Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. Dreadstar † 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfM was denied due to the strong disagreement made by one of the listed involved parties and the lack of response from several others. Dreadstar † 06:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Let the reader decide

After being peripherally involved in the Rfc on the lead and then following the discussions in here,( and in the larger discussions about other science related articles), I think I've hit on why the vociferous and unending battle, especially about the clunky and unreadable lead, concerns me so much, basically it's this: Let the facts speak for themselves. NPOV isn't about editors deciding what is balanced and necessary to an article, that's the readers job. The editors responsibility is to follow the guidelines and present the most reliable references he or she can that support accurately the article information. I would suggest that both sides step back and really consider this as crucial. If you are serious about this and are not just on some kind of WP:POINT making crusade, a genuine consensus will emerge. This is my final plea that you at least keep the subject summary, concise, with simple, readable language: that will invite readers to go further into the article. Keep the blanket statements about communities, whether they be scientific or New Age out of it and you will avoid this unnecessary conflict.Awotter (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Dlabtot (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Awotter, there's currently a mediation over this article if you'd like to join. I've washed my hands of it, but such insight may help: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is the view I support, although editors must make some decisions as to weight, the editor must not present material that will influence the reader especially in the lead.(olive (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

You are so right, Awotter. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how this is possible, if the LEAD is followed the way it should be. The body should have some stuff on all sides. The LEAD should summarize that.

So, if a person is inclined to see something mystical, they will take the mystical material in the LEAD and body as a reason to believe that this description affirms their prior bias. If a person is inclined to reject mysticism and those sorts of new age interpretations, they will take that part of the LEAD as confirmation of what they believe. It is impossible to write a LEAD that does not produce or potentially produce confirmation bias in one group or another, particularly if the LEAD summarizes accurately a well-written body. Can someone explain this to me?

The only other option I can imagine is to have a completely boring and bland LEAD that says something like "This is a movie that came out in X. A B and C were actors in the movie. The movie is D minutes long. The movie made E money in distribution. Some liked this movie and some did not". If you say more, you might give away some bit of information that might influence the reader in one way or another.--Filll (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that WP:LEAD says you shouldn't 'give away' information? I don't understand your point, at all. Dlabtot (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If the LEAD describes the mystical content of the film, it might cause some to be influenced unduely. If the LEAD describes the scientific skepticism, it might cause some others to be influenced unduely. But both of these should be in the LEAD by WP rules, if they are in the body. Both of these should be in the body by NPOV.

You cannot leave anything out of the LEAD to "let the reader decide for themselves" unless you want to violate the principles of WP. And any mention of anything about the film might cause some of the readers to be convinced in a direction someone does not want. I see absolutely no way to write about the film satisfying NPOV, and then produce a LEAD that describes the body, that will leave all readers to "decide for themselves". Is that clearer? If it is not, maybe you can tell me how you can write a LEAD that lets a reader decide for themselves while not having a completely bland LEAD which violates WP rules.--Filll (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Awotter, you've got it right, and your cite of WP:Let the facts speak for themselves is perfect in this context. To the extent that the LEAD is simple and straightforward, it will draw attention to the fuller treatment in the body. Anyone who is interested enough to come to Wikipedia for information on the film will then fly right past it, into the body of the article where they will find a more in-depth discussion of the film and treatment of it's topic(s) from the various POVs. Thanks Awotter, and welcome to the discussion.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am struggling to see what the problem with the lead is at the moment - the draft lead that is. It fully describes - briefly - the structure and background of the movie, its main "players", that it was successful and, briefly, that some of the "scientific" ideas in it have been criticized - which is true and one of the things that made the movie so "controversial. Indeed, it is unlikely that this movie would even be discussed here - except perhaps by its production crew - if it were not for this fact. It is not "wordy", it is not overlong, it is not over critical - unless we are to assume the wiki readership is made from "Jerry Springer" guests in which case it is no doubt a tad "complex" or "wordy". Really2012back (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Really2012back (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Association with Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

The draft associated William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, with the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, yet I can't seem to find a decent reference for this. Yes the credits [1] thank JZ Knight, but do we have any proof beyond that? --Salix alba (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Salix. I researched this heavily. William Arntz has been studying under an unnamed "buddhist teacher" associated with the school (not Ramtha) for some number of years before undertaking the movie. I've got a source where Arntz describes it, but not handy. Mark Vicente describes his pre-Bleep association with RSE in the interviews of the extended DVD release, in similar terms. Betsy Chasse states she was a strong skeptic of Ramtha when her association with the film began, still does not really believe in the "channeling" of Ramtha, but has nonetheless also taken lessons from buddhist teacher(s) at RSE.

IMHO, the "Ramtha" angle is overblown, but I agreed to include a reference to "Ramtha" in the lead I proposed, in an attempt to reach consensus. Apparently what I suggested wasn't a strong enough indictment of the film's purported "cult recruitment" angle, and I think that's one of the strong bones of contention. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some association which can be sourced then. The way the film looks to me, was that Knight got more air time than you would ever have expected, and other New Age channellers did not get any time. Why? Smells culty and spooky to me. But there is no need to really emphasize it, either. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In a recent television interview in a program called Quantum Factor - Dr.Joe Dispenza, discusses the movie, the movie's view of quantum physics, the mind/brain interaction and perception (of reality it would seem). During this he admits that he and the producers, are regular attendees at the Ramtha school, that it was not Knight that was being interviewed but the 35, 000 year old Atlantian warrior/philosopher who's name I don't remember and that the films view of science is based on this persons teaching - who's origins are, apparently, in the ancient mystery schools. Perhaps Pythagoras was right keeping some things secrete. You will find the full interview here. it only lasts 24 minutes and quotes form it would be WIKI compliant. Really2012back (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4182921805952700020&q=what+the+bleep+do+we+know+duration%3Along&total=41&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

The most important single item of information there is about a film, is, "Who made it?". It's more important than what the film is about or who starred in it or whether it is a comedy or a drama or fiction or non-fiction or something in between. Dlabtot (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An outsider's view

I've read the article and this current talk page (but not any of the previous discussion) and noticed that both the article and the discussion seem to be mixing up different versions of the film. There are at least two different versions of the film: the original 2004 release, titled WTBDWK: A Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics, and the version contained in the extended DVD released later, titled WTFDWK: Down the Rabbit Hole. But there's some question in my mind as to whether that second version is one or several possible different versions, since the jacket reads "One Movie: Infinite Possibilities" and the description says "Cutting-Edge Quantum Viewing Mode --includes hours of all-new randomized clips throughout the movie for a different experience every time you watch!" I don't even know if that's possible, but if it is, then the version I saw of that second release might be different from the version you see.

In the last two days I have watched two of the versions, the original movie and whatever version I saw of the later release; they differ substantially. For example, I was puzzled by the reference in the draft lead to the film making a claim about thought influencing "ice crystals," since I didn't remember any mention of "ice crystals" in the movie; I remembered the claim being that thought changes the actual molecular structure of water. And when I checked the original movie again, there's no mention of "ice crystals." In the later version, there's a brief interview with Emoto inserted into that section, where he talks about ice crystals; otherwise the section is the same in both versions, including this narrative: "Mr. Emoto became terribly interested in the molecular structure of water and what affects it. Now water is the most receptive of the four elements. Mr. Emoto thought perhaps it would respond to nonphysical events. --[brief, vague description of the experiments, including the inserted bit about ice crystals]-- Mr. Emoto speaks of thoughts or intents as the driving force. The science of how that actually affects the molecules is unknown except to the water molecules."

Similarly, the assertion that when Columbus arrived on new shores, the natives couldn't see the ships because they'd never seen ships before, was in the original version, but wasn't present in the later version that I saw.

Also, there was some confusion earlier on this talk page about a long narrative at the beginning of the film, about the tension between "scientific materialism" and religion; the confusion probably arose because the participants in the discussion had seen different versions of the film. The later version includes this narrative at the beginning of the film, complete with animation, but the original version doesn't.

At the same time, while some of the assertions from the earlier version don't appear in the later version, new assertions appear in the later version, including the assertion that using something called an "intention imprint electrical device," meditators can raise the pH of a substance at a distance, and that "continued use of the device conditions a space to a higher level of symmetry." Also that subjects can change the numbers generated by a random number generator by thinking hard about the numbers they want the generator to produce: if they want more 1s, the random number generator will yield more 1s, and so forth. Not only can they do it in real time, they can go backward in time and change the pattern of random numbers that were generated sometime in the past.

My point being that since the versions of the movie are different, you should probably settle on which movie you're talking about to avoid confusion.

I recommend David Albert's extended interview on Disc 1 of the later version. Woonpton (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a review of the film - it's an encyclopedia article about the film which must be based on citations to reliable sources while eschewing original research. Some of the details that you refer to as coming from the extended DVD release may therefore be original research, since unless I am mistaken, all the sources cited as references were published before the August 1, 2006 release date of the extended DVD.

I think you may have missed my point; my fault no doubt. I wasn't arguing for any of this material to be included in the article; I was simply pointing out that the versions of the movie differ substantially, so it's important to be clear which version of the movie the article is about. I listed some differences between the versions of the movie so you could see the problem without having to watch both versions to see how they differ. For example, the draft lead below says that the film claims that thought can influence ice crystals. But the original version of the film makes no mention of ice crystals; the claim made in the original film is that thought can change the molecular structure of water, which is not the same claim. It's only in the later version that ice crystals are mentioned. Another example: if the movie being described is the original version, then it wouldn't be useful to refer in the article to the discussion about scientific materialism vs religion, as one participant earlier on this page was arguing for, because that discussion occurs in the later version, not the original version. Woonpton (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the sources cited at the end of the sentence referring to "ice crystals" in both the draft lead below and the lead in the current article, just to see if sources had mentioned ice crystals even though ice crystals aren't mentioned in the film (original version). It would be an honest mistake if they had, since though the text of the film mentions thought affecting the molecular structure of water rather than the shape of ice crystals, the pictures of the water that got positive messages appear to be snowflakes or ice crystals rather than microphotographs of liquid water. So it would be reasonable to suppose that the water for those samples was frozen before the pictures were taken, even though the text doesn't say so. But I don't see mentions of ice crystals in the cited sources. I'm assuming the footnote numbers are correct. Woonpton (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand your point. In response, I was making a different point. Taking your example of the ice crystals, the line in the lead that mentions ice crystals is cited to three sources Publishers Weekly, Reel Science from ACS, and Beliefnet, but none of those sources mention ice crystals. So the word 'ice' should be changed to 'water', because that's what the ACS review talks about. Dlabtot (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So let me be sure I've got this straight. It doesn't matter what the movie actually says; what matters is what other people say it says? So if I say that it's inaccurate to say that the film claims thought affects ice crystals, since the film (in its original version) doesn't mention ice crystals, but makes the claim that thought changes the molecular structure of water, that's "original research" even though it's obtained directly from the film-- but if a secondhand source had mentioned "ice crystals," then the sentence would be considered good because it is corroborated by a secondhand source?

The particular issue at hand isn't enormously crucial of course, except as an example to illuminate the more general difficulty, because whether the actual claim is that thought affects the molecular structure of water or that thought affects how water forms ice crystals, the main point of the sentence is that the claim isn't supported by science, which is true (and sourced) in either case. Woonpton (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Woonpton.

• (1) Yes, what the movie actually says absolutely matters, especially to the extent that it presents the works and statements of living persons, we need to adhere to WP:BLP. If, for example, we know that a particular critical statement is either wrong or was applied in an overly broad way, or, our paraphrasing of a criticism is generally pejorative -- whereas the critic was speaking to an explicit instance, then the actual work trumps either or both of (a) the critics view, or (b) a biased presentation of that view. This in the same way that what a book actually says someone said clearly trumps what a book reviewer said the book said someone said. The WP:BLP issues are dicey.
• (2) The movie posits a number of things that are scientifically unfalsifiable, there is no debate I'm aware of there, and this stuff is clearly in the realm of metaphysics. The recent discussion here has largely been over where, in what contexts, and how strongly we might apply other words for "metaphysical", in light of their pejorative impact on the living persons represented in the film. Especially as regards the lead. WNDL42 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello...I don't see a clear connection between this comment and the issues being discussed in this section, but since it was addressed to me, I'll respond. Many of the assertions made in the film are definitely falsifiable, but I'm not sure falsifiability is the crucial issue here. However, metaphysics, as distinguished from science, might serve as a useful distinction in thinking about the film. Many of the ideas in the film could be described as metaphysics, but the makers of the film chose to represent them as science, and there's the difficulty.

It's not made clear in the comment what pejorative terms have been suggested as synonyms for "metaphysics," but having read through the recent discussion I can't say I've seen any terms there that seem so pejorative as to harm any living person, nor do I remember seeing even midlly pejorative terms that would qualify as reasonable synonyms for "metaphysics," so not sure what's being referred to here.Woonpton (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"So let me be sure I've got this straight. It doesn't matter what the movie actually says; what matters is what other people say it says? So if I say that it's inaccurate to say that the film claims thought affects ice crystals, since the film (in its original version) doesn't mention ice crystals, but makes the claim that thought changes the molecular structure of water, that's "original research" even though it's obtained directly from the film-- but if a secondhand source had mentioned "ice crystals," then the sentence would be considered good because it is corroborated by a secondhand source?"

Not really sure how you got that from my comment that the word "ice" should be changed to the word "water" in order to match the source being quoted, who is talking about what is in the original film, which uses the word "water". So no, you definitely don't "have it straight" when it comes to characterizing what I said. Dlabtot (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read through this section again; the chain of logic I took still seems reasonable to me. First it was implied that my descriptions of what the versions of the film actually say might be considered "original research" if any of them weren't supported by sources cited in the article. Then it was stated that since none of the sources cited in the article mention "ice crystals" the word should be changed to "water." It would take more faith in secondary sources than my lifetime of scholarship allows me to have, to assume that because a secondhand source says the original source says x, one can assume that the original source says x. Since there was no mention of the primary source in the earlier comments, I don't see how it was unreasonable to gather that I was being told that the secondhand source is the deciding factor in questions of accuracy of statements in the article, regardless of what the primary source says. I'm relieved to hear that's not what was meant, thank you. Woonpton (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Draft proposals

Draft one

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k) πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film, followed by an extended 2006 DVD release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative to assert a connection between science and spirituality. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life. Interspersed throughout the film's storyline are excerpts from interviews about subjects brought up in the narrative.

Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. The film features extensive interviews with the school's director, Judy Zebra Knight, who the film claims is channeling "Ramtha", a long dead warrior/philosopher from the mythical continent of Lemuria, who lived 35,000 years ago. A moderately low-budget independent production, the film was promoted using unusual grass-roots marketing methods and grossed over $10 million. The film opened in art-house theaters in the Western United States and won several independent film awards before being picked up by a major distributor.

The scientific community has criticized parts of the film for misleading audiences about science through misrepresentations. For example, the film asserts that quantum physics implies that "consciousness is the ground of all being" which is an implication not accepted by the scientific community but rather is a part of the New Age belief of quantum mysticism. As corollary, the film includes various pseudoscientific assertions including the idea that water molecules can be influenced by thought and that Transcendental Meditation can reduce violent crime. David Albert, a theoretical physicist who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film; Albert affirms that he does not.

V. Rracecarr

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

V.Anthon01

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

or for those not comfortable with the perjorative

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

V.olive - Version A with possible additions/addition

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

V.Kww

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

V.SlimVirgin

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

SV V.2

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

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

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

V.Wndl42

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

WNDL42 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Other suggestions

• Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience.
• Suggestion B. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.
• Suggestion C. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film
• Suggestion D. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many pseudoscientific ideas such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film
• Suggestion E. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.
• Suggestion F. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many pseudoscientific ideas such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.
• Suggestion G. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.
• Suggestion H. The film had a mixed reception, with members of the scientific community criticizing it for presenting as fact many ideas which are not supported by science such as parts of the film's presentation of quantum physics (see quantum mysticism) and ideas that ice crystals can be influenced by thought or transcendental meditation can reduce violent crime. Scientists have expressed concern that the pseudoscience found in the film has the effect of misleading the audience about science. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film when in fact he does not.

