Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

Talk Page Tags
Controversial Article - Important! WikiProject Films WikiProject Oregon WikiProject Rational Skepticism Previous discussions: Archives
Wikipedia's Five Pillars

Edit warring

There has been no evidence whatsoever provided to support the assertion that there is scientific consensus for this movie. This assertion violates WP:NOR and WP:V. And the edit warring that has been utilized to keep it in place is completely unacceptable. I have tagged the assertion with a citation request, please provide sources that back this assertion in relation to this movie. Dreadstar † 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The critics of the movie represent the scientific community on all points. You never answered my question above ... if I can find references to show that the critics are in line with the scientific community on all of their objections, can the "some scientists believe" language be removed? Or are you going to call that OR again?Kww (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Critics...represent the scientific community" and "critics are in line with the scientific community". I'm not sure how that expands into scientific consensus by the scientific community. Dreadstar † 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is scientific consensus on the issues raised by critics, then there is scientific consensus against the movie. It brushes up against a WP:SYNTH violation, but the opposite technique generates an absurd result. Using the logic now governing the article, if something of little importance makes a series of completely false statements, we couldn't state that, because we could only find a handful of reliable sources that had bothered to notice it.Kww (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All that means is there is possible consensus from the critics, not scientific consensus. Even for that, we'd need a source. Dreadstar † 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read again, slowly: "If there is scientific consensus on the issues raised by critics, then there is scientific consensus against the movie". That would that the points the critics are raising are supported by scientists that have never seen the movie, i.e., that elusive "scientific consensus."Kww (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is SYNTHESIS. We can source "pseudoscience," we cannot source a scientific consensus. Nor is the whole movie pseudoscience. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely the absurd result I referenced above. The phrases "the movie misrepresents science" or "the movie contains pseudoscience" are well sourced, and do not say that every statement made in the movie is false. The only justification for a waffling phrase like "according to several scientists" is if there is some reason to believe that those "several scientists" are speaking outside of the scientific consensus on the topic that constitute their criticism. We don't have reason to suspect that.Kww (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What problem have you got with "Parts of the film that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience,"??? You've gotten your way here. It says pseudoscience. No, we can't say "balderdash" like you wanted to in the beginning, but I would think this is a very nice compromise indeed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And now there's edit warring over the fact tag. How inappropriate. Dreadstar † 19:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientific community and scientific consensus

I think that the discussion here is too focused on sources and attribution. Does the scientific community have an opinion on this movie? No. The movie isn't important enough to have any statements made by relevant societies and institutions. However, is there scientific consensus on ideas presented in the movie? Absolutely. A lot of the quantum physics leaps into consciousness and the neuroscience "power of intention" baloney is considered pseudoscience by sources who are unconcerned with the movie. Pointing out to the reader that these ideas are pseudoscientific is easy: we just need to find reliable sources that sufficiently debunk the nonsense that this particular group believes in. That's all we need to do. We don't need to make grand sweeping statements about the "movie in general" or the opinions of a nebulous community: we can just plainly state where the movie has made pseudoscientific comments. It turns out that some of the explanations of quantum mechanics aren't so terrible to begin with, and some of the explanations in the movie are actually scientifically accurate. It's just that the conclusions that are drawn are totally opposed to scientific understanding of basic ideas such as the role of observation, randomness, and the power of the mind. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, there seems to be a tendency to say things like "physicist John Doe says that the observer in quantum mechanics need not be a consciousness." This kind of direct attribution in the text is unnecessary when dealing with topics upon which there is a scientific consensus. As far as the pseudoscience that individual scientists have pointed out exists in the movie, there is consensus. We source the statements with references to individual scientists making the statements, but we do NOT have to attribute it directly to them in the text when their statements adequately reflect textbook knowledge, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about using sources which do not mention the movie- which means we trust ourselves as editors to know Quantum Mechanics well enough to know that what the movie said is the same as what the textbook is talking about. So basically, what you are saying is that we should ignore all rules -specifically the OR policy which states:

However, care should be taken to not "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

You feel we should take sources which do not mention the movie to debunk the movie- in other words, use them out of context. Is that correct? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that when someone says something like (for example) "the conscious mind affects the outcome of a quantum mechanics experiment" that is directly contradicted by scientific consensus. It is perfectly fine to say this in the article and cite a textbook that makes such a statement. The problem here is that people are using attribution to limit the plain description of scientific facts. It's like having an article on creation science that doesn't plainly describe how creation science plainly contradicts basic science facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. That's a clear violation of WP:NOR. The source needs to be talking about the subject of the article, which is the movie, "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and represent those sources accurately.". Dreadstar †

