Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Time to use "edit protected", I think

It's pretty obvious that this article turns into a whirlwind every time it gets unprotected. I think that there is sufficient agreement on the proposed lead to request an admin to protect the article in it's protected state. I would suggest that we continue this process down the line ... beat on another section until we can get reasonable editors to agree on it, and then request the change. Otherwise, it's just Russian roulette as to which version of the article is in place when the edit warring is halted by protection.

At this time, I would like to request an admin change the lead paragraph to 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 that posits a connection between Quantum Physics and consciousness. The film suggests that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world through quantum mechanical means. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

Have I got that right? Is there widespread agreement that we should get that changed?Kww (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Really2012back (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (I can't do strikeouts, but I changed my previous answer after considering Kww's comment re distinction between "misrepresenting science" and "containing pseudoscience." Let's go. Woonpton (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But I'm not sure that is something an admin will agree to doing, seems to me it isn't kosher. But it's a good idea. Woonpton, just use code <s></s> = strikeout. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey what's going on. I thought we were going to make some minor changes to the introduction around the vague 'connection' bit, on the lines of stuff I, MPhi, Really and Woonpton had already agreed upon - possibly but not necessarily including 'New Age'. I reluctantly came to the conclusion that no further progress was possible to the intro. I wanted to put some work into cleaning up the main body of the piece for style, thread &c. This constant war over the introduction is preventing much useful work on the article itself. The Rationalist (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just lost track of people's positions ... that's why I posted this section. No skullduggery involved. I'd really like to get a lead in place that people stop fussing over, and I thought this was what you, Martin, Really, and Woonpton had agreed on. If this isn't it, what is?Kww (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm 100% comfortable with the proposal since quantum mysticism doesn't appear in it. That would make me more comfortable and likely to support it. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that would still be in the third paragraph. Jefffire (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Let's be clear ... I was proposing changing the lead paragraph, not the lead. Paragraphs 2 and 3 would remain intact, and paragraph 3 does, indeed, include quantum mysticism.Kww (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Indeed I was confused by the proposal. I like Jeffire's quote better, though. At the risk of damaging our already shaky attempts at building consensus, could we try that one on for size? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we change the controversial sentence to a direct quote from the movies website. It describes it as "Exploring the worlds of Quantum Physics, Neurology, and Molecular Biology in relation to the spheres of Spirituality, Metaphysics and Polish weddings", and since that could be attributed as a quote we avoid all policy trouble (we might want to leave out the Polish weddings though...I suspect that's flippancy on the makers part). Jefffire (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That quote is actually really good, including the Polish weddings bit which is actually a major portion of the movie for some reason I have yet to figure out. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I could go with the new rewrite you suggest KWW, and have included above. I don't see it as a definitive edit but its better than what was there before, I think. I think a quote weakens the lead and would not support that inclusion.(olive (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Like Olive I'm happy with it and think now re-writing it and adding a quote weakens the lead. I think that also starting a major write of yet another section of this paragraph is just going to slow things down and lead to further argument about this section. Indeed, I ma confused as to where this has come form, like Kww I thought that it was only the "thought effects reality" part that was the issue. This is getting boring to be honest. Really2012back (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I had thought it might be better to use an attributed quote rather than risk OR, but I'm not wedded to the idea enough to think it's essential. Jefffire (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away. My last edit was a bit confused, a reaction to the section title (implying there was no agreement). I'm fine by the proposed changes, whatever. Sorry again, Olive, for losing it the other day. Really sorry. The Rationalist (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology Rationalist . We've had a pretty highly charged atmosphere over here so its no wonder things become ultra-sensitive.(olive (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm okay with KWW's proposal. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, except that I don't think Quantum Physics should be Capitalized. Rracecarr (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and Racecarr is right about the caps, but Nealparr formatted correctly below. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the phrase "through quantum mechanical means" was being included. I don't think that this is 100% accurate. After all, the film doesn't really say what the "means" really is through which reality is supposed to be altered. Quantum mechanics is the object lesson, but as with all quantum flapdoodle, there is no real connection made between it and the New Age Ramtha-nonsense believed by the New Age woo-woos. I removed the offending phrase. Hope no one objects. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just not cricket to change it now, after everyone has weighed in. Are you really so against the phrase that we need to go over this again? I'm removing the {{editprotected}} until this is settled.Kww (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for this, but the fact is that quantum mechanics does not deal with consciousness nor "altering reality" so it is very difficult for me to support such wording. What we can say is that the film supports the idea that consciousness alters reality, but the film offers no mechanism for this. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But the paragraph simply says the film "suggests" that consciousness alters reality through a quantum mechanical means, which to my mind is an objective view of the film; it goes to great lengths to "suggest" such a mechanism without actually describing the mechanism. The wording was suggested by martinphi, after a long discussion where everyone (6 people by my off-the-top-of-the-head count) who was involved in the discussion at that point had agreed that they wanted some wording to the effect that the film suggests that physical reality can be modified by thought. Rationalist suggested, in a gesture of goodwill, that we adopt Martin's wording. Not everyone weighed in on that, but those who did agreed that it was fine with them, as long as the criticism by scientists also remained intact in the lead, and kww then brought the agreed-upon first paragraph of the lead down to the present section for final approval. I was surprised when people saw that as a "new" proposal by kww; it wasn't a new suggestion by him but simply the end result of considerable discussion (the discussion can be found, if someone hasn't removed it, up above the Ramtha/Buddhist section, which was a sidetrack.) If it needs more discussion by more people, then let's get it done. I'm not crazy about the wording, but since it was something The Rationalist and Martinphi and kww and Really (I think) could all live with, it seemed like it had a chance of getting the job done at last. Woonpton (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with excising the offending phrase? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Because now everyone that has already agreed to the earlier phrasing has to come back and agree again. It's like herding cats. Or, you can agree to the text that you had already agreed to, and I can reinstate the request for an edit of a protected article.Kww (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, Kww. The fact is that we'll never get anywhere editing the article like this. We need to start banning problematic users if arguing over a single phrase like this is the nitpicking we're coming too. I'll continue to be as bold as I want, thank you very much, and I don't think you need to go through and try to get everyone else to comment. Common sense says that this change will not be controversial, so just make it. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot honestly represent to any admin that we have consensus on that version. If you insist on the change, I will wait until most have weighed in on it, and then go and rouse the rest. Shouldn't take more than another week.Kww (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll make the edit protection request. Sheesh. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Six of one, half a dozen of another. If the point of contention is to make sure that the the wording reflects that the film "suggests that physical reality can be modified by thought", that's already done through "The film suggests that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world." Material world = physical reality. The line right before it says "posits a connection between quantum physics and consciousness," so the suggestion that this is somehow done through quantum mechanics is already covered. A case could be made that "quantum mechanics" in the second line is redundant. Either with or without "quantum mechanics", the points are still covered. I do, however, agree that there was consensus for the other wording, so that should have gone through unmodified. If an objection is raised at the last minute it should seek a new independent consensus instead of just being altered without consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Caution: Children at Play

Well, after taking a little wikibreak from this nonsense since my last entry on March 3, with the intention of performing an empirical analysis of the editorial contributions and discourse of the various players here, I note (since the "discussion" resumed on March 8):

(a) User:Really2012back is the latest good editor to be chased from the topic. I now count six.