Moving forward

With the RfM rejected, I hope we can find consensus here on the talk page without the assistance of a mediator. I've collected the recent draft proposals to discuss. With the number of proposals, I suggest we move them off to a sandbox so they can be better managed. If there are no objections, I'll do this tomorrow. Dreadstar † 07:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be no consensus for any of the draft proposals above. We need to find a consensus version before implementing any of these drafts. I've created a new Bleep sandbox to discuss all these proposed versions. Dreadstar † 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to take a break from looking at this thing for a while. I'll try to be less obstinate, if people will try to bear my main concern in mind ... a lead that accurately describes the kind and level of criticism this thing has received. The phrasings that people keep coming up with make this thing sound like An Inconvenient Truth, a film which also received criticism from some scientists. That, however, was a completely different kind of thing ... most scientists that criticised it went after it for overstating its case, but acknowledged that there was a basis for its views. There were some that attacked it viciously, but those are generally considered to represent fringe views. This is a very dissimilar case, in that the praise comes form those representing fringe views, and the criticism from the mainstream is that it distorts things beyond reason and does make stuff up. That is not conveyed by "some scientists criticize ...".Kww (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I was all for some of the intros which you would have liked, except that you and others insisted that it had to just state the thing as fact, instead of attributing in some way "the film has been harshly criticized as pseudoscientific balderdash by scientists such as X" would be fine with me. Whether or not we use that wording depends on how much you want to drive the reader away. If you don't care that a moderate reader will then be inclined to discount the criticism, I don't mind putting that in- honestly, I don't mind. If you want to be most convincing, however, you will use moderate language, and I think that would make others here happier. But I am satisified with anything that adheres to the rules of WP. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And don't really care that much about unencyclopedic language unless the impression it creates will actually bias the reader relative to the subject. Using this language in this particular case will only bias the reader against the person making the criticism, and won't effect the evaluation of the movie itself: that will be left to the facts. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You've really hit on the crux of the dispute: whether the article is going to be written by following WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc., giving the reader the chance to reach the inescapable conclusion that the movie is pseudoscientific balderdash, or whether the article is going to be written with an omniscient voice, telling the reader that the movie is pseudoscientific balderdash. Dlabtot (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and WP:LEAD. Personally, I'm not as fixated on policy as on not leading the reader with anything but neutral presentation of facts. Letters from the Earth here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the film contains "balderdash", then that's what the article should say (reworded for professionalism, of course). How a hypothetical reader reacts to straight written language is their own business, not ours. Jefffire (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself an observer here rather than a participant, but in the process of observing I've given some thought to it, and I don't know how this question can be resolved. On the one hand if I were editing this page I would be arguing against the use of a word like "pseudoscience" since it's a label whose meaning isn't inherently obvious (I would prefer the phrase "not supported by science" which is unambiguous). But in order for the reader to be able to decide on their own whether the information is not supported by science, they would need to be shown how each of the claims in the movie aren't supported by science, which would probably fall outside the brief of this article. At the same time, I agree that "some scientists criticize" doesn't adequately convey the nonsupport of science for the ideas portrayed.

If the quantum mysticism article went into the beliefs contained in quantum mysticism and explained how each of them deviates from the actual findings and conclusions of quantum physics, then that article could be cited for further reading. But as it is, the quantum mysticism article isn't informative enough to help anyone understand the difference between actual quantum physics and the misformulation of "quantum physics" that has been embraced by new age practitioners and post-structuralists alike, going back at least to the Tao of Physics, and that the film is based in. This misformulation is a mishmash of superficial misreadings of terms used in quantum mechanics, unwarranted conclusions drawn from selected findings, and the like. Peter Woit (a mathematical physicist at Columbia) reviewing the later version of the film, refers to it as" the nuttiness about QM promoted by the filmmakers (the usual: entanglement=we are all connected, superposition=anything you want to be true is true)," http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=342. I think it's a major problem in academic and popular culture that this misformulation is so widely accepted as a factual account of the current state of physics,, but I don't see how an article about what is essentially a cult film is going to make any headway against that widespread misconception. At the same time, it would be a disservice to quantum physics to present the ideas in the film as scientific fact. Woonpton (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great discussion. Might I suggest that much (or most) of the film's "science" falls into areas which are (in scientific lexicon) "unfalsifiable", therefore are in the realm of "metascience" (specifically here, "metaphysics"), that the producer's description "a film for the metaphysical left" is a good start, and that from there, criticism of specific claims can be focused on specific claims? Just a thought. WNDL42 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not standard lexicon in my experience to refer to anything unfalsifiable as "metaphysics." A lot of string theory, for example, appears to be unfalsifiable, or at least extremely difficult to test, and yet most physicists still identify string theory solidly as physics, not metaphysics, as it uses the logic and approach to knowledge used by science and, like other theories in physics, is based on mathematical logic and proof. So no, as I've already said in a discussion above, I don't think falsifiability is the crucial distinction between science and metaphysics. Instead, the distinction has to do with how one approaches, obtains and evaluates information. Woonpton (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, no "bright line"...agreed. Can we agree that all metascience is by definition, "unfalsifiable by currently available or seriously proposed experimental means"? Therefore then "the domains of science where unfalsifiability is encountered are sometimes exploited by..." (fill in your favorite name for "mystics")? I think that is the key area on which the current debate is centered. Time to unindent... WNDL42 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• ...(continuing rply to woonpton, and apologizing in advance if I'm restating here -- not sure what's been archived on this)

We have been looking for agreement on the right words to use in characterizing both the "science" and the "scientists" in the lead section of the article. This to satisfy concerns of some editors that these need to be characterized as pejoratively as possible right up front, so as to "make sure" that no one confuses the "metaphysical" and the "mystical" with "hard science". I would add that other scientists frequently refer (for example) to John Wheeler as "almost metaphysical". The (meta)scientists in the movie and the (meta)science presented run the gamut from the metaphysical "wheeler-ish" to the mystical "quantum flapdoodle-ish". So I think that metaphysical is a good word to describe those somewhat-less-flapdoodle-ish scientific POV's that are in play in the movie. If we think of Wheeler as the "Metaphysical right", then Arntz' characterization; "a film for the metaphysical left" is spot on in that context. I'm not sure why that characterization has been so strongly resisted for the lead.

I'd offer this lightweight analysis of published works from the Google Scholar physics database to support the use of the word. An especially relevant hit from this query is (because he is both in the movie and a critic) David Z. Albert's book titled "Elementary Quantum Metaphysics".

I think we can either (a) make use of the word "metaphysical" to solve this, or (b) strip the lead of contentious and pejorative language (the "two sentence lead" proposal) and then present the criticisms in the following sections. I'd offer this lightweight analysis of published works from the Google Scholar database to support the use of the word. An especially relevant hit from this query is (because he is both in the movie and a critic) David Z. Albert's book titled "Elementary Quantum Metaphysics". Thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) If you're asking me, I don't find either (a) or (b) to be a very satisfactory solution. (2) I don't consider google counts to be a valid form of scholarship, but be that as it may, it's not germane to the point that David Albert wrote a book called "Elementary Quantum Metaphysics" since it's obvious from his interviews (both on the movie disks and in the media) that his use of the term "metaphysics"would be at odds with the way you're suggesting it be used. His remarks about the first version of the movie are well known and have been cited in the article (at least the last version that I saw). Even though he agreed to appear in the second version of the movie (specifying approval rights over how his material was edited and presented), his view of the second version is equally negative. He told one interviewer, "I have seen the second film. It is swarming with scientific inaccuracies, and its overall thesis is (in my opinion) wildly and irresponsibly wrong." The rest of this section of the interview is instructive and I recommend it to interested readers http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/02/david_albert_wh_1 as well as his lengthy interview on the special features section of the extended DVD. (3) I've just realized that you are probably the same person as riverguy whose contributions to the earlier discussions I've seen. I don't see any purpose in our continuing this conversation, as doesn't further (in my opinion) the discussion at hand about how to fix the page, just detracts from that effort by introducing and rehashing new versions of the same arguments that people have been struggling with long before I arrived here. Woonpton (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your approach of stripping pejorative language fails to take into account that the majority of our reliable sources use pejorative language in describing the science in this film. Those that don't use pejorative language still make strongly negative comments, just dressed up in polite language. The lead must represent the scientific treatment in this film in a negative light, because our sources describe the science in this film in a negative light. Neutrality doesn't mean that we miscast our sources to appear neutral, it means that we neutrally describe what our sources say.Kww (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello all. I would like to suggest that a completely uninvolved person (me) go over the article and make it as NPOV as possible. What would you all think of that? I have this sense that, reading over the discussions and the rejected mediation, that if something like this isn't done, then it'll end up in ArbCom and people will get sanctioned. Just a thought. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What a brave good person you are. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it and good luck. Dlabtot (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do. All else has failed. Very, very generous of you.(olive (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm onboard with Keilana's offer. Dreadstar † 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, count me in and thanks Keilana. WNDL42 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make your suggestions and we'll comment on them. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're rejecting her offer as given and accepted above? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm accepting her help and have encouraged her to offer suggestions. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: Keilana offered as a neutral editor to "NPOV" the article. Five editors agree with that.One editor suggests making suggestions and comments. I'd like to suggest that making suggestions and comments is pretty dead end on this article given the history of debate/ mediation on the article, and that Keilana's suggestion offers the simplest and most obvious, neutral way to make progress. If she wants to go ahead with this ratio of "agree" to "disagree" on her suggestion, I would like to have her go ahead, and wonder how other editors feel. I have difficulty understanding why this offer cannot be accepted, since I assume we all want to make the article neutral per Wikipedia, and as we have a generous, neutral editor waiting in the wings who will make a start on this.(olive (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

I would appreciate understanding, if possible, what the objections might be to Keilana's suggestion.(olive (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm not convinced that any single editor can get the article to NPOV through isolated actions of their own design. That's simply not how NPOV is arrived at. I'll also note that plenty of outside editors have had input into this process and have quickly found themselves settling to one "side" or another. Just because someone says they're neutral doesn't mean they will be neutral. Please read WP:NPOV and meditate on the fact that it is impossible for any one editor to embody NPOV completely. I welcome the addition of Keilana to the discussion, but note that many of the issues related to the pseudoscientific claims made in the film need to be carefully addressed. We have had a history on this page of people hoping to remove most of the discussion of the pseudoscience in the film. I'm holding out hope to return to the better version of this article that was present before certain editors arrived and started removing verifiable and neutral content wholesale. I see many of these people who have actively obstructed moving toward a better article on the film agreeing to this because I'm fairly certain that they are concerned that the older version of the article will be the one that other editors will find better to work from. Rather, they would prefer if one editor who has no idea of the history of this article would ignore this history and begin to edit from the rather tortured state the article currently enjoys. No, I'd prefer to continue discussing the fact that we need to revert to an older version and begin the process of sourcing. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Which version? Please give diff. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I will. Dreadstar archived the suggestion already. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad. Yes, I am one of those editors and I have "meditated" on NPOV - cute. You might assume good faith with these editors since they have all put aside whatever their suggestions might be to put this in the hands of a neutral editor. What's to lose. An edit isn't definitive, its a start. I see nothing in the history of discussion on this article that indicates that there is any solution to creating neutrality in this article. Noting that no editor is completely neutral seems a side step to the real issue, and is like saying snakes have scales. How can holding out for a "better, older" version be construed as neutral. SA this article is deadlocked on a very fundamental issue, and unless someone comes in to edit who has not been involved we are in for another session of frustration.(olive (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm happy to have her try, but nothing can make someone accept her results. I always worry when someone comes in cold, because while we all want an NPOV article, I know that what ScienceApologist believes constitutes an NPOV is a little bit different from mine, and what we think is neutral is pretty radically different from what some other editors think is neutral. When I look back through Keilana's edit history, I don't see any experience with fringe articles, so I can't commit to accepting her results.Kww (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, happy to see her ideas, but suggest she focus on the "lead" (that's where we got locked up). We have a generous offer on the table, a nice clean summary of all the lead proposals, and I can think of nothing better now than to have an outside proposal for the lead that we can talk about. All of the lead proposals so far come from "involved" editors, and Keilana's idea might just present an option that none of us would have come up with on our own. WNDL42 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone doesn't wish for me to work with the article, I'll bow out. You all are more involved in the article, and I understand if you do not want me to upset a balance. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's something to think about. How about if I put my version of the lead in a subpage, and you all can work out details and decide for yourself. Would that work? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

there are so many versions already... maybe you should just try editing the article, once it's unprotected... Dlabtot (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why a neutral and experienced editor shouldn't edit the article directly. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask what previous version is being held up as the best, and decide if you want to work from that one. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I support Keilana giving it a go, whether it's done on the main page, or a subpage. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keilana for your patience, as we work this out. Martin may have a good point.Such a solution might satisfy all editors. Any thoughts from other editors.(olive (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Well, as far as I can see Keilana is amongst Wikipedia's busiest and hardest working editors and a fair and light-handed admin. Let her decide how or whether to contribute and let's be welcoming and grateful that she's even willing to step into this (frankly) increasingly childish food-fight over a silly friggin pop-culture movie. Forgive me for being friggin WP:BLUNT, but the idea that we are unable to get our friggin collective heads out of our friggin collective rectums and accept a generous offer from from Keilana is friggin surreal. Jeez, please accept my apologies, but a quart of hi-grade double IPA helps this bullshit go down, and is reflected in my response. WNDL42 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Indeed. There are at least five editors who agreed to just that. Lets be very clear on that.(olive (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Yes, we have consensus on this. Go ahead Keilana. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have consensus. We have consensus for Keilana to offer her suggestions. I'm sick and tired of false claims of consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) the only one objecting to the idea of having an uninvolved editor edit this article? Consensus does not require unanimity. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs), you say she should only 'offer suggestions'... who then, will be given your permission to actually edit the article? Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the big deal?? Anyone can edit the article, Keilana included. Go ahead, no permission needed. But no one gets carte blanche--the edits will not be regarded as set in stone. If everyone likes the changes, great. If the consensus is that the changes are not good, they won't stand. Rracecarr (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: 6 editors have given their permission for Keilana to edit the article for NPOV. 3 editors have asked that she offer suggestions (as I understand their statements). This is not a consensus for offer of suggestions, and this is a agreement among the majority of editors for NPOV editing by Keilana. Consensus does not require unanaminity....

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. The following description of consensus, from the mailing list, argues a difference between consensus and unanimity:

I am not suggesting that there is a consensus for outcome of Keilana's action, but this is a consensus for the action to take place. Whether Keilana wishes to move on this, given that not all editors are in agreement is another issue. I personally feel somewhat embarassed that she could have even been placed in this position, when such decision should have been made by the editors on this article. (olive (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Given that what I was planning to do is evidently controversial, I will compromise and place my version of the lead (and if anyone wants, the whole article) on a subpage, Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Keilana's proposal, as soon as I'm finished with it. Please discuss it on that talk page, with a link here, it may make things less confusing. Regards to all, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put a first draft up there, please tell me what you think of it. Nota bene, the reference formatting was a mess, I fixed that in my version, but whether or not it's accepted, I will go in and fix the formatting, as bad formatting drives me nuts. It is just a first draft, please comment and point out any biased bits, I tried to make it as neutral as possible. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Keilana. This seems to be a good solution and possibly the only solution at this moment(olive (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Here's a better version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Above section copied from this section of the archives. Dreadstar † 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the version re^3-proposed by SA has been "done-to-death" and is not acceptable. Time to move on. If a picture of the policy is necessary to see that we ARE going in circles, please see WP:CCC, the flow chart may be helpful. WNDL42 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good version. It includes a lot of information that was excised for dubious reasons. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, a single editor has this discussion stalled at the "find a reasonable (if tempororary) compromise" stage. WNDL42 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there are other editors above who have agreed with me. Don't mischaracterize the discussion, please. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, imagined or real, can change. Post the diffs, and make them recent, please. WNDL42 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's consensus for SA's version, but it isn't unsupported. I would put it in my top three.Kww (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The version full of OR which we changed a long time ago will not do. Per SlimVirgin. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the version has things that aren't properly sourced, but there is no OR. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for disputed lead

Please provide evidence of the claim of consensus for this disputed edit. Dreadstar † 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll note through the last month of discussions, people from all sides of the issue helped draft an intro which is listed as draft one above. Note that Dreadstar opted out of these discussions. Now dreadstar is reverting the issue claiming that there is no "consensus". Sorry, dreadstar, if you refuse to involve yourself in a discussion, you can't claim there isn't consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) There is no consensus in support of your lead, and (2), what part of this talk page's header is unclear? WNDL42 (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, the only thing that could be construed even tangentially as "agreement" here was "Aside from the lead issues the version linked to by SA looks pretty informative and NPOV to me". What part of "aside from the lead" is unclear? WNDL42 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, I indicated my disagreement with that version of the lead yesterday. You didn't say a word about this purported consensus then. Additionally, I certainly don't see where consensus was found for the version you are now trying to edit war into place. In any case, if lack of consensus wasn't apparent before, it certainly should be now. Dreadstar † 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let it be lodged now. I think that there is consensus on draft one. Do you see any evidence to the contrary? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I see evidence to the contrary, as evidenced by the comments from several editors on this talk page and by the reverts to your non-consensus change. Clearly disputed, clearly no consensus on draft one. Dreadstar † 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I see consensus on draft one being ignored by people who refused to take part in the discussion when draft one was being workshopped. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll note through the last month of discussions, people from all sides of the issue helped draft an intro which is listed as draft one above. Note that Dreadstar opted out of these discussions.