There's nothing original about it. The fact that the movie says one thing and standard texts say another is a perfectly legitimate subject for the article. Since the movie deals with subjects other than the movie itself, it is perfectly legitimate to bring in sources that discuss those subjects independent of the movie. This is something that is non-negotiable in describing fringe ideas. If you don't like it, I suggest you get ready because I will make sure that the statements made in the movie that are contrary to scientific facts are plainly described as being contradicted by scientific facts whether or not the sources which we cite the scientific facts from mention the movie. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've just described is the very definition of original research. "The fact that the movie says one thing and standard texts say another is a perfectly legitimate subject for the article. Since the movie deals with subjects other than the movie itself, it is perfectly legitimate to bring in sources that discuss those subjects independent of the movie.". No, the source must be in relation to the movie, not something the movie mentions. If there's an article on that something the movie mentions, that's the place for those sources. Dreadstar † 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is you who are confused. Let's say Paris Hilton made a movie supporting the flat earth that was notable because Paris Hilton made the movie. Now let's further say that no scientist bothered to debunk the movie itself because flat earth nonsense is well understood to be pseudoscience and there are plenty of sources which show clearly that the Earth is not flat. According to you, none of those sources would be elligible for use in sourcing plain statements of fact that Paris Hilton's hypothetical movie was scientifically inaccurate. This flies in the face of WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. We have a situation here where clear statements are made in this movie which are clearly in contradiction to scientific fact. There is no requirement to reference a critique of the movie to show this to be the case. You think differently, start an RfC. I don't have time for arguing this mundane point. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are many who would disagree with you. It's a little early for an RfC, but let me assure you that I am well aware of the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process, so you can stop repeating your exhortation. Not having time is no excuse for not engaging in a discussion to find Wikipedia:Consensus. Dreadstar † 07:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are many who would disagree with you. The point is that when there is a fact, it is a fact regardless of what article it finds itself in. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm sure there are...no question. But we'll see how other's opinions go and see what the consensus is. I'm glad to see that you do have the time to engage in discussion on this issue! Dreadstar † 08:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles

An appeal to authority?, no, those are their proper titles. Dreadstar † 06:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rarely are the Dr appellations used in such a listing. This tactic is often employed by, for example, creationists who are trying to lend false credibility to their own pseudoscience. Such pandering is unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the policy or guideline that states this? Dreadstar † 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAMES#Academic titles. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Now that makes sense. Dreadstar † 06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. SA, I was just about to congratulate you. Then I saw that you defeneded you edit with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Find something better. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, makes sense for biographies, where we can add the content that is supposed to replace the title, "Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead." So, we may be ok using the titles for each of them in this article...and it is a sourced part of the movie....perhaps there's another section of guideline that clarifies this. Dreadstar † 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding the titles back would be nothing short of POV pushing. If you don't think that this guideline applies then I encourage you to start an RfC. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if there is legitimate reason to put the titles back, then that's certainly not pov-pushing. You haven't quite proven your point on this issue, then you start throwing around accusations of pov-pushing? Bad form. Dreadstar † 07:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

C'mon. I have read the talkpage and it is clear that there are ulterior agendas at work here. Be that as it may, I haven't seen anybody give any reasons to put the titles back in. Since we have evidence from the WP:MoS that this is not done biographically, why do it here? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing how to handle the titles, if you want to contribute positively to this discussion then do so, but please stop with the accusations and insinuations. Dreadstar † 07:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're discussing how to handle the titles. It looks like no one has any reason to keep them on. So off they come! ScienceApologist (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, you've already unilaterally removed them and your sarcasm and mockery aren't really positive contributions. I'm sure there will be more opinions and statements on this issue by a larger number of editors tomorrow (or later today, depending on your time zone...I'm just off to bed shortly). Dreadstar † 07:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article is in a better state then when I started. Usually when Martin doesn't like a series of edits I can tell I'm on to something good. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not bring your feud with others to this article, your comment is just totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Dreadstar † 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a "spirit". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

wow. That is a truly sad view. Dreadstar † 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it so hard, nothing has a spirit. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

lol..oh, I see, you're talkin' supernatural and I'm talkin' team spirit, that special attitude characterizing something, esp a lively or brisk quality. That kinda spirit...heh... Dreadstar † 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be reverted back to the version before SA started his main attack on it, [1]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The very same guideline cited by ScienceApologist says that it's appropriate to use postnominal letters. So instead of saying Dr. Candace Pert, we can say Candace Pert, Ph.D. TimidGuy (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the guideline again. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do that too, because the guideline directly applies to biographies. Putting relevant academic titles within articles about other subjects is fine. Even if that guideline truly apples to non-biographical articles, you've applied only the first part of that guideline, but basically ignored the second - although adding such recommended detail to this article wouldn't be the best course of action, . I've posted it above, but I'll repeat it here: "Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.". Dreadstar † 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We cannot verify how these people obtained their academic credentials in this article, therefore we shouldn't say what these credentials are. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't? That was sorta the point, and is why we need to provide their academic titles. Can't just leave them with plain names or less than we actually can verify - and I suspect we can verify quite a bit...leaving out their credentials per the movie sources would violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Dreadstar † 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The academic titles are essentially the moviemaker's way of soapboxing and the there is no requirement that we include titles. As I said, this is exactly the same thing that creationists do in their attempts to promote their own version of pseudoscience: they trumpet the academic titles of their hosts. This serves to mask the pseudoscience present inside -- it's a bald appeal to authority. Since Wikipedia has a standard in place of not including academic titles, we should just stick to it. If the reader wants to know more about the people in the movie, let them click on the links. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so you've stated. I disagree with you, and the 'standard' is clearly for biographies. So it will probably be up to consensus, or whatever steps we need to take according to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Dreadstar † 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and not all of them have links...but I think per the movie's sources, we need to include them in this article as well. Dreadstar † 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we verify their credentials independent of the movie? Because I am skeptical of more than a few of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides what's sourced already, I'm not sure...especially when taking NOR into consideration. I don't see a problem with giving the titles as they are presented in the movie and by other reliable sources about the movie. Going outside the movie sources for "proof of credentials" to support the movie's sources statements is a very narrow NOR line to try and tread. Especially in such a contentious article. Things would go a lot smoother if we focused on the movie instead of the external disputes or analysis about the 'science' and participants.