(b) no less than seven personal attacks and ad hominem references to other editors, including telling a "best of breed" editor to "F--k" off from the article, and a ridiculous reference to the essay at WP:TE which is applied in totally nonsensical context to another editor's entries here on the talk page-- (please actually READ WP:TE, it DOES NOT apply to talk pages),

(c) about a dozen blatant instances of unsupported personal opinion being fallaciously expressed as if it were fact, often with SHOUTING and frequently with derisive language directed ad hominem at individual editors (discrediting attacks)...

(d) all resulting in (big surprise here)...not one tiny inch of progress. IMO, this childishness is no longer funny, except from the sidelines.

Is it time either for (a) an RfC, or (b) a mediation? WNDL42 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you then have any positive contribution to make? The Rationalist (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, because I think laughter is a positive thing, I am almost ROFLOL that (as everyone here knows) you are the source of 90% of the childishness described above, which makes your request for a "positive contribution" comment so utterly laughable. The only thing that's almost as funny is that someone else here thinks you are so confused that you don't even know who you are attacking. Thanks for the laugh, wikidudes. WNDL42 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I already apologised to you for the rudeness. The Rationalist (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's let it go.......... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Rationalist, I must have missed your apology -- can't find it, chalk it up to inability to comprehend and sort out all the noise here on this talk page and...apology accepted. WNDL42 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{editprotected}}Defanged macro ... edit completeKww (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After enormous struggles, we have finally gained consensus (documented here) to change the first paragraph of this article to

• 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 that posits a connection between quantum physics and consciousness. The film suggests that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

Please note that all other paragraphs should remain unchanged: this is a one-for-one swap.Kww (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Swap the above paragraph with the current first paragraph. This is renominated by User:ScienceApologist. This is an uncontroversial edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused,SA. Are you saying that the paragraph in the current protected lead is non-controversial? If so, I am wondering how other editors feel about making this swap since there have been weeks of discussion on a new, or a least revised lead. I cannot agree to go ahead with this move or none move unless there is agreement from the editors who have so diligently worked on this lead in last weeks. I guess we'll have to see how other editors weigh in.(olive (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Summary for any confused admin looking at this section

We have spent weeks (see here)coming to a consensus on a change to the first paragraph of the lead. It is nearly the same as what SA has, with one change: the phrase "through quantum mechanical means", i.e.

• 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 that posits a connection between quantum physics and consciousness through quantum mechanical means. The film suggests that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

After having already agreed to that text, SA changed it after all other interested editors had already weighed in. I then removed the {{editprotected}} macro, and said that I would wait until everyone weighed in on his change. He stated that the change is trivial, and has reinstated the {{editprotected}} with his changed text. I agree that the change is trivial, and suggest inserting the text as all other editors had agreed upon, and ignoring SA's last-minute change. After all, consensus does not mean unanimity, and one editor's disagreement shouldn't block what little progress we have managed to make.Kww (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, you tacked "through quantum mechanical means" onto the wrong sentence. Corrected. Rracecarr (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I? Where's it supposed to go, then? Moreschi (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After material world.Rracecarr (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame Moreschi ... I screwed it up.Kww (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did the version we agreed on get into the article without change? It looks the same, but maybe something is different? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a twisted path, but yes, the version in the article is the version we agreed on.Kww (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts

I sort of think there needs to be some kind of resolution to the fighting over this article. This log is beyond absurd: and, more to the point, when I've seen similar protection logs the dispute(s) has/have usually ended up going to ArbCom. That's not something I imagine anyone wants. Arbitrators have limited patience too.

As far as further disputes go, I really can't imagine what there is left to fight over. From the point of view of someone (more or less) on the outside, who's never seen the film, and, in all honesty, doesn't give two flying fucks about it either - this article is not that bad. Ok, so not FA-standard, nor A-class, or whatever, but Wikipedia has far worse trash for you to go out there and fix. Ok, so that "academic reception" stuff is, at least in my opinion, a bit too long, though the film obviously does have some notable critics (Mr Dawkins). But, hey, it's a New Age film - when we write an encyclopaedia article on such a topic, we should probably use a slightly different language-game than we would in an article on mainstream science. And, be realistic - there is no need to explicitly keep on hammering out the fact the science in the film is tosh. Most people will click on those links to the Ramtha School and JZ Knight articles. Those who don't, you won't persuade anyway. Number 44 and all that.

In conclusion: this article is not a perfect model of NPOV. Big deal - not. Wikipedia has far worse articles. This one is, by and large, ok. Maybe at some future stage we can come back and trim a little bit of the criticism, which is, at least in my opinion, excessive. But the unwavering obsession some people appear to have with this article is totally unwarranted. It's reasonably fair, both to fans of the film and to those who hate it. Is there any need to keep on with the quarrels and edit-wars? I warn you - if you do keep going, and this does go to arbitration, I suspect the arbitrators' reactions will be far from pleasant, particularly since some of the names of the chaps fighting here have come up in previous cases. I myself am rather leaning towards a talk page moratorium (enforced by protection) for a month.