I don't believe that is an accurate characterization of these discussions. In fact, the idea that SA's version was the draft which we should all be working on was the subject of vigorous disagreement from several editors, a discussion that ultimately led to SA being blocked for violation of his ArbCom sanctions. Dlabtot (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that the objections were primarily to the concept of workshopping it, not to using SA's draft. Since the link you gave above was to a discussion closed by an administrator that rejected the complaint and did not sanction SA in any way, I have to ask why you characterised the link as him being blocked for violation of his ArbCom sanctions? I see that you and he were both blocked for deciding to edit-war on an ArbCom enforcement page ... a battlefield whose choice illustrates questionable judgement on both of your parts.Kww (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just copied the url that Revolving Bugbear (talk · contribs) put in SA's block log at the time of the block on January 20. In a completely unrelated block that was applied to both SA and myself on February 6, you are entirely correct that I exercised poor judgement by edit warring. The block was entirely justified, I'm sorry for the behavior that led to the block, and I firmly intend to not repeat that behavior.Dlabtot (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, you've asserted consensus repeatedly, been asked politely each time to post diffs in support of your assertion, and have refused. You need to WP:PROVEIT, and argumentum ad infinitum as Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. WNDL42 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Since ever bit from the lead is fully sourced and cited, WP:PROVEIT is satisfied. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion of a consensus is synthesis, original research, and as you are the Primary Source of this assertion, you need to post the diffs you've been asked for, providing recent secondary sources that outweigh the opinions on this talk page. WNDL42 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty weird. Are you trying to make the talkpage into an article? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't support SA's draft, nor am I aware that there was any kind of consensus.I have been keeping track of the discussion and frankly felt no need to again and again hash through the same points, and hoped that resolution might come through a mediation or later through Keilana's help. Sourcing and citing does not necessarily address NPOV problems.(olive (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Olive, forgive me, but you have yet to explain why you don't support my draft. I note that you helped write my draft, so it seems a little strange that you now turn around and say you don't support it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen Loo give a number of reasons here, so why are you personally accusing her via "you have yet to explain why"? Seems like badgering. WNDL42 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the one badgering here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, if you'll remember, I declined to help you write your draft because I didn't agree with your methods of work shopping. I suspect you are misinformed. I will reiterate, I do not support this draft, and you will understand of course that I do not have to explain anything, unless you and the other editors want to sit through a boring rehash of all of the arguments on this lead. Since I don't intend to subject any one to this, you can assume that I have multiple reason as do the other editors, easily seen in the past discussions on this page should you wish to review them.(olive (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Surprise, surprise, more stonewalling. What a sham(e). ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus on any draft, certainly not draft 1. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus on draft 1. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Old version of the intro

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k) πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film, followed by an extended 2006 DVD release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative to assert a connection between science and spirituality. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life. Interspersed throughout the film's storyline are relevant excerpts from the interviews.

Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. The film features extensive interviews with the school's director, Judy Zebra Knight, claiming she channels "Ramtha," a long dead warrior/philosopher who lived in the mythical continent of Lemuria 35,000 years ago. A moderately low-budget independent production, the film was promoted using unusual grass-roots marketing methods and opened in art-house theaters in the western United States, winning several independent film awards before being picked up by a major distributor and eventually grossing over $10 million.

The scientific community has criticized parts of the film for misleading audiences about science through misrepresentations. For example, the film asserts that quantum physics implies that "consciousness is the ground of all being"; this idea is part of the New Age belief of quantum mysticism, which is not accepted by the scientific community. The film also includes more specific pseudoscientific assertions: it implies that water molecules can be influenced by thought and that Transcendental Meditation can reduce violent crime. David Albert, a theoretical physicist who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film. Rracecarr (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rracecarr,

Welcome to the silly nonsense here at WTBDWK!! Reposting this disputed lead, while not at all helpful at this point, provides an opportunity to summarize a tiny subset of the the disputed areas. (1) Plot line is not a notable aspect of the film. (2) Undue weight to Ramtha (3) generally pejorative and unencyclopedic tone (4) about a dozen or more objections above, which reflect the consensus of a large group of good-faith editors. This intro is and has been "dead in the water" for a long time now, and is further inappropriate here because it has become a "bone of contention". There will be nothing gained from jumping in cold and "pushing" this lead. On the other hand, welcome to the discussion! WNDL42 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not see it as helpful, but I was in the process of tweaking it when you reverted to the previous version, for the third time in half an hour (for someone so free with 3RR warnings, you skate close to the line). I put it here so that I could massage it without it disappearing. Rracecarr (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The recommended practice for working on and developing an article or draft version is to place it in a user subpage, then if you want help or comments, you can post a link to it on the article or user talk pages. If you like I can create one for you. Dreadstar † 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to move it to a subpage, that's fine, although I think I'm done tweaking it, and it seems to be generating some discussion here. Rracecarr (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you didn't intentionally step into it, I'm sure it was just a coincidence that your revert was identical to SA's previous two, and that all three identical reverts; SA(1), SA(2) and RC(3) all happened within a total elapsed time of 28 minutes, immediately after the article was unprotected. ;-) WNDL42 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, Wndl42. Generally, it's not considered civil to strikethrough someone else's post without their permission. I have undone that provocative move. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) Rracecarr didn't post here other than to repost an old lead he copied and pasted, but didn't write, so (b) none of Rracecarrs words were struck because he didn't say anything here, therefore invocation of WP:CIVIL is frivolous. WNDL42 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that these assertions: "(1) Plot line is not a notable aspect of the film. (2) Undue weight to Ramtha " have achieved any type of consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would even argue that we don't give enough weight to Ramtha. Furthermore, its tone isn't 'pejorative' at all. Of the leads we had and discussed, it's one of the more reasonable ones.Kww (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot and Kww, that's why we need to work toward consensus.  ;-)

We could have spent the last two weeks in mediation discussing calmly under adult supervision. WNDL42 (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What the Bleep are ya all Upset About?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Boodlesthecat does have a point in that the film works best as a an essay in a philosophical/spiritual questions: who are we? what is reality? As such it draws on well established on concepts common to many eastern traditions. Indeed Descartes' Cogito ergo sum touches on similar questions: how do I know that the world is not an illusion created by a deceiving god or an evil demon? Where the film fails is in trying to justify these ideas through recourse to quantum mechanics. Taken as a metaphor this would be fine, our understanding of the workings of the mind through history have largely been drawn from metaphors from the prevailing science/technology, from a clockwork metaphor to todays digital computer metaphor. However the film posits these are more than just metaphor and strays into the world of quantum gibberish reminiscent of Penrose's Shadows of the Mind. I think the village voice review nicely captures the spiritual point of view in the film[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh I'm a clown? I amuuuuuse you? :) Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles did not single out anyone, and the comparison has been invoked before, by a number of editors, and stating here what you do or do not find humorous is fine from your POV, just keep it civil, ok? WNDL42 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets just knock off the "humour", and get back to work. Adding 'just kidding' after uncivil remarks doesn't make them civil. Jefffire (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I am little bit curious though about why this (essentially a humourous application of WP:SPADE) is seen as a problem here -- in the context of the rampant historical toleration of incivility on this talk page; utterly non-humourous deprecation of editors ad nauseum, failures to AGF and endless name-calling, and on down the line. If Boodles got a big round of applause, it's because he asked the right question, and with impeccably good humour and decorum, he illustrated the nature of the problem here perfectly. WNDL42 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets not go down the road of Tu quoque, and end this here. It was funny to start with, now it isn't and leaves a distinctly acerbic taste. Jefffire (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

= A return tos eriousness

guys come on

Yes, sorry, you're right, you kids go back to playing nicely with each other like you were before I disturbed you. Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We might be able to get something done for the next few days, I guess. Why not let Kielana edit the article direct? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's protected. Dreadstar set up a sandbox ... she is free to use that.Kww (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if we all agree to let her edit the article with no edit warring by anyone, we can get it unprotected. I agree to it. Dreadstar † 06:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if she edits the article. Something need to happen so things can move ahead.(olive (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

I see no reason not to just let her use the sandbox.Kww (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way I noticed a post has disappeared. If this was intentional I would like to suggest that it is inappropriate to remove posts from this page. Since the post was mine, I suggested in that post that Boodles makes some good points, and found his methods of stating so, funny. His methods are somewhat unusual by Wikipedia standards but are an improvement over the lack of civility and sometimes foul language that has graced the discussion on this article.I am not attached to the post by any means but am attached to leaving all of the discussions in place on this page.

i have no rpoblem with what Boodlesthecat said in fact i sagreed with most of it but i was worried that peopel were going to start spending more time yelling at him than actually looking at the article, a state of affairs whih has afflicted other such articles ass Hoemopathy and others. Smith Jones (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Smith, the thing we're trying to do is to none of use edit the article. None of us should edit it, in order to give Kielana a chance. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote yesterday (it didn't get saved, apparently) to ask for clarification about why the article had been unprotected, whether it had been unprotected for Kielana to edit, or whether it had been unprotected for anyone to edit. I don't think there's been enough discussion and agreement here to merit unprotection for general editing, but it wasn't clear to me whether Kielana intended to edit the page or not. At any rate, I didn't see consensus for her editing the article directly, nor do I see her voice above offering to do so, and the edit summary where she unprotected the article looked as if she was handing it back to the editors here.

I think there need to be some understandings or it's just going to end up the same way it has before. That "joke" was especially uncivil and unhelpful; it ridiculed an entire group of editors here at a time when feelings were already raw. It was a move away from, rather than a move toward harmony and respect and understanding, which are very much needed here now. Woonpton (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I'll explain my motives. If there is a general consensus for me to implement my version here, I will do so, happily, then leave the details of it to those of you who are so much more intimately familiar with the situation here. (My version is located at Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Keilana's proposal.) I unprotected the article to see if anything constructive would come out of it, to, if there were consensus, allow me to implement my proposal. I think there've been mixed results, ScienceApologist, if I understand correctly, implemented his version without discussion. That shouldn't have been done. However, some productive work did take place stylistically, and that's a start. Again, if you want me to edit, I'll edit. If you don't, I'll leave it to you. Regards to all, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your version and would like to see it implemented. TimidGuy (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

TimidGuy, in what specific ways does Kielana's version differ from the current version, that makes you feel that it would be an improvement over what's there now? I've been studying the two side by side; I don't see that much difference between them in the basic content and tone. The current version is clearer in some respects ("macroscopic entities" in K's version is confusing, for example, and the distinction between New Age experts and experts holding doctorates in their fields is a false distinction) and includes some fixes that are missing or uncorrected in K's version, like the 2006 revision of the movie and "water molecules." I think it would be more helpful to say what specifically you would want to change about the current version that is better in K's version, than to make a blanket statement that you'd like what's there now to be replaced with Kielana's version. I don't think it matters which version is used as a start, as long as it gets done. Why not focus on reaching consensus on specific things rather than worrying about "whose" version is implemented? Woonpton (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing the lead

Hi all, I changed the lead to draft one as it looked like discussion was moribund. I would love comments on the draft. What do people want to see changed? Please be BOLD and edit things around so we can see what are the sticking points and what is the stuff we can keep.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See my offer of help on the 'expert withdrawal' page. I tried to do some work (mainly stylistic aimed at preserving a neutral encyclopedic tone) but this page apparently cannot be edited. Why? The Rationalist (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's "semi-protected". You need to be an "old user" before you can edit it. I think that means your account has to be more than a few days old. Place your edits on the talkpage and I'll add them for you. Alternatively, you can ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP. I don't think semi-protection in this case is appropriate. There aren't very many instances of anon vandalism here. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment here about the lead, that I subsequently realized was inaccurate and deleted it. Can I do that, or do I need to leave the comment intact and clarify in a subsequent post? Would appreciate guidance on that, as I'm not clear, even after reading the instruction pages, whether one can delete one's own contribution on talk pages, either article talk pages or user talk pages.Woonpton (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Some edits + comments

1. The ‘Channeling’ link takes you a disambiguation page. Clearly the ‘process that constrains the path of a charged particle in a crystalline solid’ is not meant, nor is ‘the act of legally making one entity responsible for an event, and thereby dismissing other parties from liability for an event’ but I suspect ‘a form of relationship some people say they have with spirits’ is. I had meant to change the link so it went straight to that page.

2. The section called ‘Synopsis’ is ugly. For example, it tags the phrase ‘with connections to neuroscience and quantum physics’. The grammar of this is poor (it is not clear whether ‘with’ is governed by ‘blend’ or by ‘present’, so it comes across as incoherent. Is it trying to say that the film presents views about the physical universe and human life within it, and about neuroscience and quantum physics?

3. ‘Filmed in Portland’ does not belong in the ‘synopsis’ section, unless the film is ‘set’ in Portland.

4. Lots of other things like this – things easier to do rather than describe on a talk page!

5. Also having followed the links there is a lot of silly nonsense there that Mr Rationalist views with horror and loathing. Oh well.

The Rationalist (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a request for unprotection here: WP:RFPP#What the Bleep Do We Know!?. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Test edit to see if this goes on the watchlist. The Rationalist (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Version: edited per WP:Lead

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k) πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film, followed by an extended 2006 DVD release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative to assert a connection between science and spirituality. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life. Interspersed throughout the film's storyline are relevant excerpts from the interviews.

Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. The film features extensive interviews with the school's director, Judy Zebra Knight. A moderately low-budget independent production, the film was promoted using unusual grass-roots marketing methods and opened in art-house theaters in the western United States, winning several independent film awards before being picked up by a major distributor and eventually grossing over $10 million.

The scientific community has criticized parts of the film for misleading audiences about science through misrepresentations. For example, David Albert, a theoretical physicist who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film.

Removed more specific material that would be best in the body of the article if its notable enough. Removed information beginning with "it implies". If its "implication" it would seem to be unencyclopedic.

Would remove below as OR as it is worded now , and would question the specificity and notability of this inclusion in the lead. If it is notable put it into the body of the article, where it can be elaborated upon.

...this idea is part of the New Age belief of quantum mysticism, and is not accepted by the scientific community. The film also includes more specific pseudoscientific assertions: it implies that water molecules can be influenced by thought and that Transcendental Meditation can reduce violent crime.

(olive (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Hi Olive, I think the first paragraph is fine, and in fact appears to match the current first paragraph. I see a difficulty in the second paragraph. It's probably objectively accurate to say that the film features interviews with JZ Knight, but the film itself specifies that the interviews are with Ramtha, not with JZKnight, so if JZ Knight's interviews are to be mentioned, it seems that Ramtha must be addressed. Also, I didn't get the impression, watching it twice in a row, that Ramtha's interviews were featured more in the film than some of the other interviewees, although I don't have a quantitative measurement of the relative time spent on each.

The third paragraph re-introduces a problem some people had with a similar earlier draft, that it seems to reduce the criticism of the film to David Albert and to "some criticisms" of "some parts of the film," which doesn't do adequate justice to the nonsupport of scientists in the main (those who bothered to see it) for ideas expressed in the film.

I think it should be made clearer that for the 2006 release, the film was revised significantly; it's not simply an extended DVD release of the same film.Woonpton (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Olive. Some questions, not having seen the film. First, does the film advocate anywhere

1. A connection between Quantum physics and the statement that 'consciousness is the ground &c'

2. water molecules can be influenced by thought

3. That TM can reduce violent crime

Second, are these facts notable? As an outsider, I would say they are - the controversy is about the misrepresentation of science. However, they do look awkward placed in the introduction like that. Perhaps there is another way of getting the point across. The Rationalist (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the film does make the three connections you list (not sure what you mean by "advocate"), among many other such assertions. The facts are notable in that they are examples of assertions in the film that scientists have objected to. Perhaps you can think of another way of getting the point across, I'm sure that would be much appreciated. It might help had you seen the film? Woonpton (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The way it appears right now in the lead is entirely original research.Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely whether or not the film claims that 'water molecules can be influenced by thought' is something that can be established by watching the film, ergo not original research. Anyway I have watched one part of the film on YouTube and there it clearly does claim that thought can influence water molecules. The Rationalist (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am editing just for the material that is in the lead. The wording is OR. If the material stay its wording must change the be compliant. As per WP: Weight some thought needs to be given as to whether the examples presented are the most reflective of the movie . If they aren't something else should be there or nothing at all. Its not supposed to be full of information but rather an overview as I understand it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be really, really, really, nice if people would have the courtesy to read the sources before editing the article. The presentation of water's molecular structure being altered by words placed on bottles it is contained in is discussed at http://www.einsteinyear.org/bleep/ , clearly documented as thoughts in the script located at http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/what-the-bleep-do-we-know-script.html. The experiments are discussed at http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/ , and you can buy a whole book devoted to this idiocy at http://www.bleepstore.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=0&idproduct=1564#details. Kww (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. The assertion about water occupies a central place in the movie and is referred back to at several points; it deserves some coverage in the article as well as in the lead. The assertion about meditation and crime, while refuted by the actual data, is just another example of the claims made in the movie that aren't supported by science. I think problem here comes from a catch-22; if the fact that most of the assertions about science in the film are not supported by science is summed up in the lead by using a word like "psuedoscience," it is suggested that the reader should be allowed to decide whether the ideas expressed in the film are science or pseudoscience. But in order for the reader to decide, some of the claims and the evidence against them need to be at least mentioned and cited, if not explicated. I think the Rationalist has put his/her finger on a central difficulty: there needs to be some good way to express the disconnect between the film and science. Woonpton (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholly reject the idea that we should "let the reader decide". Our job is to reflect the statements of reliable and credible sources, while reporting what those reliable and credible sources are. Those sources say that the movie misrepresents science, and contains pseudoscience, so that is what we must say. There is no Catch-22.Kww (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just added the edit I did to the article . If we continue here nothing will change. I would suggest my edits are meant to be a starting place. Perhaps we could all edit in the article civilly taking into account "good faith". My concern is more with wording so that what is put in place is not OR.(olive (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