Taking your view of 'just clicking on the links" for more information on the individuals to the next logical level, just click on the links to the individual "fringe sciences" for that detail - that way the article would quite simply avoid NOR violations altogether. There's no real need to go into the details of the 'sciences' in this article, it's a general article about a movie. I really don't see why we have to attack it so aggressively. Dreadstar † 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to tie together two very different issues. So far, the only justification I see for including the academic titles in our article is that the movie producers included them in their promotional literature. So what? We aren't in the business of promoting their film. So what other justification is there? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're all that different. And what I'm suggesting is in no way a promotion their film, we are in the business of giving information on the subject of our articles (in this case, the movie), and the participant's credentials are certainly part of that. Justification is that the content is sourced and relevant to the subject of the article...the movie. Dreadstar † 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Those credentials are a part of the reason these folks are in the film at all...so, yes, that information needs to be included. Dreadstar † 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that the credentials are part of the reason these "folks" are in the film? I mean, that's not explicitly stated anywhere. There are a lot of bits of information on the subject of our articles that we do not include. For example, we do not tell the reader how many times certain words appear in the film, what locations were used, what bit actors appeared, etc. At some point we have to decide what is editorially reasonable to include and what needs to be excluded and arguments need to be made beyond "the producers thought this bit of information was important". Part of writing a neutral encyclopedia is not letting the people who make the things we write about dictate the content of our articles (thus WP:COI). Since you clearly are not advocating that every bit of information we can possibly list about the film is worthy of inclusion here and since you have only offered an unsupported supposition that the reason these people are included in the film is because they have Dr in front of their names, then I must ask you for some confirmation of this or a different rationale. Right now you seem to have nothing more than a vague promotional agenda. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've 'only' offered? Nah, - there's more I've offered than that simple last cry for a common sense look at who would be included, I doubt a waiter who had majored in Theatre would have been invited to speak as a physicist in the documentary portions of the film. As for the rest of the mundane details you mention, they're so far off track that there's no comparison with the credentials of those chosen to speak in the documentary part of the film...that doesn't compare at all with the mundane elemements of the film, say for instance, the number rolls of gaffers tape used in the production. That would just be silly. The credentials are important information. Dreadstar † 22:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't the credentials compare with the rolls of gaffers tape? Are you prejudiced against gaffers tape? You seriously have not offered any reason why credentials are important to list about this movie. Do you have evidence that some of the "experts" (and I use that phrase liberally) do not have doctorates in unrelated fields or perhaps didn't finish their dissertations? As far as I remember, the film just lets each of the interviewees list their own "credentials". That's not a reliable source if credentials are as important as you seem to think they are. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"A vague promotional agenda", is that what you think I have? Interesting and quite untrue. As for your last statement, yes, I personally prefer duck tape....and I don't know why I would have to have the evidence you ask for, it seems irrelevant. And, as you say, "As far as I remember, the film just lets each of the interviewees list their own "credentials"", that's enough reason to include them...it's sourced by the film itself and was significant enough to be included in the film. That's it. And this statement: "That's not a reliable source if credentials are as important as you seem to think they are.", is totally irrelevant. I think you and I have about exhausted the possibilities of our two-way conversation on this issue, why don't we let others speak..if they want....maybe nobody cares but you and me. Dreadstar † 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing the participant's credentials

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 [2]. 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 [3]. ——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)

Ramtha in lead

I've just deleted what I feel is a problematic phrase in the lead: "that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics." It may put undue emphasis on Ramtha. (I just did a search on What the Bleep in Google News archives. It turned up 1,900 articles. Then added Ramtha to the search, and it turned up 96 results. So about 5 percent of the articles mention Ramtha.) And it may by misleading by implying that the featured individuals are associated with Ramtha and are parroting Ramtha philosophy, when it's likely that none of them knew about the directors' affiliation. Also, it's not clear which parts of the film repeat the beliefs of the Ramtha school. I'd like to see a source which details this. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We might just say New Age philosophy then since it is a bit broader. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just go back to the way I put it to begin with, which was NPOV? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, that wasn't NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC the fact that JZK was speaking "as Ramtha" is in the end credits of the movie itself 1Z (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of "pseudoscience" in lead

It seems that we're generally agreed on some basic premises:

• That New Age topics can be covered in Wikipedia without framing them as false or counter to mainstream
• That Bleep has a New Age theme
• That Bleep accurately presents some basic information about topics such as quantum mechanics and brain neurophysiology and chemistry
• That the movie misleads viewers in that it doesn't make clear where the science leaves off and the New Age speculation begins
• That the movie could potentially be harmful in suggesting to viewers that they won't need medication if they adopt the right mindset