With all respect. Moreschi (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

^A voice of reason. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is a "talk page moratorium"? Protecting the talk page so that changes can't even be discussed? Myself, I'm happy to protect the talk page and the article, and then throw away the keys.Kww (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just that. Lock up the talk page for a while (say a month, or two) with full protection. Unorthodox, but...Moreschi (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really support locking the talk page. Just ignore the people who aren't constructive completely, acting like their post is invisible. Eventually they'll leave saying "Nobody listens to me, Wikipedia is [biased, censored, run by mob mentality, broken, etc.]!" --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that there isn't even consensus as to who those people are. Some of our most problematic editors have support from some of our regular editors.Kww (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG, Moreschi, I thought you were major league SPOV? Maybe I was wrong, seems you're not the average SPOV debunker. Thanks for your input (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, hear, hear. End this ridiculous tempest in a teaspoon. Dlabtot (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of what has been said except: "...use a slightly different language-game than we would in an article on mainstream science"

The problem is that this new-age/spiritual documentary has used a somewhat eccentric view of science to support it's theories. The moment it did that it put itself in the firing line of many scientists and will thus need to be treated accordingly. Just my thoughts. But yes, some of the semantics delaying a real review of this article here in the talk page are frankly just silly Maras brother Ted (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Moreschi. I read in Number 44 and all that "Everything deep loves a mask". I don't think Nietzsche's safeguard against shallow interpretations is compatible with science's cold desire to peel back every nook and cranny of existence, however deep they may be, and expose them to the shallow light. Plus I think you've inadvertedly stumbled across the crux of the problem in these types of articles with your quote. One-half of the argument here is skepticism. As the article on nihilism points out, "Nihilism differs from skepticism in that skepticism doesn't reject claims to truth outright; it only rejects these claims if there is insufficient empirical evidence to support them. Additionally, skepticism does not necessarily come to any conclusions about the reality of moral concepts nor does it deal so intimately with questions about the meaning of an existence without knowable truth."

In other words, scientific skepticism doesn't seek to interpret. It's cold, calculating, and systematic. Facts, not necessarily truths, and always objective facts where Nietzsche would have opposed any sort of attempt at reaching an objective truth outright. This is directly applicable to the this article and others like it. Whereas fringe likes to speculate and interpret, offering perhaps subjective insight, scientific skepticism doesn't as a matter of philosophical principle. The result of the two opposing views meeting up in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is nothing short of bloody.

You have a lengthy skepticism section here precisely because scientific skepticism by nature dissects, takes everything apart piece by piece, so that it is no longer deep. Science is psychic surgery, a knife that cuts deeply but ultimately leaves no incision because everything is surfaced in the process. While certainly Everything deep loves a mask, science hates masks and always results in shallow.

Just my nickel minus three pennies : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Documentary disambiguation

{{editprotected}} I'm working on removing links to the disambiguation page Documentary. The link to that article in the second line of the first paragraph here can be disambiguated as Documentary film via a piped link. Mlaffs (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Moreschi (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Mlaffs (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove problematic wording

{{editprotected}} Please remove the phrase:

"through quantum mechanical means."

from the first paragraph.

Thank you.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We should restore the {{editprotected}} only after you demonstrate that there is no controversy about the change, not before.Kww (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't own the talkpage. Perhaps you need to take a break and try to figure out whether this is worth it. In the meantime, stop changing my posts and post your complaints elsewhere, if you please. I demonstrated that there is no controversy below. The only controversy is people who are weirdly obsessed with some invented consensus process which they can't even seem to be able to explain. This obstructionism seems to be an idiosyncratic obsession and nothing more. I repeat: do not place nowiki tags around my edits again. Thank you. If you want to dispute what I'm doing, please consider dispute resolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the sources (and I have no intention of watching this steaming pile of ordure) it does seem to me that the film does, according to them, suggest that "that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world through quantum mechanical means". The self-evident fatuity of the suggestion does not seem to bother the film-makers, who appear not to give a damn that most of what they say is twaddle of the worst kind. Do feel free to point out what I'm missing in the sources here. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG, please do not be uncivil on this talk page any more. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, please do not insult my intelligence any more. On this talk page or anywhere else. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The closest I'm seeing are two quotes from the movie:

"And everybody's had that experience... when they've made up their mind that they've wanted something. That's quantum physics in action."

and

And therefore, literally, I create my own reality. It may sound like a tremendous, bombastic claim by some New Agey... without any understanding of physics whatsoever... but really quantum physics is telling us that."

Not quite saying that "individual and group consciousness can influence the material world through quantum mechanical means." Actually, closer to saying something like "quantum mechanics lets us create reality."

I think that the current wording is just incorrect. The film is actually saying something more outrageous about quantum mechanics than that weasly phrasing. So I suggest simply excising it.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins should generally avoid making content changes to pages that are protected due to dispute. I'm sorry I didn't check thoroughly for other editprotected requests when I looked at the one below; there's a full explanation down there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording could come directly from the quotes above, and therefore we should keep it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguments

This is a protectd, highly contentious article. I am confused as to how this edit can be added without agreement from any other editor. Am I missing something here.(olive (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

No, you aren't confused. There is no consensus for that change in wording. SA is free to try to persuade people that it's a good change (I don't mind it myself), but there isn't consensus for it at this time.Kww (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we've already been scolded for fighting (unfairly, I thought, since we've been working so hard to get consensus on this wording) I am very much against anyone using editprotect to make a change we haven't agreed on. I figure that's a good way to get the page shut down for good, which I think would be unfortunate since we've put so much effort into this. I'm also unhappy that Moreschi made an edit in the second paragraph of the lead at the same time he made the change we requested in the first paragraph; he added a phrase after the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, something to the effect "an institution whose curriculum is based on the teachings of JZ Knight." We've had discussions over this before, I'm sure. I personally think it's an objective statement and could stay, but then I don't believe in Ramtha. The RSE website stipulates that the teachings aren't JZ Knight's teachings, but Ramtha's teachings, and the movie specified that it wasn't JZ Knight but Ramtha who was being interviewed in the movie, so whenever you bring up one of them you have to introduce the other, and I thought we decided that extra explanation made it too complicated to mention either Ramtha or JZ Knight in the lead. Does anyone have any feelings about that at this point?