I don't agree (would flatly refute) that the water assertions can be characterized as "central". In the theatrical release, the idea and it's references are, on balance, almost trivial with respect to the rest of the science discussed. In the DVD release they are even further mitigated. The "water" stuff is, at best, one "ornament" on this "tree". WNDL42 (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG... the effort here is to edit in the article. If you have concerns about material based on the pretty bare bones version I will revert back to, could you add material bit by bit to the article noting to make sure language is Not going to add an tone of OR. Please. I am sticking my neck out here to revert again so we can try to make progress and not end up in a war .... just add material as you see fit rather than just revert the whole thing ....(olive (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Ahem, why is it that some editors here feel that it is their sacred duty to refute ideas presented in the movie, rather than to write an article about the movie? I mean come on kids, listen to yourselves above (and listen to your patronizing attitudes toward the "reader," whose well-being you claim to defend with Robertsonian fury). Shouldn't editors who spout angrily "you can buy a whole book devoted to this idiocy" in the course of discussing improvements to this article take a little time out? And by the way, angrily slapping an OR tag off the article indicating original research does not remove the original research. To feel that you can change the content of an article simply by removing a tag is....is....is...pseudoscience! Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodlestehcat -- tags are not of GOd. they do not have any divine right to being their and since any turd and their mom can slap on on their they should be viewed as expressions of opinion rather than solid unbreakable fac.t If someone belives that the tag is valid, they can readd it and come here to discuss why they feel it is so impotent to criticize the works of other users. if no one defense it , I see no reason why the tag should remain. Smith Jones (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tags are however a nice way of preventing an edit war on material identified by several editors as OR. Reword or find a source and the tags can go rather than reverting endlessly.(olive (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

Kww.Please recheck the citations I removed. They do not say in any way, that Bleep misrepresents science. They weaken any argument of that kind. These are not accurate sources. Not sure why they would have been put there in the first place(olive (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

The first reference says purports to link quantum mechanics and consciousness and describes the panel as ersatz scientific experts. The ABC article contains my favorite quote What the Bleep Do We Know draws heavily on the role of the observer in quantum physics. Unfortunately, it also completely misunderstands it. The Guardian includes, among the tosh and balderdash quotes, distorts science to fit its own agenda. The Physics Today article includes Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins. I think those quotes all support the text misrepresenting science. I'll happily change it to misunderstands quantum mechanics and distorts science into quantum nonsense in order to fit its own agenda, but I think "misrepresents" stands a better chance of not offending people.Kww (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think these are good references for "misrepresents science". I have removed the sections that are OR. We'd have to find statements from sources that say almost exactly what these lines say, to include them . Right now the paragraph says pretty much everything, but if there's a need for more, references that say almost exactly that would be needed.(olive (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

[undent]I slightly rearranged paragraph 3. The only thing I did that might ruffle feathers is replace the adjective pseudoscientific, which I think is justified by WEIGHT and NPOV. Rracecarr (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about ruffled feathers but adding "pseudoscientific assertions" is OR. So technically to leave it in place there should be a source that says this.(olive (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Quantum mysticism is OR as it is placed now and invites synthesis of material ...As well, is this appropriate info here and is there a source.(olive (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

WTB as quantum mysticism is discussed here, there, and nearly everywhere. Unfortunately, the everywhere part includes a lot of things that won't pass as a reliable source. Anything in those first two we can use to make you feel comfortable that the linkage isn't OR?Kww (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Did a small edit to the crit part of the lead. It makes the same impression and gives the same information, but at the same time doesn't make flat statements, per WP:ATT. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical criticism

Could someone explain why this section is essential? It seems to me that criticism from scientists is the essential criticismWoonpton (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The section contains some choice quotes and as I represent the sceptics here I would like them to stay. I don't see that much difference between scientists and sceptics anyway, so why not merge the two sections, as representing the views of informed and intelligent people? Don't see why scientists should have the monopoly on this. The Rationalist (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification; I agree with what you're saying. Welcome from another outsider. Woonpton (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The skeptical criticism is notable and relevant. It needs to be balanced, for example, consider this and this too, and especially this. WNDL42 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Balance is not a Wikipedia policy. Too often supporters of WP:FRINGE think that they should be given "equal time". This isn't the essence of WP:NPOV. Rather what we need to do is describe the situation as the most reliable sources describe it. That means consigning the wackos who believe in quantum mysticism to properly weighted sections and throwing a good bit of verifiable reporting on the criticism as it shows up. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ScienceApologist here - there is no reason to try to achieve some artificial "balance". That's not what WP:NPOV is about. Dlabtot (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

POV and undue weight in the lead

William Arntz is notable for many things in the context of this film (noted elsewhere here on talk), and the "Ramtha" stuff is way out of proportion to it's importance in the film, which itself gives far less voice to Ramtha than the previous lead would imply. FYI, the RSE has "students", not "members". The idea of "membership" appears to be WP:OR, is pejorative, and is substantialy incorrect WRT Chasse. WNDL42 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this as POV and as inaccurate. The information once accurately established can be put into the body of the article if necessary.(olive (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm at a loss on this one. What fact is being argued with that wouldn't be addressed by changing member to student? As for POV, I wouldn't have a problem with describing him as former research physicist and student of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. The rest seems irrelevant to his role in the movie.Kww (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, from the archives...

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

So, any attempts here to essentially paint Arntz as merely a "member" of the Ramtha "cult", no matter how carefully worded, will fail on WP:BLP grounds. If some here need to include the fact that Arntz has been a student of RSE, then such characterizations will need to be balanced with the far more relevant contributions and backround above. WNDL42 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be important to include this material somewhere, and Kww's point about changing member to student is well taken. To include it as Wndl noted, probably more description is needed to comply with WP:BLP, and that could best be accomplished in the article itself. Right now it becomes pejorative because it has no explanation and so insinuates. If we can leave the lead pared down to its most essential points, I think it would be more encyclopedic.(olive (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Who said he was a member of a cult? It's not anywhere in the article that I see. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No "blanket" pejoratives in the lead, please

This edit is (a) incorrect, (b) too broadly applied to the "living persons" it attempts to characterize, (c) takes "fringe" out of the context it was used, which was "scientists on the fringes of mainstre am science", and (d) fails WP:NPOV. It's not gonna fly here on WP:BLP and about a dozen other grounds. WNDL42 (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wndl if its not working for you change it. "In most cases" is weasel wording and should go, and "fringe views", and "New Age" need to be sourced or they are OR. I can't work on this till later today but will see how things go later on. Nice to have your input as well(olive (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Hi loo, FYI, I did make the changes that I discussed, I posted here to establish the basis for my changes after they were reverted, in which this language...

"...a group of scientists, philosophers, doctors and New Age "channeler" Ramtha who represent minority, and in some cases fringe views that support the film's assertion..."

Was replaced by the "blanket" pejorative characterization...

"...a group of scientists, philosophers, doctors and New Age "channeler" Ramtha who represent minority, and in some cases fringe views that support the film's assertion..."

I should have also posted the diff of my own changes for context. This objection has been voiced by me and others repeatedly since January, it's not a new objection. WNDL42 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see your objection to "fringe" in this context. That's what it is. If the article referred to them as "whacko" or "psychotic", I could see the objection. What views presented in this movie do you believe qualify as "minority" without going as far as "fringe"?Kww (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the objection has been stated clearly by several editors, as I did above again, many times over the last six weeks.

The claim or implication that "all" is/are "fringe" is an exceptional claim, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and where the pejorative "fringe" is being applied to the Living Persons with the broad brush you wish to use, you need extraordinary and overwhelmingly unanimous sources to make such a statement -- especially in the lead. You have been involved and commented in the past without ever responding substantively with sufficiently reliable sources to justify the hyperbole here. This is about the sixth time I have explained this now, and sorry KWW, I don't have time today for this right now. WNDL42 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to get the point ... I simply vehemently disagree. Manipulating water molecules via thought is fringe. Mass meditation impacting the crime rate is fringe. "Fringe" is demonstrated by the absence of support, not by the presence of condemnation. This movie and its claims simply aren't important enough to have attracted large amounts of attention to generate the kind of support you want. There are enough reliable sources condemning the science in this movie to categorize it as "fringe", simply because there are no counteracting reliable sources to cast doubt on that characterization.Kww (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My edit includes the word "fringe", without the blanket application and hyperbole you are insisting upon. Your responses express your POV more than adequately but (again) fail to address my point. WNDL42 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming these beliefs are mainstream? Jefffire (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read what I wrote? I've added emphasis above for your convenience. Please don't Straw Man my point. WNDL42 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Calm down a sec. If it's fairly obvious and non-controversial that these views are fringe, and you aren't maintaining otherwise, then this is fairly pointless. In my experience "fringe" isn't a pejorative, and a number of scientists I know are quite open that their views are fringe. As such I don't see any reason at all to object to the use of the term, even if it isn't explicitly stated in any single source. Jefffire (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My POV isn't at all hidden or subversive ... the things presented by the film as being scientific are, in the main, utter garbage. WP:FRINGE and the arbitration decision about pseudoscience apply. The claims made in the movie can and should be dismissed as absurd. To do otherwise to is to violate NPOV.Kww (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wndl. My request to write it in yourself was just a general comment to make sure we continue to edit in the article assuming good faith and so on.

Kww, I think the most important issue is that fringe as it is used now is OR. I don't think the issue is whether its truth or not just that its OR and so not encyclopedic.(olive (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I think the same sources that are used for "misrepresenting science" are sufficient for "fringe". Don't you think terms like "quantum nonsense", "tosh", and "balderdash" are adequately summarized by "fringe"?Kww (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken out the minority/fringe phrase. Not because I think it doesn't belong (I think fringe is a very appropriate word). But I think the lead should read smoothly, and it didn't. Having all these editors tug in different directions leads to very choppy language. Rracecarr (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Davis Albert's criticisms covered three times

Albert's complaints about his participation in the movie has three separate entires so far. Should we add more? Three might not be enough. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And no reference to the fact that Albert turned down the "Bleep" team's offer to remove him from the film for its DVD release...WNDL42 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice Boodles! Three is probably enough! :0)....Yes, I earlier on in these discussions mentioned that the Albert info was redundant. A more general explanation concerning misrepresentation of science would seem to be appropriate in the lead, and then more specific and detailed info later on including specific references such as to Albert . However that has been washed away in the tidal wave of OR discussion.(olive (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I removed redundant material. The opening line of that paragraph ..... "misrepresents science" carries the implications of whatever is not completely honest in the movie in a general and introductory way without POV. Specifics and more info. can be saved for the body of the article.(olive (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

A question

I was so fascinated by this talk about the film that I decided to watch the first half (which was all I could stomach, it really is an awful load of horse manure). However, not being a scientist, I have a question. Here is my transcription from the very beginning of part 4, spoken by some middle-aged hippy geezer with cactus trees in the background. The hippy says:

It's only in conscious experience that it seems that we move forward in time. In quantum theory it seems that you can also go backwards in time, and there's some suggestion that processes in the brain, related to consciousness, project backwards in time". For example, in the late 1970's, a neurophysiologist at the university of California San Francisco named Ben Livet did some very famous experiments. What Libet did was to study patients who were having neurosurgery on their brains, with their brains exposed, while they were awake. They were given a local anaesthetic to numb the area of the skull and scalp, and they were awake, and they would talk to these people. So for example what he did was he would stimulate their little finger and look at the part of the sensory cortex on the opposite side that was related to that, record from it electrically and ask the patient when he or she felt the stimulus on their little finger. And he would also stimulate that area of the cortex. Now what you would think would be that if you stimulate the little finger it takes a finite period of time to get to the opposite side of the cortex, so the patient would report it a fraction of a second later, after the stimulus, and when you stimulate it directly the patient would report it immediately. He found just the opposite. When you stimulated the little finger, the patient felt it immediately, and when he stimulated directly on the cortex, there was a delay. After sorting through all the data and repeating it over and over, Libet came to the conclusion that somehow the brain was projecting information backwards in time. So that it did take a finite amount of time to get to the sensory cortex but the brain projected it backwards in time so that the conscious perception was that the stimulus was felt when the pinch actually occurred.

My question: does this accurately describe the Libet experiments? I dimly remember reading about these and recall no such claim as 'projecting information backwards in time'. I also checked on the Wikipedia article on Libet, who died recently, and can find no such thing there either. The Rationalist (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Benjamin_Libet article:

Researchers also analyzed EEG recordings for each trial with respect to the timing of the action. It was noted that brain activity involved in the initiation of the action, primarily centered in the secondary motor cortex, occurred, on average, approximately five hundred milliseconds before the trial ended with the pushing of the button. That is to say, researchers recorded mounting brain activity related to the resultant action as many as three hundred milliseconds before subjects reported the first awareness of conscious will to act. In other words, apparently conscious decisions to act were preceded by an unconscious buildup of electrical charge within the brain - this buildup came to be called Bereitschaftspotential or readiness potential.

Is this what the hippie was referring too? Not sure this says anything about going back in time. That is probably the hippies perspective. Was this a third hand story he was relating or was he familiar with neurobiology? Possibly he was a neurobiologist before he became more reclusive? David D. (Talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Some links here and here, and a further query of Google Scholar's publication index gives a pretty rich history indicating a notable association between the time reversal symmetry features of the Schrodinger equations in the context of Libet. WNDL42 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, this, and this one references Libet's own 1999 presentation. I'd say it's solid.WNDL42 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporal anomalies involving causality and free will. Stanley Klein <klein@spectacle.berkeley.edu> (University of California, Berkeley).

....Temporal anomalies in human performance have led several physicists (Penrose being the most well known) to question whether classical physics can provide a satisfactory account of brain function. In my talk I will examine three categories of temporal anomalies that seem to violate classical physics: (a) superfast reaction times. (b) Libet's finding of backward referral, (c) Libet's findings regarding free will and brain waves.

....The first category involves an analysis of the timing requirements for hitting a fast ball in cricket or baseball. I will present previously unpublished data on the reaction time for tracking a randomly moving dot. We found the relevant reaction time to be about 80 msec, rather than the commonly believed value of 200 msec. I will ask whether the sped up reaction time is compatible with what is known about human physiology based on classical physics. The consequences for classical vs. quantum explanations of hitting balls will be discussed.

....My discussion of the second and third categories centers around new insights into Benjamin Libet's experiments. At the 1999 Flagstaff Quantum-Mind meeting Libet presented his data on backward referral and on volition. These data have been widely discussed in a number of books and meetings. Several new and surprising insights into this topic were recently presented in a special issue of Consciousness and Cognition (C&C, June 2002), (http://www.idealibrary.com/servlet/toc/ccog/latest) devoted to Libet's data and conclusions. That special issue contained six target articles, twelve commentaries on the target articles and six responses to the commentaries, several of which are worth reviewing for the Quantum-Mind 2003 conference.....

An example of a fresh insight into Libet's backward referral experiment came from Gilberto Gomes who pointed out (C&C, 2002) a difference in stimulus duration between Libet's thalamic vs. his cortical brain stimulation experiments (the experiments that Penrose felt needed a quantum explanation). Gomes argued this difference eliminated the need for backward referral. I disagreed (C&C, 2002) and joined Penrose in defending Libet's concept of backward referral. However, the need for quantum mechanics in backward referral is still questionable.

....Many articles in C&C (2002) discussed Libet's experiments that measured the physiological precursors of volition. Except for commentaries by Libet and me, all these articles accepted the position that free will is compatible with classical, deterministic physics. In my talk I will discuss this compatibilist position, defending its strengths but pointing out its weakness. I will argue that a quantum metaphysics similar to that of Stapp is needed to provide the underpinnings for a dualistic type of consciousness that gives us a special, responsible role in the universe, not possible under a classical metaphysics.

Looks like Libet was on board in 1999, and Bleep is spot on in the characterization... WNDL42 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The key here is what is the definition of backward referral? It does not sound as if Penrose uses the same concept as Libet.

Libet concluded that a backward referral in time (to be clarified) was needed. Penrose (1994, 1997) and Wolf (1998) go far beyond Libet, claiming that Libet's experiments indicate a fundamental time anomaly that requires a quantum mechanical explanation. The present article argues that the jump to quantum mechanisms was premature since simple physiological mechanisms can account for Libet's data.

The above quote is from Stanley Klein, published in 1999, I assume the same person you quoted above. This quote predates the one above by four years and appears to indicate he held a different opinion prior to submitting the abstract for the 2003 meeting. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another quote from an article Klein published in 2002. This also contrdicts the 2003 abstract.

From Stanley A. Klein. (2002) Libet’s temporal anomalies: A reassessment of the Data. Consciousness and Cognition 11, 198-214

Although Libet himself has been somewhat careful in avoiding overstating the data’s implications, a number of others have been less modest. For example, Penrose’s three populr books (1989, 1994, 1997) involving physics and mind feature Libet’s experiments on time anomalies. Penrose and, more recently, Wolf (1998) argue that quantum mechanisms are needed for consciousness and Libet’s data are the only data cited. Popper and Eccles (1977, p. 364) comment that “the antedating procedure does not seem to be explicable by any neurophysiological process.” A number of prominent philosophers (Churchland, 1981a, 1981b; Dennett, 1991; Dennett and Kinsbourne, 1992) have pointed out how Libet’s data are not surprising and can be explained quite simply in terms of standard neural mechanisms. Thus it is interesting to ask why there is still such a commotion over Libet’s findings. I think that part of the answer is that Libet’s data on time anomalies are hard to grasp conceptually and the resulting confusion produces misunderstandings. One of the goals of the present article is to present Libet’s data graphically, in the form that is most commonly found in the perception and psychophysics literature. I believe that with this form of data presentation it will be easier to grasp whether exotic models are needed. My conclusion is that they are not needed.