Given that, I see a number of problems with the use of the word "pseudoscience" in the lead:

• Most readers are unfamiliar with the term, and hence it is meaningless to them. The term's obscurity may be illustrated, for example, by the fact that of the 1,900 articles on "What the Bleep" in Google News archives, only 9 use the word "pseudoscience"
• The term "pseudoscience" may also not be common in academic discussion of problematic hypotheses, theories, and research designs. For example, I don't recall Pennock ever using that term in his excellent book critiquing Intelligent Design
• The term distorts the representation of science in Wikipedia, by pushing science away from being a methodology toward being an ideology. Like the church labeling some ideas as heresies, so are some topics in Wikipedia labeled pseudoscience
• It would be better to simply and clearly explain what the problem is with a particular issue than merely give it a label that doesn't mean anything to a general reader

Therefore, in the lead I suggest the reader would be better served by simply making clear the basic problem in the movie rather than labeling it pseudoscience. Instead of the pseudoscience sentence, we could have something like this:

"The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas presented are scientific and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that may mislead viewers." TimidGuy (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So is it really true that using the word pseudoscience is rare in the sources? If so, are we not cherry picking the sources to use that word, instead of writing the problem out specifically? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would consider words like "tosh" and "balderdash" to be less restrained versions of that description, so, if we are cherry-picking, we are cherry-picking in the positive direction.Kww (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some problems with where you think we are generally agreed. New Age topics may not need to be portrayed as false, but they certainly must not be portrayed as true. Bleep's "accurate presentation" only serves as an precursor to a credible presentation of falsehoods ... which is what pseudoscience is all about. All pseudoscience starts out with a true foundation and makes false extrapolations. I will support dropping 'pseudoscience' if and only if you replace it with a phrase like "This movie misrepresents science", without any waffle language or vague attributions.Kww (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kww. It would be great if you could address the points that I made, and also why you would disagree with the suggested sentence that I wrote, which I believe better serves the reader than a general, vague judgmental statement. TimidGuy (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that your dislike of the word 'pseudoscience' is unjustified. It's an established term, with a specific, applicable meaning. If a reader is unfamiliar, there's a wikilink. If I was reworking your sentence, it would become The film misrepresents New Age extrapolations as science, which may mislead viewers. There really is no reason to not make a positive statement of fact.Kww (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kww, for considering a new version. Seems like your version could possibly work, but I don't see how we can get around having some sort of attribution. Would be curious what others think. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The phrase would have to be attributed otherwise it would be WP:POV and/or WP:OR.(olive (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Good point. Since it could be sourced to the PT letter and ACS review, that might satisfy NOR. But without an attribution in the text, it does seem an NPOV issue. Here's an idea: since this is a very simple and clearly defined consideration, maybe I could post a query on NPOV Talk. I'd simply ask people there whether the sentence proposed by Kww is in accord with NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do so, please point out that there is no reliable source about the science that doesn't make a similar claim.Kww (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with your basic premises; I for one do not entirely agree.

New Age topics can be covered without framing them as false, but they should, not to say must, be framed as counter to mainstream if they make claims which are contradicted by scientific knowledge. WTBleep is not merely "speculative," it is downright nonsense in the view of the people who are best qualified to know. Contrary to stereotypes, many scientists have a healthy respect for speculation or extrapolation from known facts to faint possibilities, even fanciful or non-falsifiable possibilities (viz. SETI Project, quantum suicide). But the major portion of WTBleep comprises specific claims which scientists believe to be flatly untrue.

It's not for us to say that the physicists are right and the Ramthacists are wrong, but it is for us to say, explicitly and prominently, that their views are in sharp contradiction, resulting in outright condemnation from the former of the latter. Anything less would be a lie of omission. <eleland/talkedits> 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Its all about guidelines and policies in a encyclopedic format....attribute, verify... no POV, no OR... note "Weight" and "Fringe".(olive (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Excellent points, TimidGuy and Olive. We need to avoid violating WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE, I think TimidGuy's proposed wording strikes the right balance. Dreadstar † 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, Kww and Eleland. We need to avoid POV pushing, which would be obtained by the removal of he very clear, accurate, and precise term "pseudoscience." The film's extensions --abuses of -- certain facts of QM and cognition fall neatly into that category. Naturezak (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a term that's rarely used outside Wikipedia, as I've demonstrated. Of the 1,900 articles about What the Bleep in Google News archives, only 9 use the term. My view is that this doesn't communicate much to a general reader. Kww seems open to an alternative sentence, but wants to make a statement without attribution. Eleland, your comments would suggest that you feel the judgmental statement be attributed. TimidGuy (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"What the Bleep" is widely known as a pseudoscience movie, and for good reason. There is no point in pretending otherwise. Luis Dantas (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Who's pretending? We have consensus in these discussions regarding the problematic aspects of the movie. The question is how to characterize that. Your point that it's widely known as a "pseudoscience movie" is belied by the relative obscurity of that term, as I've demonstrated. I wonder if you read my statements above that open this thread. TimidGuy (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you demonstrated that not many movie reviewers use it. It gets 943,000 Google hits, which isn't particularly obscure.Kww (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the word isn't common. Most readers don't know the meaning. If it were more common, more of the articles in Google News (which aren't just by movie reviewers) would have used the term, I would think. Again, my basic point is that "pseudoscience" doesn't communicate much in this context to a general reader and that a more precisely worded sentence would better serve our purpose of wanting to alert readers to the problematic nature of the movie. Kww, above you proposed an alternate version to the current sentence in the lead. Are you still open to the idea of an alternate version?