I don't particularly mind the change SA is suggesting, but I do mind his going to editprotect unilaterally. We had agreed to use Martin's wording, and that's how the wording went. As I said the other day, if SA has a problem with it, let's talk about it and if there's consensus to remove it, have it removed. But don't just go and change it without talking it about it, that's not an option at this point in our collaboration. Woonpton (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a chat with Moreschi about his change (to which I objected on procedural grounds). He has stated that if anyone objects to it on other than procedural grounds, he'll revert himself. As for now, I disabled SA's {{editprotect}}, so no change will happen until there is a consensus to make it.Kww (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Woonpton, and Kww. I would suggest we stay with Martin's wording for now, and if changes in wording are needed then lets quickly talk about, and do it. I feel we are working in a more collaborative manner right now so lets just stay with that. As for the Ramtha material that was added, I believe it should be removed for the reasons Woonpton is suggesting, but also because it creates WP:Undue Weight in that paragraph.(olive (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Ok, I've removed the material I added to the lead about JZ Knight. Woonpton makes some good points, though I don't agree with Olive about undue weight: I scarcely feel a very passing mention of an obvious fact is undue weight (well, apparently it's not a fact, which is why I've removed it, but you see what I mean). Moreschi (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Every reason given in this section is specious. If you have a substantive reason to dispute removing the clause, list it now. Otherwise, stop being obstructionist, all of you. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't specious ... just procedural. You attempted to make a change after the last moment, after you had already agreed to another version and the macro had been posted requesting the change. After having that undone, you then proposed the change again, and used a macro where the instructions include the need to either be non-controversial or to have a consensus behind it. Since you had been asked not to do it, you knew that neither applied. Try making an argument for why you believe that the movie isn't suggesting that the linkage between consciousness and reality is based on quantum mechanics. I know there's no such linkage, and you know there's no such linkage, but that doesn't keep the movie from suggesting that there is one. If that would have stopped them, they wouldn't have made the damn thing in the first place.Kww (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about the clause, it's about unilateral action at a time when people are ready to lock this article down forever and throw away the key. Since we have been working in a process where we got consensus for changes and then agreed, together, to ask an administrator to make the changes we agreed on, any unilateral action without consensus is destructive to that delicate collaboration process we have established, and I will continue to resist any such action.

When I read the sentence in question, I like the effect of the clause and I'd actually prefer to leave it in, as I think leaving it in strengthens the point you want to make more than taking it out would, without belaboring it. If you can get the rest to agree that the clause should be deleted, then I won't fight to keep it, in other words I will bow to consensus on this. But you have to get consensus in order to make changes, that's the only way we're going to be able to complete this article. "Stop being obstructionist, all of you" is very funny, if it was intended to be funny. Whether or not, we're at a point where only a collaborative process is going to work. Olive, I think this is the answer to your question: No, the article cannot be opened for general editing, if we can't even work together when the article is protected and we're supposed to get consensus for changes before using editprotect. Woonpton (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The film never explicitly says that the power of intention is caused by quantum mechanical means. It may imply it from time to time, but it never explicitly says it. That's why I'm demanding it be removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Science Apologist, our sentence reads "The film suggests that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world through quantum mechanical means," which is exactly what the film suggests; it suggests this over and over. It's what the whole blanking film is about. It is the modification of the physical world that the film suggests can be accomplished through quantum mechanical means, mediated by the power of thought. The sentence does not say that the film suggests that the power of intention is caused by quantum mechanical means; your argument for removing the clause seems to be based in a misreading of the sentence. I would prefer that the sentence remain as it is. Woonpton (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Woonpton, in point of fact, the film never says anything like this. It implies this from time to time and there are people the film interviews who make claims that sound close to this, but it, in point of fact, NEVER suggests this. If you think differently, find me a quote from the film that says that "individual and group consciousness can influence the material world through quantum mechanical means". I see nothing in the script that comes close to linking the two in a single sentence. Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing on

It's been suggested that we just stop, and there may be wisdom in taking that course. Before we do, I would like to ask everyone to look over the article and identify what they think the biggest problem spot is. Then ask yourself ... "If the article has that problem, is that really a problem?" If it is, list out your problem here, and we'll see if we can get a consensus to fix it. If the biggest problem anyone can find isn't big enough to fix, we're done.Kww (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "just stop", Kww. Have it unprotected... go into the article to edit... open it all up....leave protection in place... not sure. Thanks(olive (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Just stop means to leave the article protected, and in its current state. No more edits.Kww (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To be clear ... I think that is what eventually needs to happen. I don't think this article should ever be unprotected again. I'm undecided as to whether it's time to stop now, or whether there is more work that has to be done.Kww (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to protect the lead and not the article?

I understand where you're coming from I think in having the article protected until the end of time or the end of Wikipedia, whichever comes first. However, that seems to defeat the whole purpose of a collaborative encyclopedia. I wonder about implementing some specific guidelines for this article. For example, a 1 revert rule. Articles can always be made better . Then if the same thing happens lock it down , but maybe at least give it a try.(olive (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

It isn't possible to protect just the lead (well, technically you could do it by protecting an article that contained a lead, and then using {{filename}} to include an unprotected body, but it's against the rules).

We could get a 1RR rule implemented by creating an Arbcom case. I really don't want to do that. There's always a risk when you do that. I know that there are a few editors that think I have abused them during the course of this controversy, and if they convince Arbcom that they are right, I could wind up in MartinPhi and ScienceApologist's position. I don't want to be there.Kww (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I understand. What about just opening it up, and then see what happens. If things deteriorate just have an indefinite protect applied, walk away, and that's it. Is it possible that with the possibility of a longterm protection things will be better. Well, yes... just clutching at straws.(olive (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree with kww that this article should remain protected. I also like kww's question: are there things that still need fixing, or can we agree with Moreschi's assessment that the article is for all intents and purposes finished? I take it olive wants to work on the article more; I'm curious what she feels needs to be fixed?Woonpton (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think locking down an article is a sign of a minute loss of control of the encyclopedia's purpose, and is anti-evolutionary. That's all I guess . If I went through the article which I can't do right now, maybe tomorrow, I think there may be things that can be fixed or improved but I guess that's not the issue. I just hate to buckle under to protecting .. Its a kind of failure I guess. Maybe if there are some who want to try working on it and some who don't we could ask for agreement or just open the article to those who do want to work on it and who feel they could collaborate successfully. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree that it's a sign of failure, but few things are 100% successful. I'll continue to work on the article as long as people keep finding things that they feel a need to fix.Kww (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a problem involving factual accuracy, not sure how important it is or how to fix it, but the first sentence describes the film as a "2004 film, followed by a 2006 extended DVD release." This doesn't make clear that the 2004 film and the film included in the 2006 DVD release aren't the same film. They share some of the same material, but there is also material in each that's not in the other. Some of the comments in the body of the article refer to material that's in one of the films and not in the other, with no notation as to which version of the film it's in.Woonpton (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think changing the lead is necessary, but could you make a list of material that is specific to one version or the other? Noting those sections should be a fairly mechanical change, and one that consensus can be reached on relatively quickly.Kww (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through the article and pick out all the instances, besides it's been a few weeks since I forced myself to watch the two versions in two days, so I may not remember them all now. But I do remember that the part about Christopher Columbus's ships was in the first version but not in the second version, and the part about people being able to affect a random number generator backward in time was in the second version but not in the first version. If the material on scientific materialism got into the article (I don't remember seeing it when I skimmed through the article last night, but I remember someone wanting it in there); at any rate, if it did, that discussion forms the opening 20 minutes or so of the second version of the movie but doesn't appear in the first version of the movie. I notice that there's a separate section in the article that describes the extended-DVD version as a sequel, so maybe that takes care of the distinction between the two movies. I agree, let's leave the lead as it is. Woonpton (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kww, your idea to have an admin edit the article for us seems to be a very good one- though I wish we could get an admin who wouldn't tinker with the text in the process.