So what does he mean by exotic models? Elsewhere in the paper, when describing three possible explanations of Libet’s data Klein writes: "This back action requires an exotic mechanism involving a revision of the present laws of quatum mechanics such as proposed by Penrose (1989)." David D. (Talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is Libet himself from 2003, and Libet's 2004 book seems (again) to validate that the Bleep overview was correct, as did Libet again in 2006, when Libet says "Objections to the phenomenon of subjective referral backwards in time (for the delayed sensation) are also untenable." WNDL42 (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I managed to find the entire 2006 work from Libet here, FYI. The Bleep characterization of Libet stands up, at least according to Libet. WNDL42 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen Bleep so I don't know the context for what the guy quoted at the top was really talking about. But if the "brain projected it backwards in time" was referring to the Penrose model then it would seem to have been discounted. In the movie the description of Libet's research is accurate but is the interpretation of the data? David D. (Talk) 06:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(a) Libet and Penrose were extensive collaborators overmany years, and (b) Libet's 2006 work supporting 100% of Bleeps 2004 characterization gives an unequivocal "yes". WNDL42 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this clear, as far as I can tell Penrose and Bleep are referring to a literal reversal of time. Could you refer me to the section in the pdf where Libet also refers to a literal reversal of time (Penrose is not cited in the pdf)? And even if that is how Libet interprets the data most, if not all, do not buy that interpretation of the data, from what I have read. I don't have a problem with the film interpreting it that way, it's fiction after all and fits their plot. Similarly Star Trek uses science for its own means. Would you say this film is different to Star Treks use of science? If so, has that been documented somewhere since that seems to be the root of the controversy? David D. (Talk) 19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Actually , the movie itself cannot make assertions because its not alive. However assertions can be made in the movie, so I think your meaning is the same here Rracecarr, just a slight shift in syntax slightly for greater accuracy.(olive (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

But Rracecar is right ... you placed a comma in there that made your change completely ungrammatical. I've already edited 3 times today, so I'm not touching the article. I know there are people that are waiting for me to hit 3RR, and I won't give them the satisfaction.Kww (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit I made wasn't about a comma but about giving the movie itself personification. Let me look and see if I can see what you mean.I'll be happy to change it. I didn't realize you were at 3RR.(olive (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I can't see what the problem is.... would you mind putting it here or being more explicit.(olive (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I've removed the comma after "that". Its not really ungrammatical but is a highly conservative or maybe stylized form of punctuation that has no place in this article. I've removed it. Hope that is what you referring to. Thanks for bringing it up. I wouldn't have caught it.(olive (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Somewhere along the like we lost Arntz characterization "a film for the metaphysical left"...was it lost accidently or is there an objection? WNDL42 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it. I took a break from working on this article so might have been there at that time. I vaguely remember it, but not sure from when. I actually just want the lead to be brief, accurate, and encyclopedic. I don't have any other agendas. If its an important, general comment on the movie, it could be there I guess. If not could it be put in the body of the article?(olive (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Troublesome part

This is a troublesome little section and needs work to be accurate and compliant.

Scientists have described assertions made in the movie that, water molecules can be influenced by thought, that meditation can reduce violent crime rates, and that quantum physics implies that "consciousness is the ground of all being", as quantum mysticism or pseudoscience.[citation needed]

• Unless this can be sourced explicitly we are still dealing with OR.
• "Scientists" is not accurate as a way of wording this since this implies all scientists in the scientific community.
• I think these are "for examples". The wording makes this sound as if these are the only assertions. Again, a wording problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the "scientists" part. It got much worse since I left it.

The film has been criticized for misrepresenting science. Claims such as that water molecules can be influenced by thought, that meditation can reduce violent crime rates, and that according to quantum physics, "consciousness is the ground of all being" have been criticized as pseudoscientific and described as quantum mysticism. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is better than what's in place now. Do you want to add it. Good point about quantum mysticism.It almost has to be put into a separate sentence 'cause even now it connects to the idea of "criticized".(olive (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

So what do you want to do about it? Remove or put somewhere else? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs, I guess, because the paragraph is critical. I'll remove it, and if its really important maybe someone can add it somewhere else .... in the body maybe. What about adding your rewrite. (olive (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I guess it would have to be sourced. The sources there now are pretty weak , and in terms of quantum mysticism are not sources at all.(olive (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Troublesome indeed. Even more troublesome after reviewing nobel-winner in physics Brian D. Josephson's presentation on this dysfunction. Any and all pejorative characterizations beyond "metaphysical" should come out of the lead and go into "reception" or "criticism" sections. WNDL42 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please go read this (this part specifically) and this, and be willing to abide by them, before editing further. Wikipedia is all about orthodox science.Kww (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not give orders to other editors, who have just as much right to be here, and to edit, as you do. Do you believe that the source Wndl cited is not legitimate? You are wrong about WP: it is about sources and NPOV, and you will find nothing in WP setup to support your claim that it is "all about orthodox science." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it encourages behaviour which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. If, tomorrow, cold fusion was proved to be real, we should then go change all of our articles to reflect that. If, tomorrow, it is determined that water molecules respond to peoples thoughts, we should then go change all of our articles to reflect that. We don't write articles today anticipating that something may be found to be true tomorrow. And I think you might want to reread this, which states that only legitimate scientific alternatives are to be considered.Kww (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right in the first part, and totally wrong in the second: we do not even consider whether or not something is legit or not. We consider what the sources say. It may indeed be that the sources say, for example, that Bleep is pseudoscience- I've never objected to saying that. But WP policy is very NPOV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with Neutral point of view as applied to science 1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. without determining whether the disagreement is legitimate or pseudoscience. In this case, reliable sources say that it is pseudoscience, so its views do not have to be considered legitimate.Kww (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just showed how to deal with it: "In this case, reliable sources say that it is pseudoscience, so its views do not have to be considered legitimate." And this crit part of the lead is something we could keep, as far as I'm concerned. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kww, I would just point out that consensus can change. WNDL42 (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramtha school for enlightenment absent from the lead

It needs to be in the lead. The filmmaker's association with that group obviously drives their agenda. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors are discussing the topic here, above. Your points would also be appreciated there...thanks! WNDL42 (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Subsection for DVD release and/or the extended interviews?

I just heard Jeffrey Satinover talking in the extended DVD release about how the connections posited in the film, saying that if they are "pushed too far" in support of "spirituality" -- that this can "go overboard" and "be harmful" to both science and spirituality, if the "flakyness" and the "cheese factor" aspects are overblown.

Quite frankly I think the filmmakers deserve credit (at least in the DVD release) for giving prominent voice to the scientists who wanted to "revise and extend" thier comments, and criticize aspects of the presentation. Especially that David Albert was given (a) carte blanch (100% unedited interview) and (b) the #1 top billing spot in the DVD release interviews, and (c) a re-editing of his original interview for the DVD version of the film.

Question, has anybody else seen the Bleep extended DVD? WNDL42 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence Academic Reaction

I see two problems with this opening sentence:

• Some is straight on weasel wording as per WP:Weasel, so other wording is needed to make this compliant. Some is non-definite, non-specific and so unencyclopedic

• This source says nothing about Pseudoscience so the sentence become OR.... just add a source that discusses Pseudoscience,eh?(olive (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

The Physics Today letter is clearly about issues the authors identify in current physic pedagogy, and only secondarily about the movie. I have been trying to make this perfectly valid modification to the article. Rracecarr, if you find something grammatically lacking, please point it out or attempt to fix it. Using that as an excuse to delete valid edits is rude. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Radical change to introduction

At the risk of alienating both sides to this dispute, I have made a substantial change to the introduction, as follows.

1. I have removed any of the detailed claims made by the pro-science lobby. This is despite the fact that I am pro-science. It is not the place of an introduction to give details. The purpose of an introduction is to give the casual reader the key points about the subject, on the assumption that he or she may only read the introduction, and then go away.

2. Starting with that, what is the most important fact about Bleep? Why has it been singled out for extensive treatment in an internet encylopedia? Because it is controversial (as opposed to being critically important, popular, socially significant &c). So in the first sentence I say simply the bare facts about the film (date, title, the fact there are 2 versions) together with the mere fact that it is controversial, and the basis reason for the controversy (its presumed fraudulent nature).

3. Next, a brief characterisation of the story line. This is not too important, as it is not in itself the reason the film is interesting.

4. Next, a characterisation of the main elements that give rise to the controversy. First, the fact (not noted in earlier versions of this article) that it presents genuine facts in the style of a documentary or educational film. That in my view is the single most important thing. Scientists and academics would not have minded so much had the style not been that of a genuinely educational film. Second, another fact not generally noted, namely that of the experts who are interviewed, some of them are making philosophical interpretations about science, rather than presenting science as such. Others, indeed, are not experts at all (although they are presented using the same style and delivery allowed for the experts). Finally, there are other claims made, in the same documentary/educational style, that are not facts in any sense (such as the stuff about the water, the Transcendental Meditation &c).

5. Next, the fact the film proved very popular and successful. The fact it was praised by Madonna (this will confirm the prejudices both of those who liked the film, and those who did not).

6. Finally, the opinions of the experts. Again, avoid details, concentrate on the things that will appeal to the non-scientists, namely the basic fraudulence and deception of the film. Most people hate deception, as much as they hate scientists talking down to them. This way of putting things reveals the deception, and avoids the talking-down. Anyone who is interested in the details of the fraud can easily scroll down to the relevant sections - that't what sections are for.

The Rationalist (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, can you please explain why the new lead violates "WP:LEAD, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:HUH"? The Rationalist (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, gimme a minute, I'm having to deal with Rracecarr's flgarant edit warring, POV pushing and incivility. Hang on! Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the new lead. A refreshing step. Rracecarr (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you inserted a major rewrite in a contested article without discussing it:

• "...as well as claims, presented in the same documentary style, that are not factual at all." Unsourced, totally POV
• "It was praised by Madonna as "incredibly thought-provoking and inspiring," UNDUE WEIGHT--at least find a bona fide movie reviewer--it's a movie!
• "it has been criticised as fraudulent" what the bleep does that mean? fradulent? What, it's not really a movie?
• presenting speculation and unsupported opinion as if it were established science, mixing mainstream scientific views with mysticism, and exploiting people's fascination with and belief in science while at the same distorting and falsifying its claims. Unsourced, POV pushing, undue weight, read WP:LEAD
• "One of the experts interviewed in the film complained that his interview had been edited in such a way as to completely suppress (and indeed to reverse) his actual views." Anecdotal Undue Weight
• "Sceptics such as James Randi described the film as "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults."[4] The Committee for Sceptical Inquiry dismissed it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense" [5]" POV pushing, undue weight to critics who are peripheral to both the film, spiritual and scientific fields.

Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well see my comments on the User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal page. I give it another 8 minutes. Meanwhile, I have a proper life to get on with. All the best. The Rationalist (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Something got messed up with the references section. I'm looking for the problem... Rracecarr (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationalist. All of Boodles comments are accurate . Whatever your points, if they do not comply with Wikipedia policy, they cannot be included.Your decision to base these changes on a fundamental point is flawed in an encyclopedia.You are determining that the movie is controversial and thats why its here. As editors its not our jobs to decide why the article is here. We must present verifiable, reliable information. The lead as it is now is all of that. Boring maybe, but it has been micro edited for verifiability. (olive (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Rracecarr, stop censoring factual sourced edits

Racecarr, if you continue to censor valid edits I made re: the Physic Today article, I am going to bring it to the attention of an admin. You are conducting rude and unethical edit warring by hiding behind "grammar" to censor factual, sourced material. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not hiding. I fix/remove bad grammar, always. Also, why do you keep removing the popsci ref, without reason? Rracecarr (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why all the refs about misrepresenting science keep getting stripped. I finally expanded the sentence so the different statements summarized by "misrepresents" are included. Hopefully, someone will get the point.Kww (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

POV negative soundbites hand selected for shock value seriously violate WP:LEAD which notes "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article." WP:LEAD also advises "It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Editors who continually insist on mining sources for the most extremely negative soundbite quotes are making a mockery of this policy by giving the false impression that these scattered soundbites are what makes this subject notable. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG. These lines are not needed unless you are attempting to create some kind of impression in the lead, a particular point of view , and that is as we all know a violation of WP:POV.(olive (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

"The film has been criticized for misrepresenting quantum physics to support pseudoscience,[6][7][8] and has been described as quantum mysticism.[9][10] Arntz and the film's two other directors are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment."

This is an NPOV way of saying "it's cult balderdash." Further pushing of the point is not needed. But we do need to give some examples of who is criticizing, so as not to be weasely. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion.(olive (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

I accept summarizing all of those sound bites under "misrepresents science", and that's what I had before olive deleted the citations, and boodlesthecat deleted them again after I restored them. Keeping the citations is important. I'll go along if people either accept the summary as valid for all the citations, or include a bit from each citation, but not trimming the citation list.Kww (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kww the citations I deleted did not reference the material they supposedly referred to. This is just straight on research. Just find citations that specifically reference the material and they can be used. If they do not, they are OR because they require a synthesis of material, thinking. I checked the references carefully to see if they referenced whatever what is in the sentence at that time.The wording has changed many times, so I can recheck whatever references you are talking about... or you could. No one is stripping references unless they aren't referencing what they say they do.(olive (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

It's the very same list we discussed here.Kww (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion and please don't think I am in charge of approving or disproving anything, I have an opinion like all of us do, I guess. When I moved the references the lead had changed and was more specific so the references did not match up to the specificity of the material. Its just a matter going through and seeing if the references you would like to include actually reference what the lines are saying right now. If not, there are others I'm sure. I'll check this . We just have to be careful to give the reader really accurate references. Probably the problem is that the lines have changed pretty quickly and the references haven't .... so lines and references are not in synch.(olive (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

I realize that you aren't an approval authority ... I'm just trying my best to work with people that I have some pretty deep fundamental disagreements with.Kww (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I respect that we have fundamental disagreements.

So this is what I've found. The first reference is ok , not strongly referencing the sentence but probably ok for our purposes. In my opinion, of course. The other two references do not reference pseudoscience and quantum mechanics. If the sentence said the movie misrepresent science I would think that the references would be acceptable as more general referencing because science is a more general term, and the articles are generally talking about misrepresentation of different aspects of science, a more general view.... thats my thought on it, anyway.....The sentence we have in place now is pretty specific and needs that kind of specific reference, otherwise we drift into OR land(olive (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

I think Kww's sources are rather good ones. They should be in there. Here are some quotes:

However, WTB is not too bothered about the truth. The water experiment is junk pseudo- science of the worst kind and has never been replicated by a mainstream scientist. --- Simon Singh [4][5]

What the Bleep Do We Know draws heavily on the role of the observer in quantum physics. Unfortunately, it also completely misunderstands it.[6]

There is no reason not to keep the sources even if they only support the statements in a roundabout way- as long as the statements are supported directly by some sources. What we need is just a bit more attribution. Kww's version is good, as now in the article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I reworded very slightly to align with sources, by separating "misrepresenting science" from "containing pseudoscience".Kww (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Might need a copy edit, another "and." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes,looks good.Refs and lines are now synched.(olive (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, looks good. So Kww, are you, ah, unhappy in a good-enough way (-: ? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's weaker than I want. I really cannot find the section of WP:ATT that forbids "x is y [citation][citation][citation][citation]", so if you really think it's there, you should highlight it for me. I've always been unhappy with the "Reception" section. The quotes about how New Ageism is taking over America just don't seem relevant to the article. The war about whether Ramtha appears in the lead has resulted in an awkward bit of text that I'm afraid to change without triggering off another edit war. As to whether I'm not too unhappy, that will depend primarily on other editor's behaviour. If this thing flares up again, I will start campaigning to delete the article and protect the namespace to prevent recreation.Kww (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kww. Since I have been the ahum... pain in the neck... on the citation policy I thought I'd try to explain from my understanding.

• Pseudosceince, as one example, is a term not necessarily known to the lay reader and that's who we have to deal with here. Scientists are probably not going to come to Wikipedia for knolwedge in their areas, and of course for scientific information no one will probably come to a movie article. We have to connect it intimately with the source to be clear. So we can say, the movie promulgates pseudoscience.... and then the source has to say in pretty close wording ...the movie contains pseudoscientific ideas. So thats a good source, and we are clearly referencing the term pseudoscience.
• If we don't have such a specific source, then we have to define pseudoscience to be clear and then note that:

Pseudoscience is defined as a,b,c.

The sources say a,b,c.

Thus, we might conclude that, the sources say the movie is pseudoscience.

This is Original Research , and although appropriate in a research paper not in an encyclopedia, as I understand the policy.

Possibly, the problems with any kind of OR is that there can be gaps in the jumps of logic from one idea to the next and unless the researcher is pretty good and pretty careful , mistakes are possible . I learned this lesson the hard way in graduate school with a paper I thought was really great but in which I made these kind of minute jumps and earned myself a D-, and the comment simply put "you just can't do this," and a valuable lesson.

I am a stickler for Wikipedia policy and maybe rigid about it, but its the only way I can see to be sure to bypass the biases and agendas we all might have in favour of neutrality.(olive (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Well you'd have my support on deleting it, but it will never happen. The thing with ATT is that if something is controversial, we shouldn't just state it as fact, but say who is saying that. In the context of this movie, the controversy between highly qualified people on both sides is notable. If you wanted to change the Ramtha thing, how would you put it? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd put it in the lead sentence of the second paragraph, where it flows better:Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, and Mark Vicente, students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.Kww (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Um...maybe it's cause I'm to lazy to read through the whole thing but which re-write is everyone agreeing to and is it possible to point to it from here? This page really is as messy as hell again.