By the way, if you do a Google search on "What the Bleep," you get 2,540,000 results. If you add "pseudoscience" to the search, you get 4,400. That's less than two-tenths of one percent. If "pseudoscience" were a more common word, one would think that an article on Bleep would be the ideal occasion to use it. TimidGuy (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is convincing, in that "pseudoscience" is an uncommon word. "Say the movie misrepresents quantum mechanical theory" would be specific and tell the reader much more. Thus, "pseudoscience" is jargon here, and should probably be avoided. I was for it because I'm familiar with it, but in the interest of informing the general reader, we should probably be specific about the problem. Not to mention that if, in fact, pseudoscience is a polite word for "balderdash," it definitely not a word Wikipedia should contain in an unattributed sentence, except in the most egregious cases. The ArbCom set that threshold at Time cube, and Bleep does not meet that standard, nor even the standard of astrology [4], as there is no consensus we can site, as there is with astrology, and Bleep is more credible besides. So bleep can be talked about as pseusoscience, but in the interests of avoiding jargon, we should probably be more specific in the summary, and we should always attribute. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are so right. Pseudoscience is an uncommon word - and the fact that such an uncommon word should be associated with What the Bleep over 4,000 times indicates that there is a remarkable association between the two. Antelan ^talk 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, 'pseudoscience" is rarely used to characterize What the Bleep. I don't see how a frequency of less than two-tenths of one percent is "a remarkable association." Anyway, we don't want to quibble. It would be great if you could address the more general issue. As Martin says, we could be more specific about the problem. I'd really like to know what the objection is to that. Here's what the article currently says:

"Parts of the film have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience."

And here, for example, is an alternate version that's more specific:

"The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas accurately present quantum mechanics and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that may mislead viewers."

TimidGuy (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Too passive.Kww (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "too passive" means because Wikipedia is supposed to be dispassionate, and not aggressive. But if it means not informative enough, I agree. The sentence is added here because it's a notable criticism. The above doesn't really go into the criticism with enough detail, and I think the issue is that some parts of the film "misrepresent science" rather than "misleads viewers". Maybe a specific example from the sources would help, as in "...speculative, New Age extrapolations that may misrepresent science, for example... [insert example]... among others". I think that will better explain what the issue is.

I also agree with the others that "pseudoscience" adds nothing. While it is a real term that has a real meaning, the way it is actually used is as a pejorative meaning "nonsense" (if the reader is even familiar with the term). That's how it's used in the real world and that's how it's used at Wikipedia. While I'm not opposed to using the actual word here, it really would need to be used in conjunction with a better explanation of what we actually mean, like an example. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

By "too passive", I suppose I really mean "hesitant". We don't say "Mary. J. Blige is reported to be a rapper", or "War and Peace is considered to be a book", but TimidGuy always writes sentences that read that way ... Some scientists consider WTB to misrepresent ... instead of WTB misrepresents ....Kww (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Neilparr. good points. Maybe you could draft a sentence. And I think you're getting at the same point that I was, when I suggested at the beginning of this thread that the word pseudoscience is used in an odd way in Wikipedia -- as if science is an ideology and the word is used to label heresies. Kww, I believe that a judgmental statement should be attributed. The examples you give of a book and a rapper are factual statements. But saying "WTB misrepresents" is a judgmental statement, and I would think that WP:ASF would apply. TimidGuy (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That is my objection in a nutshell. You won't write it as a factual statement, when it is a factual statement. No reliable source about the science says that it accurately represents scientific fact, and the reliable sources that discuss the science go so far as to use words like "tosh" and "balderdash". It is not a judgement call anymore. It is a fact that the movie misrepresents science, and we should write the article that way. To quote WP:ASF, By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is no serious dispute. There is no serious controversy. It makes no sense to write the article in a manner that suggests there is.Kww (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely an undisputed fact that critics say it's misrepresents science, so there's no reason not to say...

The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas accurately present quantum mechanics and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that misrepresents science. A review by Physics Today, for example, summarized an illustration of the uncertainty principle portrayed in the movie as more or less correct, but criticized it for suggesting "quantum insights" or science supports "the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god."