It is possible to protect the lead and not the article- is it really against the rules?

I don't think an article can be finished when it has what it does under New Age community reaction. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That section is pretty funny, though. It does seem that some of the more kooky sources do think of it in those terms, but you're right, it does represent the most completely batshit view as being representative. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys I'm taking the pills now so it's OK. (Joke). I left a note on SA's page to persuade him that the quantum mechanical bit is OK, well in my view. Happy Easter. The Rationalist (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Other" Version editable version (For minor copy editing)

NB - inserting "the other version" - it seems wise to actually look at it if its been voted on.

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a film made in 2004, followed by an extended DVD release in 2006, combining documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support new age beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life. The film was conceived and its production funded by William Arntz, who co-directed the film along with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente all of whom are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.[3] A moderately low-budget independent production, it 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[4] and eventually grossing over $10 million. The film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[7][8][9][10] and containing pseudoscience[7][8], and has been described as quantum

Lead: Version C?

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a film made in 2004, followed by an extended DVD release in 2006, combining documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support paranormal/mystical beliefs that individual thoughts can make changes to the world at will. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

The film was conceived and its production funded by William Arntz, who co-directed the film along with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.[3] A moderately low-budget independent production, the movie 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[4] and eventually grossing over $10 million.

The film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[7][8][9][10] and containing pseudoscience[7][8], and has been described as quantum mysticism.[11][12]

Roger Ebert

{{editprotected}} This is a film review by critic Roger Ebert on the film. As he is one of the most authoritative film reviewer, I request the administrators to temporarily lift the protection to allow adding the mention of his assessment of the film. The following would be added to the reception section. The administrator who agrees to add it can determine what exact location with discretion:

Prominent film critic Roger Ebert has commented What the Bleep as "a collision in the editing room between talking heads, an impenetrable human parable and a hallucinogenic animated cartoon" but gave the film two and half stars out of possible four, indicating a slightly negative rating.

--Chimeric Glider (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the quote is out of context, since in that same paragraph Ebert says of the disjointed nature, "This is not a bad thing." And I'd say that the review leans toward the positive and that the rating indicates this. TimidGuy (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the report I made on WP:ANI to settle down before I strike any more {{editprotected}}s, but I will point out that the change has never been discussed, and thus consensus cannot have been achieved.Kww (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not need to be achieved in order to request an edit. I don't know where you made up that rule. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Um actually if you read the template itself. it states "If you believe the proposed edit might be controversial, please discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template." Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Key words being "if you believe..." not "If you find that someone else believes..." Let's assume good faith and pretend that Chimeric Glider actually believed that this edit had consensus and was uncontroversial, shall we? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And on WP:RFPP, it says Provide a good reason for a substantial edit to a protected page. These are only done in exceptional circumstances, or when there is very clear consensus for an edit and continued protection. Please link to the talk page where consensus was reached.Kww (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this edit is "substantial" in the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As an admin who has handled many editprotected requests, I avoid using discretion about what to write or where to put it when making edits to protected articles, and I avoid adding new material to articles that are protected due to disputes, even if the addition is insubstantial. This is because the purpose of protection is to halt almost all changes to the article pending discussion. The only changes I would consider making here are corrections of typos, updates due to renamed images, and similar maintenance.

I hope all involved editors will resolve the disputes that led to protection, so that the page can be unprotected, rather than requesting changes while the page is still protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

How about trying unprotection and probation of the Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation style? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this way actually has a chance of succeeding? The wars over the homeopathy articles are incredible, and I don't want to wind up spending my days fighting false reports to Arbitration Enforcement. You know what that feels like. If people use the editprotected macro in good faith, after reaching a consensus about what to put after the macro, it'll work fine.Kww (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection is a temporary solution, not a permanent one. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Think of it as "temporary" according to a geologist's dictionary. This article has never settled down. Probably never will. Once we start to make some progress, we get a couple of editors that decide to edit-war it back into oblivion. Last time, we had The Rationalist trying to get one set of changes in that were never discussed, and WNDL42 trying to get another set of changes in that were ludicrous. The article stayed unprotected about 9 hours after that point (and, of course, your reverts were the ones that actually triggered the admins into action). Before that, it was you and WNDL42 again. Before that, it was Michaelbusch and Timidguy. I don't see that anything is going to stop that behaviour.Kww (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Kww. What we're doing here seems to be working, and considering that, in a brief review of events, even this method seems to be subject to disruption, I think it would be an exceptionally poor idea to do anything else. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers, why would a film elicit so much controversy on Wikipedia? Is What the Bleep any more divisive than a Michael Moore film? I do know that science and cinema are very closely related, yet warring over small details of a film often misses the big picture. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no rational explanation for what goes on in this article. At the same time we had something in place that was working.If another editor comes into this environment and wants to make progress and to collaborate perhaps he/she could bend a little and go with what has been working . Kww has been able to focus the editors on this article for which I give him a lot of credit. Any chance of just working with that .....(olive (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

It elicits controversy because it is abject nonsense masquerading as documentary, and because it misrepresents the few sane people it interviews in order to give the impression that sane people accept the film's ludicrous premise. It it was up-front about being a new-age cult propaganda film, rather than pretending to be something else, there would be less of a problem, I think. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This may be a good time for everyone involved to check the article's pageview stats here. Avb 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