Also, one very important fact that has been changed in all of the versions that i can find, in all instances it now says that the interviews are with Knight. This is completely untrue. Anyone with an understanding of ramtha and the whole channeling process will understand that it is not knight that is talking but the 5000 year old warrior philosopher from Atlantis - or whatever name Plato's lost content is now being given. i have supported this previously - I can find the links if needed - and indeed this is cited in the movies credits.

As they say where I come from, if its a 5000 year old ancient being interviewed then it is necessary to mention it just as if it was a "Justified and Ancient of MU MU and they were riding an ice-cream van - or something like that. I shall await a response but may not be able to respond immediately as I am thinking of turning to the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist entries next and deconstructing those from a positivist, materialist post Popperian view-point. Maybe a tad busy as you can imagine Really2012back (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh that shouldn't keep you very long- I've seen it done in seconds. Yes, we could say something about that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Zoroastrians. They've been peddling a bogus interpretation of the EPR paradox for 2700 years in order to promote pseudoscience. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget about the cosmological constant. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Λ is in our thoughts always, ^phi. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen/ladies for those kind suggestions. Those are indeed, topics that I wish to investigate, eventually, within the Zoroastrian entry (not to be confused with Friedrich Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra, even if that person - Zarathustra of course not Nietzsche - was the possible founder of said religion. Odd really, as we should really blame Nietzsche for the difficulties incurred in this article. After all, if he hadn't said "God is dead" then perspectivism might never have been born and and thus this movie have been unlikely to have been made. I blame the Germans myself - or at least Germans with very silly mustaches) However, I'm afraid i must start earlier then that with the possible originator of all pseudoscience, and leading to the difficulties with the EPR paradox already mentioned amongst a range of others - and that of course with that most "evil" propagators of pseudoscience MR Ayahuasca. lets see how that one holds up to a Socratic argument - in a non POV ADF way of course. Really2012back (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Commments on the comments about the new lead

Comments by boodle, with replies (I have about 10 minutes before I go to work, excuse mistakes

• "...as well as claims, presented in the same documentary style, that are not factual at all." Unsourced, totally POV
• "It was praised by Madonna as "incredibly thought-provoking and inspiring," UNDUE WEIGHT--at least find a bona fide movie reviewer--it's a movie!
• "it has been criticised as fraudulent" what the bleep does that mean? fradulent? What, it's not really a movie?
• presenting speculation and unsupported opinion as if it were established science, mixing mainstream scientific views with mysticism, and exploiting people's fascination with and belief in science while at the same distorting and falsifying its claims. Unsourced, POV pushing, undue weight, read WP:LEAD
• "One of the experts interviewed in the film complained that his interview had been edited in such a way as to completely suppress (and indeed to reverse) his actual views." Anecdotal Undue Weight
• "Sceptics such as James Randi described the film as "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults."[4] The Committee for Sceptical Inquiry dismissed it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense" [5]" POV pushing, undue weight to critics who are peripheral to both the film, spiritual and scientific fields.

Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to lose the comment about Madonna, but I wanted to contrast the views of one set of supporters, such as Madonna, with another set (scientists).

Yes the movie is fraudulent for reasons I explained above. It pretends to be a documentary, presented in educational style, and it mixes true with false claims in the same style.

Since the film does in fact "present speculation and unsupported opinion as if it were established science, mixing mainstream scientific views with mysticism, and exploiting people's fascination with and belief in science while at the same distorting and falsifying its claims. " this should go in the intro.

"One of the experts ... " This is well documented. The philosopher (Albert), the one who complained afterwards, did indeed complain exactly that. I will find the source, but as I said I have very little time to edit this. This whole thing is biased against people who have proper jobs.

"Sceptics such as James Randi described ..." - this quote is actually taken from lower down the article. The Rationalist (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"As editors its not our jobs to decide why the article is here ..." of course it is. There is a notability criterion. The film is not in itself notable. It is poorly made and written, and would not normally have warranted inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. The only reason for its notability is the storm of controversy it has provoked (such as on these very pages). The Rationalist (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit did not even attempt to seek consensus, and reverted the consensus of several other editors. Reverted. Please seek consensus, as we worked hard on that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Rationalist--I know you're terribly busy with your "proper job," unlike us slackers, but have you thought about taking a moment to familiarize yourself with that Wikipedia is supposed to be? It's not, as you seem to think, a place to insert mini-essays expressing one's personal opinions on topics, as you seem to think from your edits on this article. The criteria for "what should go in the intro" is, e.g., outlined in WP:LEAD. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please watch your tones, guys WP:Civility. Whilst I think the previous version is superior to Rationalists version, its important to discuss why rather than stating "consensus" (afterall, it's meant to change). Now, there is potential for some of the bits rationalist added to go into the lead, so I think we should discuss those. Jefffire (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. See below. The Rationalist (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My thought would be, that since this lead has been worked on by so many editors in a "relatively" amicable way,(relative to past editing on this article), and is in a relatively stable state in terms of verifiability, POV, and consensus that future additions be identified in small units with their citations intact, and are discussed here before adding. It has been a momentous job to get the lead to this state and credit must go the numerous editors who kept working at it. I personally would like to see the stability they established prevail.(olive (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

OK that's reasonable. We'll take it step by step. See below.The Rationalist (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (unindent)

Jeffire, the "tones" that are most problematic here are those in the article. Quoting nobel laureate Brian D. Josephson in his 2004 presentation on "pathological disbelief", I note that Boodlesthecat has been joined by a large group of ediors here in expressing Jacobson's essential POV with regard to the phenomenon of pathological disbelief:

Characteristics of scientific sceptics, according to Beaudette:

1. They do not express their criticisms in those venues where it will be subject to peer review. (like on this talk page)

2. They do not go into the laboratory and practise the experiment along with the practitioner. (have not carefully analyzed the movie's entire content and balance from neutral POV)

3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when in fact they are mere guesses. ('Nuff said? If not, diffs on request)

4. Satire, dismissal and slander are freely employed. (and like-minded critics are given undue weight - 'nuff said)

5. When explanations are advanced ... ad hoc reasons are constantly advanced for their rejection. These reasons often assert offhand that the explanation violates some conservation law. ('nuff said)

6. Evidence is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question at the outset. (the consensus outcomes of several WP:SET meta-analyses on pejorative language are repeatedly dismissed/ignored here)

Two points I will now, again, put forward for discussion:

a) Previous editors have shown that no encyclopedia -- online or otherwise -- has ever been found to use the word pseudoscience either (a) in a lead or (b) as prominently as it is here on Wikipedia. It's use here in the lead is unencyclopedic and undue.

b) According to a quick read of Quackwatch's own Dr. Rory Coker's criteria test for applying the word "pseudoscience", The Bleep movie fails utterly to meet the vast majority of even the Quackwatch criteria.

I agree that it's important to discuss "why" the lead keeps reverting to so pejorative a tone. May we please discuss? WNDL42 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is an underlying problem with the use of the term "pseudoscience" in this encyclopedia, then you will need to discuss the matter on a page like WP:NPOV. The use of the term has a long history on Wikipedia and is generally accepted as useful by most, with a minority of vocal dissenters.

Secondly, you can call me a pathological disbeliever all you like, but that doesn't change state of the science, or the guidelines on WP:Fringe Accepted as misinterpreted. Jefffire (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• (a) Whether or not there is an "underlying problem" is not at all my point, as a quick review of what I actually wrote will confirm.

• (b) I did not call anyone anything. Please don't accuse other editors of incivility where no such incivility exists, and please use care not to so mischaracterize my edits. I quoted Brian D. Josephson and characterized the tone of the larger discussion in a 100% impersonal tone, as you also did in your immediately preceeding comment. May we now agree on this? WNDL42 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will assume good faith, and accept that your quotes from Brian D. Josephson were simply badly placed. However, there is and remains no good rational for excluding from the lead the word "pseudoscience" under existing wikipedia guidelines. Jefffire (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Restating my discussion points now, again, with emphasis for clarity:

a) Previous editors have shown that no encyclopedia -- online or otherwise -- has ever been found to use the word pseudoscience either (a) in a lead or (b) as prominently as it is here on Wikipedia. It's use here in the lead is unencyclopedic and undue.

b) According to a quick read of Quackwatch's own Dr. Rory Coker's criteria test for applying the word "pseudoscience", The Bleep movie fails utterly to meet the vast majority of even the Quackwatch criteria.

Again, may we discuss these topics please? WNDL42 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you WNDL42, but I haven't even got that far. I'm still wondering why editors seem to feel that the job of an encyclopedia is to refute things. I can pull a dozen quotes from editors above where they basically express that. And, even more odd, why are we trying to refute a movie? here, why not take a look at the lead in the The Passion of the Christ article. Same hot button issues in that artcile, ya di dah, but at least they manage to remain calm for a few sections before they throw in every possible critique and interpretation further down. But on this article, our defenders of the faith feel the uncontrollable urge to holler WITCH! before we even can guess that this is a movie. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Two points: the current version of the lead certainly mentions that it is a film, and deals with it as a film before it mentions scientific criticism. It also states that the film has been criticized for containing pseudoscience, and references sources that contain that very criticism.

Do you have reliable, non-fringe sources that directly state that Bleep does not contain pseudoscience? That's what you would need. Evaluating the film against Quackwatch criteria (of which the film satisfies several) would be OR.

For the record, I don't think the article needs to refute the movie. I'm quite satisfied if the article simply states that it has been refuted. Kww (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wndl, the reason that the article keeps reverting to a highly derogatory tone is that certain editors feel that this will get their point across better- which of course is the opposite of the truth. There really isn't any argument here over that. No one is trying to say otherwise.

As to use of the word pseudoscience, it isn't hurting anything, except perhaps in some small way the derogationist's case (derogatory jargon), and second WP is different in that we follow the sources more closely, and they have used that word. So in light of the fact that some editors want it, I see no reason to leave it out. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin, unless we can be explicit about exactly what is pseudoscience, then it's presence in the lead is a blanket pejorative, and "contains pseudoscience" is like saying "contains mad cow disease" -- it's still a blanket characterization of the whole load of beef no matter how carefully worded. I have yet to see a single recommendation in which the word has been used appropriately in the lead. If certain aspects of the film are explicitly pseudoscience, then I have no problem -- Emoto's "messages from water" are clearly a candidate...as I've said many times. I've not seen a single other case besides that one instance (presented, BTW in a dramatic sequence), that justifies "pseudoscience" by any criteria, WP or Quackwatch. WNDL42 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, what's wrong with the current intro

Apparently my recent edit 'reverted the consensus of several other editors'. I scrolled up the talk page and I see there has indeed been considerable discussion of the intro. And I see no consensus. Far from it. Anyway, let's tackle this from a different angle by looking at what is wrong with the current intro.

1. The introduction needs to explain, as I have said, why the film is notable. If I look at the coverage in Wikipedia of other films generally recognised as being great or notable, for example, The Battleship Potemkin, Doctor Zhivago, Don't Look Now, Performance (film), Accident (film), The Piano, Being there &c. This film is clearly not in that league, yet it gets more coverage in this encylopedia than any of these great films. Why is that, if not the notoriety it has achieved through its fraudulent misrepresentation of science? The current introduction only has a short sentence at the end (the one beginning 'the film has been criticised..') that hints at this. Since the notoriety and controversy is the only reason this film is given extended treatment in the encyclopedia, this should be given adequate weight in the intro.

On the question whether it is our job as editors to make this call, of course it is. Indeed, WP:LEAD, which I have read carefully, seems to demand it. (" It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. ").

2. That agreed, the intro needs to capture exactly why scientists and other reasonable people would find the film objectionable, and why the controversy exists. And this is not simply that the film makes strange or preposterous claims. Plenty of films do that, of course. The problem is the style in which it is presented (educational, documentary format), the fact that it uses (or claims to use) scientific experts as authorities who were consulted or interviewed in the making of the film. In short, it presents the outlandish and proposterous in the very same breath as sober fact. It is the extreme to which this essentially fraudulent practice is carried out that makes the film truly notable.

3. Some of these statements are confusing, obscure or badly-written. For example 'a narrative to explain a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality'. The word 'metaphysical' is wrongly used here. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not to be confused with mysticism or spirituality. The sentence 'A moderately low-budget independent production.' has no main verb (nor does 'A moderately low-budget [[independent film|independent production];' - a comma is correct, not a semicolon. Because of the 'troubles', there is no thread: the intro reads exactly as though it was the product of alternating statements by two rival gangs.

4. You all need to be careful about what is supposed to be wrong with some of the claims. It is incorrect, for example, to suppose that scientists would necessarily deny a connection between consciousness and reality. A mind-brain identity theorist would not deny such a connection, holding that states of consciousness are identical with physical brain states, which, being physical, can influence other things. The real issue was correctly identified by David Albert (one of the contributors), namely the claim by the film that quantum mechanics implies a breakdown in scientific mechanism, and that this, in turn automatically resolves the age-old philosophical problem of free-will. Both these claims are false.

Happy to put back the bits I removed about who directed it. But the reasons for the film's notoriety and therefore notability need to be fully reflected in the introduction, and there needs to be a thread.

As a compromise I will remove the quote about Madonna, I will add in the bits about the director, and remove the bit at the end of the new introduction 'Sceptics such as James Randi described the film as "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults."[4] The Committee for Sceptical Inquiry dismissed it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense" [5], which is more than enough of a concession, as these quotes very adequately sum up the controversy over the film.

Below I include a link to a recent version given by ScienceApologist. It is pretty close in spirit to mine, and I'd be happy to revert to this (subject to some improvement on purely stylistic grounds).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&oldid=140069917

The Rationalist (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The film is notable because it meets the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (films), and those reasons are given in every single version of the lead I've read, without exception. 2. Nope. That's not what WP:LEAD says about what should be in the lead of an article. However, there does exist controversy and criticism, described in the article, which should be summarized in the lead. 3. I agree that there is too much thread mode exhibited in the article. Which is why I've supported efforts such as mediation in the past. 4. Many would like to turn this article into a soapbox about the claims made in the movie. Other editors have pushed for this to be a relatively straightforward encyclopedia article about the movie, leaving the debunking of claims to sources which can be cited. This is, I think, a key point and a large part of the reason that this dispute is ongoing. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the dichotomy is between exposition of the claims made AND their debunking, and just mentioning both in WP:SUMMARY style with links to the sources. If we're going to explain the movie's thesis in any detail, it behooves us to also explain debunking of the movie's thesis in detail. I'm not sure which approach is better - either is valid - but I don't support removing the skeptical exposition while leaving exposition of the film itself. <eleland/talkedits> 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's pointless saying that the film is notable because it meets the criteria, and then pretending that this means that its notability-meeting-the-criteria is in some way divorced from the controversy it caused through being abject nonsense masquerading as pop science. The controversy is a major part of its notability, and must be given due prominence, as must the fact that it asserts as fact numerous things which are demonstrably false, and has prompted complaints of misrepresentation from some of those interviewed. These are highly unusual and distinctive facts, and therefore an important part of the 5000ft view of this subject. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) [box added by The Rationalist (talk)

"If we're going to explain the movie's thesis in any detail" - yeah - IF. I don't think I've read any sources that explain the movie's thesis in any detail"... and I don't believe that is our role here in writing an encyclopedia article. We should present the verifiable facts about movie and the criticism it received. We shouldn't be trying to explain the points the movie made or what is right or wrong about them, other than in the context of presenting the criticism the move has received in reliable sources. I do agree that Albert's testimony that his interview was deliberately edited in a misleading manner is a key datum that should be prominently featured, which is why I originally put it in the lead and have consistently argued for its inclusion. And I think the facts that the film was made by PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWRs and features interviews with J. Z. Knight supposedly speaking with the voice of 'Ramtha' are also highly significant and should be prominently featured. Those things and a simple statement that the film generated controversy for its misrepresentations of science should be quite sufficient for summarizing the controversy in the lead. The details should be left for the body of the article. Dlabtot (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG, Might I suggest that a constructive use of "abject nonsense" would involve specific references to the "numerous things" that can then be discussed? WNDL42 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You might suggest it, but it would be pointless since we're not here to write an original critique, we're here to reflect what the reliable secondary sources say. And the reliable secondary sources fall into roughly three camps: True Believers who think it is wonderful, people with a scientific background who recognise that its claims are fatuous, and people who focus on the misrepresentation of the interviews and sources it cites. All three can be discussed, no problem. WP:NPOV does not allow any of them to be discussed without noting the others, though. In particular it is extremely important to qualify any claim to being a documentary, any implied claim of scientific accuracy or a credible basis for the claims made. If the film were honest and portrayed itself as fiction then there would be no great controversy, I think, other than that caused by blatant misrepresentation of interviews. It's the twaddle masquerading as science that is the big deal in the minds of the critics, and those of us here who support the mainstream Western POV of scientific rationalism. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

fiction/documentary-style

Why is the science in this movie taken any more seriously than Star Trek or The Matrix? We don't call that pseudoscience we call it fiction. This might be the real issue to address in the article. Is there any doubt this movie is fiction and not a documentary, even if there are interviews and it is presented in a "documentary-style"? David D. (Talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the science in the movie is taken seriously by so many because of the very many examples of this. WNDL42 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Trekkies take their science seriously too:[7]

"One of the keys to the success of Star Trek is the fact that it is grounded in scientific credibility," says Andre Bormanis, a writer for UPN's Enterprise—the fifth Star Trek television series—who mhas a master's degree in science policy from George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