I think that kind of explains it in a nutshell (summary style). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks, Neil. TimidGuy (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad, but I would prefer to change the "and which..." line to "and which are conjecture, New Age mysticism, or refuted by scientific evidence." Keeping with this "extrapolation" language is still too deferential towards the woo-woo craziness. <eleland/talkedits> 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a few random thoughts. Seems like we're making progress. Hope others give feedback on Neil's sentence. Kww, I do think there is controversy. If there weren't, then no one would be writing critical articles, such as the one in Physics Today. Straightforward, noncontroversial facts, like the two examples you gave, don't generally receive comment. Eleland, thanks for your input. I think New Age mysticism may be redundant. Also, I'm curious what in the movie was refuted by scientific evidence? Are there sources? Certainly the conjectures can be criticized as being unscientific and a misleading extrapolation of science, but that's not to say that science has refuted them. Note that the main sources we've been using, the Physics Today letter and ACS comment, both focus explicitly on "extrapolation," but you may have a point. TimidGuy (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea proposed in the movie that observation (quantum mechanics) is somehow related to human consciousness is incorrect. Also, the bullshit about water-crystals being affected by words, human minds being able to manipulate zero point energy, and a whole slew of other pseudoscience are fairly prominent in the movie and easy to debunk given any introductory textbook on physics, chemistry, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is that those are unsupported conclusions or speculations drawn by the film makers (pseudoscience), not ideas that have been refuted by scientific evidence (unscientific). I doubt science has either 1) done studies to see if water crystals are affected by human words, or 2) taken any study that has attempted to see if words have effect on water crystals seriously. Refute means to "disprove" a claim. Pseudoscientific claims go unrefuted all the time. While the notion of a 35,000 year old Atlantean god possessing a woman is completely and incontrovertibly not supported by science, it's hard to say it's refuted by scientific evidence as well. I've yet to see a serious scientific paper gather evidence on the existence of Atlantean gods. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Neal, you don't really seem to have that much familiarity with scientific literature, so we really need to take what you have and haven't "seen" refuted with an appropriate grain of salt. Secondly, refutation does not have to be direct. There are plain contradictions to science that are refuted in, for example, textbooks on the subjects this film purports to be about. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be wearing my t-shirt that says "scientifically illiterate" today or something, but you did say these things are refuted by introductory textbooks on physics, chemistry, etc., so hopefully you can suspend your doubt that I've read those at least. I'd be happy to agree with you if you can show me one textbook that takes the time to refute crazy New Age ideas, or better yet show me one "serious scientific paper [that] gather[s] evidence on the existence of Atlantean gods", because that's what I said I haven't seen, what you seem to think needs to be taken with a grain of salt. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read The Cosmic Code by Pagels? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does a published critic use The Cosmic Code to refute speculations made in the movie? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Answering my question with a question is silly. After all, when someone makes a plain statement of fact and that fact is contradicted plainly in a reliable source we can simply report this inconsistency. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, to answer your question with an answer, it's not exactly an unbiased book of facts you're talking about. The article on Heinz Pagels points out that "Pagels was an outspoken critic of those he believed misrepresented the discoveries and ideas of science to promote mysticism and pseudoscience". The keywords there are "he believed". What you consider to be a fact-based refutation is actually an argument from the bias of his belief that people were misrepresenting science. It's not as plain as you make it out to be. "Refuted" means disproven, not argued against. It's also horribly outdated and not widely circulated. It doesn't even have a Wikipedia article about it: The Cosmic Code. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, could you maybe address the proposed sentences for the lead that would replace the current summary sentence regarding the criticism? I feel like Neal's version above effectively summarizes the issues. User eleland liked it but suggested minor changes in wording. If you feel like the sentences are inadequate, perhaps suggest an alternative. This discussion of "refuted" is a minor quibble about eleland's proposed wording. Are you insisting we use his wording, or do you feel that Neal's version works? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Neal's wording which tries to pussyfoot around the idiocy contained in the movie. WP:SPADE is applicable. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR concerns

One more thing to consider with the above sourcing scenarios [5], [6], as long as those "introductory textbooks" and other sources mention the movie it may be ok, otherwise it would be strictly original research as it relates to the subject of this article...the movie. Dreadstar † 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, since the movie admits to be talking about science, pointing out where the movie gets it wrong and sourcing it to a textbook on the subject is not original research, it's just research. On this, I will not budge. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy and consensus on this issue disagree with you. Dreadstar † 20:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dreadstar is technically correct. We've been to RFC over this issue, and lost. The article can only use references from articles that bothered to notice that WTB is garbage. If a piece of garbage goes unnoticed by scientists, science can't be used to refute it. Truly sucks, but it is true.Kww (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have one thing to say: Hogwash. If a statement is made in a movie and it is a scientific statement there is absolutely nothing wrong with stating that it contradicts mainstream science and placing a citation to a mainstream textbook behind it. I will start an RfC on this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, what you call "wrong" is not pure and simply wrong. It is an interpretation of facts, not a fact in itself. Pagels is biased, that bias creates an interpretation of facts. Other people look at the facts and arrive at different conclusions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, everything is not up for lovey-dovey interpretation. There are statements made in the movie that flatly contradict reality. End of story. If the movie said "-1 x -1 = 1 is stupid and evil" (as another favorite bit of idiocy states) there would be no issue with stating that this sentiment flies in the face of mathematical reality. Likewise, here we are with plain statements made in the movie that are flatly wrong. Not just "interpreted" wrong. Just. Plain. Incorrect. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If a critic calls them on factual inaccuracies, great, print it. If the film makers take something like the uncertainty principle and say that it's a great metaphor for a spiritual insight, that's interpretation of facts. It's not a fact-based statement. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some critics who are in the know don't bother "calling them" on their inaccuracies because they are too stupid to warrant comment. See below. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?

For example, in "What the Bleep do we know?" the following statement is made:

"In quantum theory, you can also go backwards in time."