At least spell the name of the article right: [1]. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correct link. Same observation though. On a side note, could you be just a little bit less condescending? Avb 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't mean to condescend. I do, however, monitor that site very closely. It's, in part, how I choose my battles. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Avb 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with the article exactly? All of the views are properly cited statements from thirdparties, which satisfies the Verifiability and Original Research rules, and it decently balances the scientific community and the lay community's responses to the scientific content of the movie.Sockatume (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea..... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's drop all the quarreling and leave the article at status quo. Any documentary with an ideology/philosophy would be both praised and maligned by many people, like Moore's and Wiseman's. Even Roger Ebert doesn't outrightly attack the film as "misrepresenting" "sane people". I'm a liberal, but even I wouldn't use those phrase to describe a conservative documentary I disagree with. There's no need to be vindictive war over minutiae. If some of you really want to bash a film, go do it at Triumph of the Will maybe. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Source(s) for inserted material in lead

One thing that's been in the back of my mind as something that needs to be finished, is that while I remember there was agreement that there were plenty of sources for the material we inserted in the lead, we didn't actually specify sources for that material and it remains without citation.Woonpton (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been over a month on this question. Did the person overseeing the protection issue die? James (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Pigasus award

We need to mention somewhere in the article that this film won the prestigeous Pigasus Award. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the award is mentioned. [2].

Unprotection

Further to a WP:RFPP thread, I am going to raise a proposal to unprotect this article. I think it's time that we started handing out blocks for edit warring, disruptive editing, etc. The protection on here has been on for a month now, and the protection log is astoundingly long, and I think it's time to look at a different approach.

To that end, I would like to unprotect this article. Do any folks here have thoughts on this proposal? Furthermore, does anybody have any thoughts on my intention to start dealing with disruption on What the Bleep Do We Know‽ article with a view to blocking, rather than protecting? Anthøny 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose in the strongest of terms. There's not much wrong with the article, and unprotection never, ever ends well for it. It has proven to be a magnet for bad behaviour. Unprotecting it is just making it an absolute crap shoot in terms of what winds up being in the article when it's protected again.Kww (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, per Kww above. Further, there is an editor here who cannot be blocked- or if he is, it doesn't matter because nothing further happens and he's immediately unblocked. ScienceApologist is protected by admins in such a way that nothing he does against policy means anything. If you don't believe it, send me an email or just ask around- for instance, you could contact User:Rlevse. This is not just me talking. So no, it is much better to leave this article protected. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, per kww. Unprotection just seems to lead to edit warring; one suspects that the edit warring is partly spurred by the certain knowledge that the article will be protected again, so everyone wants to try to have their "stuff" in the article at the time it's protected. I don't know that for sure, but that's what it looks like from the outside (the article has been protected for all but a few hours during the two months I've worked on it, so I've not had a chance to participate in actual editing, and wouldn't care to participate in such a situation). I'm not convinced, based on several recent cases, that indiscriminate blocking benefits the encyclopedia, so if you're thinking of a solution like the 9/11 conspiracy arbitration, I think that's a terrible idea. You asked. Woonpton (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect: I'd be fine with unprotecting, and fairly enforcing blocks for edit warring. Why not? We are just putting off the inevitable.(olive (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Oppose because the idea that admins will suddenly start handing out blocks for edit warring, disruptive editing, is something that just won't happen. It should happen, here, as well as in a myriad of other articles. But it won't happen, as anyone who has followed this must realize. Therefore I oppose this proposal. Dlabtot (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect Yes, unprotect because the current version is heavily weighted toward criticism of what the film got wrong according to "Scientists who have reviewed" it. This wording is itself a bias because it should read "Some Scientists" and not imply "ALL." The criticism is fine and no doubt much of it well deserved, but there should be another section documenting what the film got right and what the film got partly right, according to other respected authorities. Without this latter contribution, the "Academic reaction" section gives a senses of "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Moreover, one would expect the section should be titled "Academic assessments" as the "reaction" wording itself indicates a knee-jerk reactiveness that suggests, presumably inappropriately, something other than objective assessment in a scientific spirit. James (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true, and if you commit to stay around and are really able to keep your cool under heavy mortar attack and the threat of firebombing coupled with machine gun, tank, and artillery fire, with a good dose of 5000 lb bombs and a couple of nuclear subs, then maybe we can do something. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Opposoe//Semi-protect instead -- i agre with the initial point that unprotecting it would be good since there haven't been any edits at all for a while and the fact that interest has waned in this article might be cooling it down somemuch. however I recommend phasing in by using a semi-protect (banning guests/newly-registered users) at first to avoid startling anyone into starting yet another edit war/vandalism sprie. Smith Jones (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Keep it protected. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion. How about this idea? Unprotect the page, with advance agreement here that if there is edit warring and the page needs re-protecting, it will be reverted to the current version as of the time of unprotection. Along the way, if changes are made that work through to a consensus, new milestone versions could be agreed upon on the talk page, so that subsequent protection due to edit warring would revert to the most recent milestone consensus version. If no such milestone consensus versions can be agreed upon, any protection due to edit warring would include a reversion all the way back to the version at time of unprotection. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That is good except that it should be that when the page is protected, it is reverted to the last milestone version. Not after unprotection. Otherwise the object will be to get it protected in one's version. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Or if you really want to work on it we could ask an admin to put in consensus versions? That didn't work well last time, because the admin fiddled. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't state it clearly. What I meant is this:

• let's agree that the current version is the first milestone version.
• unprotect
• begin editing
• if there is edit warring, instead of protecting the page at a later version, protect and revert to the milestone version
• if changes are made without edit-warring, after a while, agree on a new milestone version, here on the talk page
• continue editing
• if there is edit warring later and the page needs protecting, this time it would revert to the new milestone version, and be protected
• rinse and repeat

There would be no way to try and get it protected on a preferred version, because any protection would always revert to a version for which the involved editors all agree it's a milestone version (identified by specific diff).

I hope that makes sense... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You cannot make an agreement about reverting to a "preferred version" before future protections. That goes against Wikipedia protection policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy reason it can't be done, though of course, you're welcome to oppose the idea if you don't like it. Even when articles are protected, a clear talk page consensus can make even large changes to articles via {{editprotected}}. If a clear consensus supports this plan, that would be sufficient to implement it.

