakes 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply - It's actually simple, there is only one page to present and discuss new sources for the OR in the article. That one page is the Bleep sandbox. That's it, really.

The 'third talk page' is merely for containing the comments inappropriately placed in the Bleep sandbox- which is for presenting and discussing new sources. That's all.

One of the purposes of this poll is to end the dispute over existing sources for the OR currently in the article, which will eliminate the need for the third page (which can also be eliminated by the simple expedient of everyone not continuing to discuss policy application to existing article sources on the bleep sandbox page, and confine their comments to only newly presented sources.) Simple. Dreadstar † 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability and search for truth

Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. It is not the place where truth—whatever that is—first appears or even must appear. From the official policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

This article is being driven by a search for truth. I know this is a hard pill to swallow, but please shift to a search for what is verifiable. For example, has it been published by a reliable source that "essential aspects of quantum mechanics are bypassed in the movie"? How do I go about verifying that this "essential aspects" statement is true? If you look, perhaps you can find a source saying something similar but in a much more colorful way. A little work can result in a dramatically improved article. —WikiLen 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about two completely different claims here:

1. "The movie is factually inaccurate."
2. "A reviewer, in published review of the movie, said that it was factually inaccurate."

Neither of these statements entails the other. Both of them are verifiable. The materials you need to verify the two statements are completely different. In the first case, you need a copy of the movie and a copy of the relevant scientific literature. In the second case, you need a copy of the review. A copy of a review will not do to verify the first statement unless the review cites the literature, which very few reviews do.

People like Dreadstar and WikiLen seem to be saying that the current claims, which are of the first kind, should be replaced with completely different claims of the second kind. They may be right. There are certainly POV concerns here. I'd rather see the whole section disappear. But none of this has anything to do with original research or with truth versus verifiability. We're talking about completely different kinds of information, all of it verifiable and none of it original. Please, Dreadstar, change your complaint to POV. -- BenRG 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is sourcing. There's virtually no material at all in this section sourced to anything, reliable or not. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a major sourcing problem. But I am also advising to not bother with sourcing for this purpose: "In the first case, you need a copy of the movie and a copy of the relevant scientific literature." I thank BenRG for phrasing this so well, but the policy that supports this is unfamiliar to me. Someone, please cite for me the appropriate section in a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports BenRG's "first case" statement. —WikiLen 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I can fully support adding WP:NPOV concerns to the WP:OR issues. I think Nealparr raises a good point about not viewing the story of the 'invisible ships' as a fact to be countered by other versions of the same story. I don't believe there are many facts to back up either version. It's probably better to source content that presents the story as presented in the movie, which also contains content on the 'opposing' or 'different' version(s) of that story. It shoud probably also include notable and citable opinions on the story as relates to the movie. (revised for clarity)Dreadstar † 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Invisible Ship issue should be presented in terms of conflicting interpretation, etc. The Fortean site can be used as a source. 1Z 17:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the issue can be sourced by the FT, making sure we abide by NPOV; which requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. As for the existing content in the article on this subject, see my comments on the Fortean Times proposal. Dreadstar † 18:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But no-one has yet done so. Is anyone going to make use of the new sources, I wonder? 1Z 10:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I hereby nominate you for that task! I urge everyone to propose any major content additions or changes, and any new sources for the article's content, here on the talk page first, before adding it to the article. Dreadstar † 17:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus has been reached, the protecting admin has reviewed the results and unprotected the article so the content could be removed until it is properly sourced or rewritten to reflect the source. Congratulations everyone on a fine job of discussion and collaboration! Dreadstar † 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely handled Dreadstar, I thought - smooth with litte room for personal insults and hurt.Learned a lot from observing this process.(olive 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

Most of the OR can be properly sourced and reinserted.

But since I urged one point to be pulled, as you can imagine, I agree with the consensus. MarionADelgado 10:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)