This statement is flatly contradicted by Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (Pure & Applied Physics) by James D. Bjorken and Sidney D. Drell which states clearly that time (or more specifically, the non-zero existence of a time-like component in time-like worldlines) is a single metric element in a Lorentzian 4-space that is orthogonal and independent to the rotations and translations of spatial parts (or more specifically the non-zero existence of space-like components in simultaneous events/space-like worldlines) of the metric. Is it really against Wikipedia policy to simply state that statements made in this movie are contradicted by mainstream science and give this as an example?

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Stephen Hawking, on the quantum level you can go backward in time. I could get you a direct quote, but that is fact. So, what are you trying to say here? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that you don't understand Stephen Hawking. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, source the statement. Who said it in the movie? Or at least verify that it was said in the movie. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just watched it in the movie. You can read it in the transcript here: [7]. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is John G. Cramer a pseudoscientist? Apparently he thinks it's possible also [8] [9] [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealparr (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical effects of retrocausality is not the same thing as "you can also go backwards in time." Don't rely on shitty science reporters to get educated about physics. That's part of the problem with this shitstorm of a movie. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The shitstorm of a movie is a speculative movie that draws similarities between quantum mechanics and spirituality. Like I already said, it's not facts, it's interpretations based on facts. The section of the movie you're quoting is a speculative illustration that occurs on a basketball court, not during an interview with an actual scientist. That should be your first clue that it's speculative. Your claim is that the movie is factually inaccurate in that it conveys "refuted" (disproven) ideas. Retrocausality is a hypothetical (speculative) idea that is currently being tested. In other words, how can it be disproven when it hasn't even been tested yet? No one is disputing that it's a shitty movie that posits pseudoscientific ideas (ideas that draw conclusions not supported by science). You're saying that it is also factually inaccurate. I'm saying what you're saying is factually inaccurate is an artistic interpretation of quantum mechanics (pseudoscience, but not factually inaccurate). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, from the circumstances and example given above, the textbooks cannot be used as a reference this way. Yes, this is a "textbook" example of unallowed original research as per WP:NOR. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How? Explain how it is original research to point out that a statement made in a movie is contradicted by a textbook. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Professor Marginalia, this is a classic case of original research. Just to be very clear - ScienceApoligist is suggesting that we add content to an article from sources not directly related to the topic of the article (in this case, a movie), thus violating WP:NOR. Using textbooks as sources is fine as long as the source is directly related to the subject of the article it is sourcing content for. Dreadstar † 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  How can you narrowly define the "subject" of the article to simply be the movie and nothing else? If we write an article about the theory of relativity, does that mean including a reference to a biography of Einstein is original research? How ridiculously fatuous can an argument get? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me first say I am not defending "What the bleep..?". The film is a piece of crap. That said, I think the example that you are citing above is essentially a new (albeit correct) criticism of the movie and falls under NOR. I don't see this as any different than editing the young earth creationism page with statements to the effect that it contradicts geology and biology textbooks. You really need a published work which is specifically critical of the movie. That shouldn't be too hard to find given its high profile. Joshua Davis (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I'm saying that there is a verifiable quote in the movie and there is a verifiable counter to it. It isn't new: it's old. The statements are contradicted because they are simply contradicted. To claim otherwise is to claim that we should not be able to write a damn thing in the encyclopedia but should instead just quote from reliable sources. This is obviously not the way to go. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is plenty at, for example, flood geology that does exactly what you are saying is WP:OR. I expect to see you over there removing statements. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see a problem with this personally. It's already done in other articles so I don't see the issue here, unless I'm missing something in WP:NOR. Hypothetically speaking, if someone made a movie with some nonsensical theory on alchemy, would it really be wrong to use books on alchemy as a source that discredits the nonsensical claim? IMO, no it's not. If this is actually against policy can someone please point me to where as I'd like to educate myself on this. Very interesting situation indeed. Could have major ramification on a lot of the global warming related articles. Elhector (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes and further comment: Ok, I just went and re-read WP:NOR. The only thing I can find there that may be an issue is the line that says "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." IMO since a topic of the film is "In quantum theory, you can also go backwards in time" and the text book is Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (Pure & Applied Physics) the text book deals directly with a topic in the film (quantum theory and mechanics). So I see no issue with this. Elhector (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The theory that a factual book on science should not be used as a cite for scientific facts strikes me as pretty bizarre. If a film were to say that Abraham Lincoln died of pneumonia at the age of 85, or that penguins live on a diet of eucalyptus leaves, it would be absolutely appropriate to include a cite (following the usual guidelines on reliable sources, of course) stating that this is not factually correct.

Citing relevant and reliable sources on factual topics is not "original research." The fact that the source in question here doesn't mention the movie is completely irrelevant -- the job of factual science books is not to discuss movies, it's to present science facts. A factual science book is exactly the type of source that one should cite in reference to a question of science fact.