However, I am not arguing for this plan - it's just a suggestion I put up for consideration. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect:Given that nothing else has worked on this article, I would agree to Jack-A-Roe's proposal and would institute WP:Ignore.(olive (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

I still oppose unprotection, for the simple reason that there isn't anything to gain. There isn't much wrong with the article, and it's always been a problematic one. Don't we have better things to do?
Kww (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't think there are ppl from WP:FILM that desire to edit it and upgrade it into a GA? It has been months, the disputants are probably bored and sitting in a bar having some nice beer. =) Chimeric Glider (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

i understrand yore point Mr Chimeric Glider but the problem is that frontier science is a dipsutation issue and leads to horrifyingly vast flame wars that can occaisonaly go dormant but can resurface by even the most innocuosu edit. the only way unprotection can 100% avoid a guaranteed flamevar is if we refrain from making any major content changes. otherwise, it will only lead to more flam ewars, ArbCom cases, and hard feelings that could negatively imapct the rest of the WIki. Smith Jones (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Frontier science? It is a red link, a joke? Chimeric Glider (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jack-A-Roe and olive. IAR would be fine, but at the same time I doubt that if we all agree to it before hand that it is against the rules. But I didn't bother to look just now. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This film represents the future of sicence such as What the Bleep Do We Know which discusses the depiction between the interations of quantum science, the nature of reality, and the raw power of human thought. as such it proposes fierce debate between progressies and reactionaries. unprotecting this science article, which pusehs the frontiers of human thoguth and scientific devleopment, will cause so much flae wars and havoc that it is not worth it. I favor leaving this article at least semiprotected for as long as possible until tempers have cooled and people have become more openminded and more calm towards the prenatural sciences. Smith Jones (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested in commenting, I've mentioned this article as part of a propoesed milestone version agreement method of unprotecting difficult pages, at this section of the Village Pump. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious issues

Okay, the article is horribly twisted as it is. I'm sorry to see that some admin has had the lack of foresight to do a little housekeeping before slapping a lock on it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 13:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting ... many feel that the article is close enough to balanced that unlocking it is unnecessary. Anything in particular that strikes you as "horribly twisted"?
Kww (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the article

I'm sorry to see so much controversy over this article.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I like the article just as it is. As a person with a strong scientific background but also a strong spiritual background, I frequently see problems arise when science and spirituality are mixed (such as when science is inappropriatedly applied to spiritual questions, when science is distorted or pseudoscience is invented in support of spiritual issues, and when spiritual issues are dismissed by scientific elitists).

However, this article seems to me to be quite objective in its criticisms of the film.

The film (which I have seen) was disappointing, because it could have presented actual science but didn't, and could have presented sensible religious and spiritual views, but didn't.

One truly useless part of the film that deserves mention in the article was the presentation of slightly distorted images of snowflakes as though they proved something spiritual. David (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Already mentioned here, I think. Also, I added the bit about spirituality and the posited connection. I removed the association of consciousness with the material world through quantum mechanics because the film is never explicit about the connection, only implicit. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Academic reaction

I removed the struck portion from the article:

Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided, a situation which the authors attribute to how in the current teaching of quantum mechanics "we tacitly deny the mysteries physics has encountered."

I'm posting here because I remember some controversy over this phrase ages ago. This is the reference. It does not imply that the reason the general public doesn't know better is because of how they are taught physics, as the removed phrase seems to imply. Rather, it says that physics students are not prepared to argue against quantum quackery. Rracecarr (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the quote, but tried to correct the context.
Kww (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed field test of "article milestone versions"

Hello all! As User:Jack-A-Roe mentions above, there is a discussion at the village pump regarding the possibility of editors to an article agreeing a "milestone version" which can be suggested to administrators if they ever need to protect (and this choice can be updated by common agreement as you go, obviously). While the milestone version is probably still a m:Wrong Version (aren't they all?), it at least gives something that will hopefully cause the fewest headaches. This is intended for articles which tend to get protected for long periods, and does not need to be used on pages that get protected for normal, short, times. Please visit the village pump discussion if you have other general questions about the idea.

Are there any objections to having a test run of this idea on "What the Bleep Do We Know!?"? Wow, that was a lot of punctuation in a row. A talkpage "tag" template will be created at {{article milestone version}} shortly (currently in my userspace — feel free to edit), and a more detailed description at Wikipedia:Article milestone versions (which I will not propose as a guideline at this time, until after seeing a test somewhere).

If editors here would like to go ahead and give it a shot, please discuss and settle on a suitable "milestone" version; please note that it needn't be perfect, or even necessarily much good — it will suffice to settle for "not horribly broken"! It's still a m:Wrong Version after all.

--_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The tweaks that have been made since unprotection have been unobjectionable, so I would have no problem declaring the version made at the time of this comment a milestone version.
Kww (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Rracecarr (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference, that's version 226107035. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. I don't see any downside; on the upside, in case of resumed edit-warring it makes for more orderly process; helps avoid complaints to administrators by people wanting it protected on their preferred version; and reduces incentive to edit warring since it's known in advance that an edit-war-resulting version will not be the one protected. One point I'd like to clarify is that the agreement for new milestone versions would not require unanimous agreement, that would be done according to WP:Consensus policy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Note

I am seeing some back and forth edits on this article, but without corresponding discussion at the talkpage. Please ensure that anything controversial is also being discussed, don't just battle it out in edit summaries, thanks. --Elonka 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Neurologists, anesthesiologists and physicians

I deleted Masaru Emoto from the list of Neurologists, anesthesiologists and physicians because he is not a physician. He is a practitioner of alternative medicine who received certification as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine from the Open International University for Alternative Medicine in India, an unaccredited institute with minimal academic requirements. 128.83.101.117 (talk)AK86 —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

Original research

Martinphi thinks that the movie is related to parapsychology. There is no mention of parapsychology in the film. Essentially, Martinphi is conducting original research synthesis by proposing that this is something that is relevant to this film. I have tagged the appropriate section. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is funny, but it's also disruptive.