But it's still fiction, right? Scientists are not up in arms with trekie conventions so why with this film? David D. (Talk) 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not presented as fact. 'The poet lyeth not, for he tells it not as true'. By contrast, what is really offensive about this film is the fiction masquerading as documentary. The storyline, the part presented as fiction, is a small percentage of the pseudo-scientific garbage churned out as solid fact. The Rationalist (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to comment on the why scientists think the movie looks like a documentary rather than nitpicking the science itself. That might be more revealing than a laundary list of scientific rebuttals? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am doing just this by watching the whole ghastly spectacle again. And in any case, Star Trek does not present its 'science' as established science. Star Trek is speculation about what might be consistent with science, NOT as established fact. Even the trekkies understand that. The Rationalist (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the trekies understand it. So the crux of the article is to understand the difference in the phenomena, why true believers for this movie and true aficionados for star trek? Any sources that shed light on that debate will be useful to explain this films notability and notoriety. David D. (Talk) 20:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple. I watched Star Trek as a teenager many years ago, and never supposed for a moment that any of it was, or even could be true - e.g. it is set in the future. All of it is presented as fiction, including the 'scientific' bits like beaming-up. By contrast there are large chunks of this movie that seem very plausible. The documentary style includes blackboards, equation, little cartoon men explaining the difficult parts just like in 'Horizon' or whatever scientific documentary style you like. The makers were careful to state the credentials, PhD's and suchlike, in the credits. And large chunks of it seem to be genuine science (e.g. the double slit experiment seemed perfectly plausible - some expert correct me if I'm wrong). But there are other bits which were presented in exactly the same style, which I almost believed, in a way that I would not have believed Star Trek. For example, the one about Libet's experiment. I kept asking myself, 'could that be true'? In the end I asked a question on the talk page up here, and an expert answered, and my suspicion that it was complete tosh was verified. So here I am, a non-expert, almost fooled, and saved by the fact I was working on Wikipedia and there were experts to hand. THE VERY EXPERTS WHOSE VIEWS ARE BEING CENSORED HERE. The film reminded me of a carpet sale I went to years ago. The saleman mixed up very expensive genuine carpets with crappy fake ones, and got fake buyers to buy the expensive ones. This made it almost irrestible to go for one of the cheaper ones. It's a well-known sales technique. Check out real estate adverts, e.g. The Rationalist (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you've made the point that you, a professed 'non-expert', were able to recognize it as 'complete tosh'. In the same way, I suppose, that you don't have to be a rancher in order to recognize bullshit, a non-scientist can recognize pseudoscientific claptrap. However, that doesn't answer the question of why people get so passionate about this film, a question that remains a mystery to me. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No the reverse. I believed it. Read what I wrote. The Rationalist (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Also, just go you YouTube and read the comments there. Most people seem to believe that the film is presenting established scientific fact. The Rationalist (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What you wrote was "and my suspicion that it was complete tosh was verified." -- but really - who cares? Your musings and reflections about this movie are totally off topic for this discussion page. Dlabtot (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are they off topic? It relates, as I have said many times, to the question of whether 1. the film mixes fact with falsehood, 2. with whether it was believable, as we agree it clearly was, 3. Whether the intention of the film makers was to deceive. And what exactly is your motive here? You want to remove any reference or hint of this deception, and the controversy surrounding it, from the introduction. Why? Why? The Rationalist (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your musings and reflections are totally off topic because, (again), this is a discussion page for discussing how to improve this encyclopedia article, which must be based on verifiable citations to reliable sources. Therefore your anecdotes about your emotional reaction to the film do not belong on this page. I must ask that you desist from further personal attacks, and I must note that I have argued consistently and forcefully for the inclusion of the fact that Albert stated that his interview was deliberately edited to misrepresent his views, I have argued consistently and forcefully that the lead should state that the film was made by PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWRs, and I have argued consistently and forcefully that the lead should state that the film has received extensive criticism for misrepresenting science or promoting pseudoscience. Please do not misrepresent my views again and please refrain from further personal attacks. Dlabtot (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reality check: there are seven full paragraphs of criticism. WHAT is being censored? I appreciate your personal reflections and emotional relationship to this film, but for the umpteenth time, where is it proscribed that the job of an encyclopedia is to debunk things--particularly movies? Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the job of an enyclopedia to educate, and not to support or promote propaganda such as you seem intent on doing. What exactly is your relationship to the makers of this film, may I ask? The Rationalist (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have zero relationship to the film. I saw it once on video. However, please do not bait me again. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Rationalist I know you are relatively new to Wikipedia, perhaps you are not aware that it is the official policy of WP to refrain from personal attacks such as accusing another editor of being intent on promoting propaganda. Editors are urged to assume good faith, and follow the civility policy, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly cannot understand why you are taking this particular line unless you have some financial or other interest in this film. The remarks you make suggest you sincerely do not believe in what the film says. You believe, as I do, that it is tosh. Yet you are extremely determined to remove all reference to this fact in the intro. I can think of no other motivation than a financial one. Sorry (apologising again, sorry for that, also). The Rationalist (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've asked you to stop the personal attacks, I'm trying once more: please stop. I suggest you read WP:ICA. Any further ill considered accusations such as this will be reported to WP:WQA Dlabtot (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to note, also, that this statement: "Yet you are extremely determined to remove all reference to this fact in the intro." is completely untrue, and a total and complete mischaracterization. Further baiting with false accusations of bad faith such as this will be similarly be reported to WP:WQA Dlabtot (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• To answer the original question ... yes, the movie presents itself as factual, not as a piece of fiction. I know people that actually believed it, and I have never been sure whether or not the producers believe it. I am relatively certain that the producers of the film intended it to be believed as true by its audience.Kww (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's a VERY good point. Orson Welles' film of War of the Worlds was believed by a whole lot of people. But Wells did not intend that they ultimately believe it - it was intended as realistic entertainment. But this was not the intention of the film makers. They really and knowingly intended to deceive. The Rationalist (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More samples from this film

From What the Bleep part 5. Woman speaking 1:06 - 2:23.

One of the most interesting experiments with random event generators occurred when it was really out of time. Some investigators at Princeton decided they would try to see whether or not you could affect a random machine after it had run. So they converted it so instead of having a computer with a visual screen they had a computerised situation that was audio tapes. And they had it with clicks to the left ear and clicks in the right ear. And they already played this, with nobody listening to it, so that it already ran, they put that in the vault, and they then gave the tape, the already run tape, to a participant, and said, take it home, I want you to listen to it, and I want you to make more left ear clicks than right ear clicks - send your intention to it. So the person did, they handed back the tape, and they played it, and lo and behold, they played the one in the vault too, and they discovered that they were both the same, and they both had more left clicks than right clicks. So what was going on here? Well it wasn't as though the person who was the participant had actually affected it at the moment he was listening to it. His thoughts and his intentions had actually moved back down the time line and affected it at the moment it was generated.

Can I call upon the science experts here to verify this, or not? The Rationalist (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What does your question have to do with the editing of this encyclopedia article? Is this related to some edit you plan to make or have made, or some edit that some other editor has made? Dlabtot (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The question relates to my claim that the film mixes presentation of scientific fact, with falsehood, in the same style. I am asking experts whether the above quote is fact, or falsehood. HAVEN'T YOU BEEN FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION AT ALL. Sorry to shout. The Rationalist (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not 'yell' with capital letters. It is uncivil as you obviously know or you wouldn't apologize in advance. Don't engage in behavior that you know is wrong while simultaneously apologizing for it. Rather, refrain from the uncivil behavior in the first place.

I still would like to know if your question related to some edit you plan to make or have made, or some edit that some other editor has made? This is a talk page for discussing how to improve this encyclopedia article, not for general discussion of this film. Dlabtot (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

These transcriptions related to my version of the introductionhere which was rejected for the claim that the film includes falsehood, conveyed in the same style and context, as indisputable scientific fact. If the claims here really are untrue, then this supports my version of the introduction. You will object, of course, that this is original research. However I discussed this with a couple of other editors and if the claims made really are indisputable false, this should be reflected in the introduction. Note my version avoids any discussion of detail like 'quantum mysticsism' and so forth. It's enough to say, if that is the case, that the film mixes fact and falsehood in a documentary style. Does that explain why I am posting this, now? 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rationalist (talk • contribs)

No. It doesn't, because your original research is totally irrelevant to this encyclopedia article. Dlabtot (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationalist, rather than typing in transcripts, why don't you just (a) mention the random number experiment, (b) state your issues, (c) go to google scholar, type in "princeton", "PEAR", "anomolies" and "consciousness" - like this, (820 publications referenced, all reliable sources and then (d) we can talk about Princeton's research and results? By the way, the scene you are referring to cited Princeton and PEAR and your exclusion of that information from your out-of-context and self-edited "transcripts" is unhelpful to the extent that our discussion here should be more concise, and based on reliable sources. WNDL42 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As a scientist, I must say I would regard very few of those as reliable sources. The Journal of Scientific Exploration and The Journal of Science and Healing, in particular I would regard as extremely fringe if not outright coo-coo. Jefffire (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding. 820 publications, dozens or HUNDREDS published by Princeton, and you take the time to find a couple of journal names (both published at princeton.edu, OBTW) with somewhat "un-sciency" names? That could be seen by some as a little disingenous. Talk to my point please, or better yet, let Rationalist talk to my point -- it was addressed to him/her. WNDL42 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you (as a scientist) want a better selection, try looking for the "Foundations of Physics" publications, you'll find them here, and you'll find them interesting. WNDL42 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dr. Jeffire, how's this for some "ex tremely fringe coo-coo" Really, give us all a break, ok? Please? WNDL42 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there are loonballs at Princeton too. Fortunately, the PEAR wackos shut down their lab after realizing that no one was taking them seriously. What a lark! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WRT personal POV and unsubstantiated opinions with respect to "loonballs at Princeton", you need to provide a WP:RS -- otherwise it's just dust in the wind. WNDL42 (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant to this article anyway. Go to Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research if you are interested in pursuing this line of inquiry further. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously for a moment - this obsession that certain WIKI editors have with the reliability and infallibility of peer reviewed journals is simply astounding. While I understand that that this maybe caused by WIKI it self - one gets the feeling that the over reliance of this method of "proof" has come from non scientists/academics - surely some of the editors here must come from an academic teaching background - and even one or two from a "decent" university. If you did - or indeed have studied at undergraduate level - you would understand that at least the last 2 years of an undergraduate degree consists of the student analyzing and critiquing peer reviewed journal articles. Indeed, at least were I come from, a student would fail if they could not display this ability. I will quote from the new editor of the Foundations Of Physics, as it seems to have been suddenly displayed as a "reliable source":

" The journal Foundations of Physics has been led by the able hands of Prof. Alwyn van der Merwe for a very long time. Now, we are continuing under my editorship. The scope of the journal remains much the same: the conceptual bases and fundamental theories of modern physics and cosmology, emphasizing the logical, methodological, and philosophical premises of modern physical theories and procedures. As before, we welcome papers on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, special and general relativity. We think it is also time for the experts on string theory, M-theory, and brane cosmology to ponder the foundations of these approaches, and ask them to submit papers. Cosmology is an important subject where controversial ideas abound, and such discussions are welcome.

During my first couple of months in this office, it became clear that fundamental questions in physics and philosophy also attract the interest of many laymen physicists.

We receive numerous submissions from people who venture to attack the most basic premises of theories such as Special Relativity, but instead only succeed in displaying a lack of professional insight in how a physical theory is constructed (My emphasis). I suspect that some of these people may have been working somewhere in an attic, deprived from daylight for decades, determined only to reemerge with a Theory of Everything in their hands. Even though they may be very sincere, we have to disappoint such authors."

He concludes: Acceptation of a paper may not necessarily mean that all referees agree with everything, but rather that the issues put forward by the author were considered to be of sufficient interest to our readership, and the exposition was clear enough that our readers, whom we assume to be competent enough, can judge for themselves. (Again, my emphasis)Really2012back (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Is there really a The Journal of Science and Healing? I wonder who peer reviews that then. AN American "Journal" I assume? Published out of LS perhaps? Might have to track that one down. I wonder if its available through ATHENS? Really2012back (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Edit: Goodness, i see that, that studies author is qoutede in WIKI regarding the following: Remote viewing and future machines: While Dean Radin was at the Conscious Research Laboratory, University of Nevada, Las Vegas he worked with remote viewer Joseph McMoneagle. Radin conceptualized a future machine that as yet did not exist. McMoneagle used his remote viewing into the future in an effort to obtain information concerning this machine to produce patentable ideas.[16] Radin wrote that the probable reality of remote viewing was scientifically established by the US government's Stargate Project." Perhaps he knows something we don't know - using either the time machine or remote viewing - how intriguing. Really2012back (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Another transcript from the film

messages from water

6:25. Woman curator of museum: "This exhibit comes to us from Japan, from Mr Kosuro Imoto. Mr Imoto became terribly interested in the molecular structure of water, and what affects it. Now water is the most receptive of the four elements. Mr Imoto thought, perhaps it would respond to non-physical events, so he set up a series of studies, applied mental stimuli, and photographed it with a dark field microscope. This first picture is a picture of water from the Fujawara dam. And this picture is the same water after receiving a blessing from a Zen buddhist monk (picture shows a crystalline shape having formed). Now in this next series of pictures Mr Imoto printed out words, taped them to bottles of distilled water, and left them out overnight. This first photograph [a hexagon] is of the pure distilled water, just the essence of itself. These subsequent photographs as you can see. This is the chi of love [snowflake pattern shown]. And we move along here to 'thank you', and you can see where he taped that to this bottle here, but if you read Japanese you already knew that [another pretty hexagonal shape is shown]. Now Mr Imoto speaks of the thought or the intent being the driving force in all this. The science of how this affects the molecules is unknown - except to the water molecules of course [smiles]! And it's really fascinating when you keep in mind that 90% of our bodies are water." [Man with beard turns to Amanda and speaks in intense, serious and authoritative voice]. "Makes you wonder, doesn't it. If thoughts can do that to water, imagine what our thoughts can do to us". [Amanda returns the look, as if to signal she is now starting to realise something profound and important].

The Rationalist (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? Why are you posting this? Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

to show off his l33t quotation skills!!!!! Smith Jones (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a lot of argument on this page about claims made in the film, without any reference the actual text of the film. These are not quotations cut and pasted from the net. They are transcriptions I have made from the actual video, to settle a question of fact (namely, what does the film actually say). The Rationalist (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your transcripts are original research. As are your efforts to turn this page into a discussion about refuting 'claims made in the film'. Please desist. Dlabtot (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I find this sort of quotation useful, since the film is basically unavailable over here. If nothing else it demonstrates the jaw-dropping credulity necessary to believe such tripe. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the movie is tripe and people who take it seriously are idiots. Agreed. What does that have to do with the question of how to improve this encyclopedia article? Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationalists' point with respect to this particular instance in the dramatic portion of the film is a good one, but we've already agreed that this one instance can be reasonably considered by skeptics as pseudoscience, as Emoto is a photographer and his art appeals on an emotional basis. It is not necessary to post transcripts here, links will suffice. Still, the "subway museum" scene is an "art museum" scene, not presented as "science", and the intent of the filmmakers is clear, to illustrate an artistic "eastern mystical" portrayal of Dr. Candace Pert's solid and accurately portrayed science. Taking Emoto out of context does not justify larger "blanket" characterizations. WNDL42 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

These may be useful for placing Emoto's work in context, see here and here. WNDL42 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On a broadish note, the article used to contain a fairly exhaustive list of the movies misrepresentations and inaccuracies (there were a lot), but these were trimmed down to a more blanket criticism of the movies motivations and scientific competence. Having had experience with both versions, I must say that the more streamlined version is preferable from the view of elegance and readability. However, its also very clear that this is not a matter of misinterpreting an "artistic" message. Assuming Rationalist's transcript is accurate, this is blatantly being presented as factual. Jefffire (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to look at a diff...WNDL42 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits of Bleep lead

Hi Wndl."Metaphysical left" was deleted as redundant .It exists later on in the article, so it has to be removed one place or the other. In the interest of elegance and simplicity, I would delete it from the lead. I did like the lead before your additions because it was easy to read and simple, and in a general way seemed to cover everything needed to know about the movie as per WP:Lead. (olive (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

I reordered some of his changes, but did not delete the redundant description. It's pretty hard to write a smooth lead that isn't a little redundant with the main article. I did change the wording of the last paragraph back to last night's form ... I see no valid reason for the changes made to it, and there seems to be as much consensus as there is on anything in this article that it is supported by the sources.Kww (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Research physicist

I do not support the decision to identify Arntz as a "former research physicist;" even if it's true (and I haven't yet seen a non-affiliated source for that) it seems to be a pretty clear attempt to highlight one aspect of his career in WP:UNDUE fashion. He is also a former computer programmer, former software entrepreneur, etc. And a "research physicist," to me, means someone who has published papers in physics journals, not someone who worked on advanced technology for Pratt & Whitney. <eleland/talkedits> 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. There are (I promise you) research physicists who do not work in academia and do not publish. I know them, lots of them work in "dark" places -- like Arntz did. Private research is still research, and you are way out on a limb questioning reliable sources to imply that Arntz is lying to the world. And how is the University of Colorado at Boulder somehow "affiliated" with "Bleep". Don't you think that if Arntz were NOT a Research Physicist with Pratt and Whitney, that after having thrown the claim around for so many years that someone would have called him on it? Cut us a break here, and look here, again, please. The URL is colorado.edu, in case you hadn't noticed. WNDL42 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, you all want "Ramtha" in the lead -- then we're going to balance it. That's WP:BLP territory, so I suppose we could post it at the BLP noticeboard for an opinion, you think? WNDL42 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Background info seems relevant, and is presented in the same order as he actually went through them- see the source. It is not emphasized more than "high-tech entrepreneur and filmmaker". He was the prime mover behind the film, so I don't see why one wouldn't give a tiny bit of background. Just because people don't like his ideas doesn't mean he isn't a physicist. If the film presented bad programming principles, people would then say that calling him a "high-tech entrepreneur" gives undue weight to one aspect of his career, even when the other aspects were also presented. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What does working as a research physicist decades ago have to do with funding a movie about quantum mysticism today? I fail to see any connection. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Martin... WNDL42 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, all, this is Arntz bio from the 60th Annual Conference on World Affairs, held in Boulder Colorado at the University there, is THIS good enough? Hey...looky, NO RAMTHA. WNDL42 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

---

William Arntz

Filmmaker William Arntz combined with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente to create What the #$*! Do We Know? Their most important project to date, they delivered through combined mediums of film, documentary, animation, and visual effects the answers to the most asked questions in the universe: “What is it? Where do we fit in? And, why do we do what we do?”