In the case of quantum mechanics, I think that there is room for various theories on the subject, however it is wholly appropriate to cite a theory on the subject advanced by a reliable source.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with ScienceApologist with respect to the policy question. Assuming no confounding factors, if the movie makes a claim that contradicts the verifiable mainstream scientific view, it does not constitute original research to say as much, even if the mainstream scientists haven't directly criticized the movie. To say otherwise would undermine WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV by allowing articles on very fringe theories to be presented without a statement of the mainstream view merely because no one has bothered to directly address the theory directly. I don't know enough about the scientific question to say whether ScienceApologist's description is accurate. Fireplace (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment For those who aren't familiar with the movie, the part ScienceApologist is quoting occurs in a drammatized portion of the film that isn't part of the interviews with actual experts. It occurs on a basketball court and is meant to be illustrative, not a fully explained discourse on scientific principles. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. In my opinion, this is an online encyclopedia not a parlour game so it is not really against Wikipedia:NOR policy to simply state that statements made in a movie are contradicted by mainstream science and give appropriate citations and further reading or link to our appropriate article on the mainstream science topic.

(Whether it's relevant and appropriate to the particular movie article is another question...) Alice^✉ 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• No to the first question, and Yes to the second. Textbook example of what is WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist, that would be OR, because the textbooks you want to use have nothing to do with the film. If you feel strongly that it needs to be corrected, and you can't find a secondary source, perhaps you could add something in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• It often -very often- seems to us as editors that we should be able to cite "obviously" (as opposed to what OR means by "directly") relevant sources to contextualize, refute, or support a subject. For example, research on whether fish can feel pain seems to me quite relevant to whether a fetus can feel pain. And QM textbooks seem very relevant here. In an ideal world, with ideal people, one could allow OR. But in the presence of POV pushers, the general effect on WP of allowing any OR would be highly deleterious. It would also cause source wars, for instance, my Stephen Hawking source against SA's textbook. The guideline has stood up for a reason. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• No It is OR, the purpose of this Wikipedia article is neither to refute nor to corroborate any supposed claims made in the movie, rather the purpose of the article is present all significant viewpoints about movie that can be cited to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE concerns

Besides WP:NOR concerns, there is also WP:UNDUE to consider. The Reception section, the largest section in the article by far, is about 60% criticism of the science in the movie from sources that do not violate WP:NOR, to add even more criticism from unrelated "introductory textbooks" would make this a purely attack vehicle for the movie, violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Dreadstar † 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the content of the RfC, so I have moved it to a new section. Note that I'm simply pointing out the propriety of using textbooks as a source. I'm not saying anything about whether or not I want to add material. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect, you are suggesting that we add content to an article from sources not directly related to the topic of the article (in this case, a movie), thus violating WP:NOR. Using textbooks as sources is fine as long as the source is directly related to the subject of the article it is sourcing content for. Dreadstar † 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And you are claiming that an article about a movie that talks about quantum mechanics shouldn't have references that talk about quantum mechanics but not the movie, thus violating WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm claiming exactly what WP:NOR says. To claim UNDUE as you have, is a strawman, as I've shown above. Dreadstar † 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm claiming that you are unduly weighting the article towards the idiots at Ramtha who think that quantum mechanics explains their woo-woo beliefs. That is an inappropriate holding hostage of scientific terminology. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the movie, not quantum mechanics or water crystals forming or even Ramtha. The individual articles on those sciences or fringes can contain the information you're suggesting we add to this article. Dreadstar † 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to have a place in the article where they are mentioned so we can link to them. Same issue applies: sourcing would therefore be done by standard texts. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a concerted group of paranormal POV-pushers including User:Dreadstar, User:TimidGuy, User:Nealparr, and User:Martinphi are holding this article hostage in order to prevent meaningful information about the subject matter to be presented to the reader. I have therefore added the NPOV tag to encourage broader realization of these problems. In particular, I think that there has been a lot of good information removed from the article since July 2007 that has been excised simply to allow for a sympathetic rather than a neutral point-of-view. This is wholly unacceptable according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The scientific community owns quantum mechanics and the interpretations of it. This needs to be made clear in this article. Currently it is not. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, get off my case. You're always lumping me in with others and frankly, it's lazy and uncalled for. I'm disagreeing with you because I am unaware of anything in the film that is dis-proven by critics. Sure it's a shitty film but fair is fair and there's rules at Wikipedia for accurately conveying criticism. Calling me a POV pusher is the lamest way of getting your way. What is POV about my suggested wording?

The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas accurately present quantum mechanics and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that misrepresents science. A review by Physics Today, for example, summarized an illustration of the uncertainty principle portrayed in the movie as more or less correct, but criticized it for suggesting "quantum insights" or science supports "the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god."

Hmm, could it be that my suggested wording clearly points out that the film misrepresents science, and is properly attributed to a reliable source that is specifically about physics? The only thing I disagree with you on is your claim that things in the film are disproven. I think you're wrong. Big deal. Stop trying to discount people's opinions and WP:V your claim. In the very least, stop with the stupid personal attacks that don't doing anything to prove your point. Check the history. I've barely done anything on this article and haven't removed any criticism at all. Verify, verify, verify. So whatever your issue is with me, check it at the door and play nice. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive of current discussion

Would whoever archived the most recent posts please de-archive all the December comments pre-December 20? I think that December 20 is far too late of a date to archive. That's 1 day old. There are current discussions, including one I was having with Dreadstar, that were caught up in that archive. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 03:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)