Arntz graduated summa cum laude from Penn State University with a degree in engineering science and began work as a research physicist with Pratt and Whitney Aircraft. There he worked on developing the first wave optics simulator for high-energy gas dynamic laser weapons (a.k.a. “Star Wars”). He “retired” and moved to Boston where he reunited with a longtime friend. Together they created Beat the Deva, a one-hour animated film noir, which won a Cine Eagle, the Kenyon Film Festival, and received distribution on the art house circuit.

He moved to San Francisco, “retired,” and became a Buddhist. His Buddhist teacher assigned him the task using his meditation/visualization skills to create a software product and company. Arntz wrote “AutoSys,” a distributed job scheduler. AutoSys went on to be one of the most widely used pieces of system management software ever written, with clients as diverse as Merrill Lynch, NASA, ILM, Sun Microsystems, Cisco, and Boeing. In 1995, Arntz sold his company and took a year off. He then devised a second successful software company, which he sold nine months after creating it.

Arntz became interested in uniting his four great interests: leading edge science, spiritual inquiry, filmmaking, and computers. He happily embarked upon the creation of What the #$*! Do We Know?

http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/bios.html?id=648&year=2005

---

This was a bio that was submitted for the conference by Arntz. As such, it is strictly a promotional bio and not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Am I correct that Arntz degree is a BS in Engineering Science, and he holds no degree in Physics? A field where MS and PhD degrees are the norm?Kww (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Arntz is not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination. The attempts to cry "balance" are mean and inaccurate ways of reinterpreting WP:NPOV. You don't make an article "NPOV" by introducing appeals to authority. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions notwithstanding, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifyability, not truth. Find enough reliable sources that support "not a research physicist" to outweigh those that say he is, and you've made a case. Otherwise it's original research. WNDL42 (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The threshhold for inclusion is not verifiability. The threshhold for exclusion is non-verifiability. There are plenty of things which are verifiable (e.g. This person was once called a "weird karate guy": [8]) which are not worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia for other reasons. Examining the verifiability of a claim independent of other considerations is problematic. In this case, it is questionable as to whether Arntz's past employment with Pratt and Whitney is at all relevant to his production of this movie. However, his involvement at Ramtha was relevant enough for Salon.com to mention it, for example. We are talking about content relevance here as per WP:LEAD, not whether or not something is verifiable. I probably could verify Arntz's shoe size if I really wanted to. That's no reason to include it in the article, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop changing the final paragraph of the lead

Wndl42, none of the changes you keep making to the final paragraph are an improvement in general, and they certainly do not make the statements align more closely with the references. I realise that you have made a number of points on the talk page about how the lead shouldn't sound so pejorative. I thoroughly disagree with you, I disagree with your efforts to make this film sound like it is simply misunderstood, and I would like you to leave the final paragraph alone until you get people to agree to your changes. The final paragraph as it stand today is short, sweet, to the point, not pejorative, and completely in line with WP:LEAD.Kww (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I just left it I think it is about what the general consensus would make it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your attempt, and the problem is that the references do not support the the cause and effect being named. The references do not state that the motive is to support spirituality ... they use phrase like "distorts science to satisfy it's own agenda", or "mysticism", or a variety of things. The nice thing about the short summation paragraph is that it doesn't say anything that can't be tracked right back to the sources, doesn't inflame or exaggerate, it just reports the contents of the sources.Kww (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How about now? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It still seems like more words that are just a little bit of a stretch of the sources. I don't think it's an improvement over where we were last night. In fact, it's nearly the same problem we fixed last night ... while the sources are pretty well aligned on generic terms like "misrepresentation", they aren't so well aligned on what exact part of it they choose to complain about, and what motive they ascribe. Last night, olive had reverted the citations because "misrepresents science" had been changed to "misrepresents science to promote pseudoscience", and olive felt that the references had been stretched too far. I can see an editor feeling the same way about changing it to "misrepresents science to support mysticism."Kww (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

continued I really feel uncomfortable with characterizing the ABC's language with this language. They apparently felt the mispresentation was based on a complete misunderstanding of the observer principle, and didn't ascribe any motive at all.Kww (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me if you want to go back to the version of last night. Just keep the naming of the different directors ok? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't. I'm certain that you could construct a 3RR report out of my edits if I did so.Kww (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aw, come on, Kww assume good faith . I'm happy to revert to last night . I like its simplicity.(olive (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, I wouldn't set you up that way. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing either of you of bad faith in this regard. I have been blocked one, and only one, time, and that was from a false 3RR report constructed by one of the frequent editors of this article. I don't plan on giving anyone the ammunition to do it for real. If you are willing to revert back, please do so.Kww (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Good.You got to it before I did. If there are changes from now on, could we have a consensus please.(olive (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

I see consensus for the current lead, don't you? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

KWW, I appreciate your opinion, but substantive discussion does not include restating your personal opinion ad infinitum. There are at least three substantive points here that you have yet to substantively refute. WNDL42 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

KWW has done an admirable job of not only refuting these "substantive points" but also providing points of his own that have yet to be refuted (see above about the appeal to authority). ScienceApologist (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what substantive points you have made that remain to be addressed.

• You don't like the word "pseudoscience"? That isn't much of an objection, and we have policies in place about pseudoscience. I believe this article follows them.
• Arntz is a "former research physicist"? Sorry, that's pretty obvious resume pumping ... a BS in Engineering Science doesn't qualify you to be a research physicist, and it would be misleading to describe him as one. Most holders of the degree get jobs like project management, and his later software career seems to affirm that project management is his main skill set.
• The association with Ramtha is too negative? It's the only association he's had that has any relevance to the movie. If you are insistent on adding "software developer", I won't object that it's false, but I do think it's completely irrelevant.
• The lead is too negative? The lead makes it quite clear that the movie was a success. It doesn't indulge in attacks against anyone associated with the film. It really pulls its punches in terms of reflecting the language of the sources, because the harsher accusations against the film are all lumped under a blanket term of "misrepresent", instead of "distort". It doesn't go into the accusations of fraud and deceit on the part of the film makers.

What's left?Kww (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Balance is what's left, and you've not addressed that.

As pointed out above "balance" is not exactly what WP:NPOV is about. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

KWW, neither you nor others have addressed the issue of "blanketing" in the use of pseudoscience -- I have repeatedly expressed my support for the proper use of the word, to the extent that it is not applied with an overly broad brush, as it is now. You have not defended on these grounds, indeed when you have encountered the question you respond by changing the subject, or with personal opinions that do not cite specifically what is pseudoscience. WNDL42 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see in the lead, there is no "blanketing". The lead properly characterizes the movie as containing pseudoscience. Since this is a criticism for which we have sources, and it is framed properly (the entire movie isn't pseudoscience, rather the movie contains pseudoscience) I fail to see how this use is "improper" in any sense. I don't see the "broad brush" application either. Sure there are only specific instances of pseudoscience in the movie, but the lead is a summary, and as a summary it lets the reader know that the movie contains pseudoscience. This is verifiable to reliable sources that criticize the movie. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't blanketly dismiss the film as pseudoscience, or say that it consists of pseudoscience, it says it contains it, and cites reliable sources to support it. Kww (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a loaded statement by definition, therefore unencyclopedic. WNDL42 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

By this criteria, the entire lead is a loaded statement because it follows summary style. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lock down the lead

Any chance we could agree on the lead and then leave it in place so we can work on the rest of the article. What's in place now has the agreement of three editors. (olive (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

What's now in place is better. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not, as the consensus version has already been unilaterally displaced by nonconsensus edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Blanket pejoratives in the lead fail on multiple policy grounds (cited endlessly here, and we are dealing with living people, and as we all know WP:BLP trumps all, and "disputes" are settled conservatively in favor of those individuals who might be harmed. Enough is enough, let's get to work on the article and stop this nonsense about whose POV for the lead has more "votes". WNDL42 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What pejoratives? BLP doesn't trump all. What BLP complaint has been filed at the WP:BLPN? I don't see any. The Lead is fine the way it is. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "fine" because we don't know what "it" is. Get caught up on the talk page and discuss issues in play, rather than dismissing discussions you have not participated in. WNDL42 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally caught up. I see a lot of noise and little substance. You've got an issue with BLP? File a WP:BLPN. Otherwise, there is just a lot of smoke-and-mirrors. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus for this version of the lead, but there was a general consensus till a few min ago. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you know what consensus is. You might want to read up on it. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How on earth could a "consensus" have magically appeared in the three hours I was out to dinner last night? See WP:CCC, specifically that little word "wait" right underneath the "make an edit" box.

Wikipedia consensus process flowchart

Wow, after months of contention over this lead, the idea that any consensus whatsoever could possibly have developed in any given three, six or twelve hour period is utter nonsense and sheer poppycock. WNDL42 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No quotes in the lead please

Please keep quotes out of the lead, please. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ALL - please stop creating unnessary section headings on talk

There is no reason for continually creating new section headings to add comments to discussions already in play. You and others here been doing this repeatedly. Please consider the impact you are having on other editors as you are making the relevant discussions impossible to follow. I'm sure it's not intentional, but when you do this repeatedly in contentious topic areas it gives the appearance of a Smoke screen, and I am quite certain you know where the relevant discussions are taking place. Please do not use talk page section headings to "shout" over the discussion. This is now at least the sixth time you have done this recently and this is my second request that you stop. WNDL42 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any other section that is discussing quotes in the lead. Do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that you fail again to talk to my point; that this kind of repeated "heading abuse" is disruptive here -- there are four separate places where the Arntz quote, "a film for the metaphysical left" quote has been discussed without closure, and that is the only "quote" currently in discussion for the lead, as you know. And we both know you don't need pointers to these discussions. search this talk page if you need help finding the relevant discussion on this mess of a talk page. WNDL42 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy on heading abuse you would like to cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

false claims of consensus?

I think there should be a general moratorium on talking about "consensus". Most of the people declaring it are using it to push an agenda. Let's put aside declarations of "consensus" and actually work to write a lead that conforms to the content guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Those people who think that there is a BLP issue with the lead can start out by filing a WP:BLPN, because I cannot see what the BLP issue is right now. Those people who think that there is an NPOV issue with the lead can ask for a third opinion or a request for comment, because I don't see what the NPOV issues are (if there are any). But trying to argue about consensus is not productive. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How about, we drop any artificial claims of consensus, and we simultaneously drop the completely counterproductive refrain of accusations of 'POV pushing' or 'pushing an agenda'? Does that sound like a good faith effort at finding common ground for discourse? Are you in? And maybe we should skip the shotgun approach to personal attacks: "Most of the people declaring it are using it to push an agenda." Blanket accusations of bad faith such as this are not helpful, and I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from these in the future. Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I will gladly agree to this. You'll notice, however, that I was one of the people talking about consensus too. Agenda I'm pushing? I think you can guess. ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

i think that the people who are mentioning consensus ar etlaking in good faith but they are making a mistake. you see sometimes one person will post an idea, a few more people wil agree with it, and then the topic of the conversation will shif tand the person who initiatlly posted the idea wil get the false impresison that consensus was reached since no one got around to disputing it. they will make the edit and all of a udden will find themselve sbeing accused of scientific totatliratiarnism and bad faith. Smith Jones (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If a "consensus" only exists until someone with a a scientific background speaks up (or a Stalinist, as Boodles and Wndl42 call us), then it is hardly worth defending. A true consensus can only arise in a full informed community. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• (responding in-line to refute another false attribution) Jeffire, I've asked politely on several occasions now that you please stop falsely portraying my characterizations of the conflicts here as personal attacks, as you have again just above. Please do not post user talk page entries here to make your points. My full response to your comment above is here, with proper diffs to restore essential context. WNDL42 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't agree with WP:CONSENSUS, you should just go to WP:CONSENSUS and be WP:BOLD... hey, it worked at WP:FRINGE... (so far) ... Dlabtot (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with wp:consensus, it's just that we don't have it here, and it's disingenuous to pretend that we do. Jefffire (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to speak of consensus in the context of the small number of people participating in this talk page. Consensus is represented by policies such as WP:NPOV, our job is to see how best to apply that consensus to this particular article. Anything else wopuld be an open ticket for every crackpot in the land to skew content just by bringing friends. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

i know that im just saying that sometimes a false consensus regarding content can ber eached due to a number of people agreeing with an idea or insertion and a large number of other people who dont bother to register their dispaproval. if i wanted to add an external link and all of the most frequent editors said that they saw no problem with it, i might be fooled into thinking that this means that EVERYONE who edits the article agres with it, and the only way iwould know better i s through experience, knowledge of the policeis. My point tha t it is possible to falsely assume conensus in good faith without having any evil or satanic intent as it implied by the person bleating above. Smith Jones (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, what is the proper context in which to speak of consensus? - since you seem to be saying that the community of editors involved in editing an article is not the proper context - (correct me if I'm wrong) - what is? Dlabtot (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's look to WP:CCC, and please let's respect those editors who are unable or unwilling to "ride" this article as tendentiously as many of us here have been doing -- including me. The best editors with the most reasonable and neutral POVs are continually being either (a) driven away, or (b) drowned out by our "noise", and the sum total of our behavior is tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I for one am not able or willing to "keep up". Wikipedia does not belong to the most tendentious partisans in any topic area, indeed the articles that result from the "winning" of such noisy arguments wind up being, in general, amongst the worst crap found on Wikipedia. WNDL42 (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only times I ever see WP:CCC cited in anger is when POV-pushers continually seek to draw a new "consensus" average between the current article and their POV. Consensus is represented by policy. Agreement of a few editors on a talk page is just that: agreement between a few editors. If the few editors can't agree, then dispute resolution is necessary. You can't justly invoke consensus without a minimum of many tens of users contributing, ideally some hundreds, and in this case just one editor would still represent the consensus view even if fifty editors turned up to try to rewrite the article into a puff piece, because consensus is not equivalent to the people who turn up to support one or another POV. Sorry to labour this point, but it is absolutely critical not to be misled into thinking that any number of editors agreeing that we can ignore criticism in the lead, to pick one example, will never amount to a consensus especially when weighed against WP:NPOV. Where you have unanimous agreement among all editors of all POVs that a certain wording is aceptable per policy, then that is consensus. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy, wow...were you serious with "Where you have unanimous agreement among all editors of all POVs that a certain wording is aceptable per policy, then that is consensus.", really? I can only say (a) what mythical Wikipedia are you editing? (b) you managed to talk completely around my point, which might indicate that you are unable to refute what I wrote, and prefer a Smoke screen. Do you care to discuss what I wrote instead of dismissively and falsely attributing it to an emotional state? Keep to civility please. WNDL42 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Restating: Let's look to WP:CCC, and please let's respect those editors who are unable or unwilling to "ride" this article as tendentiously as many of us here have been doing -- including me. The best editors with the most reasonable and neutral POVs are continually being either (a) driven away, or (b) drowned out by our "noise", and the sum total of our behavior is tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I for one am not able or willing to "keep up". Wikipedia does not belong to the most tendentious partisans in any topic area, indeed the articles that result from the "winning" of such noisy arguments wind up being, in general, amongst the worst crap least encyclopedic articles found on Wikipedia. WNDL42 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then you should stop editing the article. I for one do not feel that way. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fresh discussion of the lead

There is clearly no consensus for the lead. I would like to re-propose a simplistic, NPOV lead that can serve pragmatically as a "lowest common denominator" and give everybody a little piece of what they want. This will, of necessity, give no one as much as they want, but it will move us forward.

What the Bleep Do We Know is a 2004 film followed by an extended 2006 DVD release that explores the controversial boundaries between science and spirituality using a metaphysical interpretation of Quantum Physics. Created by filmmaker William Arntz, the film features scientists, philosophers, doctors and New Age "channeler" Ramtha in the context of a fictional narrative. The film presents minority scientific and in some cases "fringe" views to support the idea that individuals "co-create" thier subjective realities in the process of experiencing their lives.

So, there is (a) "fringe", (b) "ramtha", (c) "new age", (d) "fictional", (e) "metaphysical", all in the context of spirituality.

Thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What "minority scientific views" are presented in the film? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the "metaphysical interpretation" of quantum physics being employed by the film? The interpretation of Ramtha? If so, shouldn't we just call it quantum flapdoodle? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)