There are sources connecting the film to parasychology. A couple of examples from a quick search:

Dean Radin, bio listed on the bleep website scientists page, is 4 time president of the Parapsychological Association, and has received a long list of awards including several in the field of parapsychology, and has authored a book on the topic, The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena ISBN 0062515020

"Because of What the BLEEP, people who had never before felt comfortable talking about their psychic intuition, their unusual encounter with a ghost or an astral being, or those who had seen a UFO, were now discussing their experiences freely" --p 13 of PSIence By Marie D. Jones ISBN 1564148955

Seems like a perfectly fine link for the see also section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no explicit connection between the term parapsychology and the movie. It's as tenuous as including in the article about the movie For All Mankind a link to ufology simply because Edgar Mitchell is a proponent of ufology. Yeah, some ofthe people who are connected to the movie like parapsychology, but the movie itself is not about parapsychology nor are there any reliable sources which connect the movie to the endeavor of parapsychology. We can only rely on syntheses which doesn't really work. I removed the See Also entirely as I don't think it necessary. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that's a rather dubious link to hang a "see also" on. I don't believe that Radin's beliefs should have anything to do with the movie; many directors/actors/producers are Catholic, but we don't run around tagging movies as related to Catholicism on that basis. The second comment is about a possible psychological effect from watching the movie, which again, isn't really a strong case. I think if we're going to link the movie to parasychology, we need a better source. Shell ^babelfish 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the film's website and the New York Times aren't good enough for people, I don't know what would be. I object to the removal of see also. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no one said anything about the sources being unreliable, simply that they don't appear to fit the claim. Shell ^babelfish 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the claim made in putting parapsychology in "see also" was that parapsychology was much related to the film, and sourced accordingly. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is yet another [3] I did not bother to source it originally, as everyone who knows about the movie knows that it is highly related to parapsychology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IONS has a study guide. So what? That doesn't mean the film is related to parapsychology. In fact, they are much more interested in quantum mechanics than they are in parapsychology as a topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IONS and Captured Light Industries, see the official website [4]. Thanks, you pointed out another way in which the film is connected to parapsychology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, would someone please put the See also section back in? That is a standard part of articles. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Only when there's something else to see. I'm leaning much more towards SA's side of this one than yours, Martin. Parapsychology is a fairly broad field, and only tangentially related to this movie. Is there a more narrow topic under Parapyschology that you have in mind as being reasonably related to this film?Kww (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let others weigh in on this, but I might point out that you're the one promoting consensus before editing, and this wasn't. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article spent most of its lifetime without a See Also section. I added it in myself eight days ago in order to accommodate the addition of magical thinking, which someone put in the lead without discussion. I did that rather than completely revert his change. I've got no great qualms about having that change reverted. I'd put it back, but I suspect that someone would pop parapsychology into it if I did.Kww (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't know it was recent. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it appears the article had a see also section for most of it's lifetime. It was created in July 2004. The first see also section was created in Dec 2004:

[5]

and was in the article for the next three years:

January 2005 [6]

January 2006 [7]

June 2006 [8]

January 2007 [9]

May 2007 [10]

July 2007 [11]

December 2007 [12]

It was removed at the end of December 2007: [13]

It looks to me as if many of the previous entries were relevant. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Magical thinking

If someone can find a source critical of the movie for containing magical thinking, then I'm fine with including such criticism in the lead, after we have hashed the wording out on the talk page. This article is quickly aiming back into battleground land, and we don't need that at all.Kww (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom discretionary sanctions

As a reminder, this article falls within the scope of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions of the Pseudoscience case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Specifically: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."

The above case also has a specific clause involving ScienceApologist (talk · contribs): "ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility."

Another related case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist: Both editors, Martinphi (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) are subject to the restriction: "Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."

To summarize: The recent edit-warring on this article is disruptive to the project, and all editors here are on notice to strive to edit in a civil and collegial manner, to assume good faith, and to avoid edit-warring. Any editors who do not, may be subject to sanctions, ranging from being banned from this article, to having their entire account access blocked. These sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator, after a proper warning has been logged to that user's talkpage.

Hopefully this warning is sufficient, and no further cautions or actions will be required. For now, everyone is welcome to continue editing. However, I strongly encourage all editors here to stay civil, to ensure that all article additions are well-sourced, to avoid deleting citations to relevant reliable sources, and to please ensure that any controversial edits, are also being properly explained and discussed at the talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another article to take off my watchlist. Shot info (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Elonka (; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Elonka, you misrepresent the Martinphi-ScienceApologist ruling. ScienceApologist is under a different restriction than Martinphi, but you quote Martinphi's as applying to both. These are the correct ones:

Martinphi restricted

1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

ScienceApologist restricted

2) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We are both under restriction from Vassyana also. Shoemaker is right however. Also, there are general sanctions put in place recently which apply to any article/editor on such a subject as this: so we have three things here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism

Why are critisisms of the movie in the opening section before the table of contents. This certianly does not promote the NPOV. Remove it please. -AMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed a reference in the lede on quantum mysticism since it referenced the second Bleep movie, and I believe there was agreement that this article would be on the first movie. If that's not the case please readd. I also have no recollection of a consensus on quantum mysticism.(olive (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

The "has been described as quantum mysticism" language was put in during the whole edit-restricted phrase, so it has about as much consensus as anything can get. I'm not excited one way or another about the reference, but the article describes both versions, and the agreement was to specifically flag information that only applied to one of them.—Kww(talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In a quick read through, I only see one reference to the second movie, and there is no mention at all in the lede, so probably the reference in the lede is a bit heavy ended. Possibly a section with information on the second movie could be added/expanded upon and the reference could go there.(olive (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Could be. I'm inclined to leave this article alone, though. Gives me ulcers.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even the thought of trying to write something and adding it is...exhausting!(olive (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I took out the link for reasons described in the edit summary [14]. It's already in the lead anyway. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything approaching agreement as indicated in this discussion [15] I believe was about SA's desire to have QM in the third paragraph, but there was no consensus on the inclusion and link in the first paragraph.(olive (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Khempo Yurmed Tinly Rinpoche

Hello, I am new to posting in Wikipedia, so please be patient with me. Thank you for reading my post. In watching What the Bleep!? Down the Rabbit Hole Quantum Edition of this film, the second to last interview on Disc 3, side B is with Khempo Yurmed Tinly Rinpoche. (The last name of Rinpoche is included in the "Navigating The Rabbit Hole" DVD insert.) To help with his English, his "pronunciator" is Mr. Walter Goodwin, a long time student. As far as I can tell, Khempo Yurmed Tinly Rinpoche's name is not listed as an interview partner or as a spiritual teacher in the Wikipedia page for this movie. Is this an oversight? Thank you for your time. CuriousOneMe (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Starring / Credits / Featured individuals

Certain people appear in three lists within this article. I suggest removing the "Starring" list from the box at the right, and removing from the "Credits" anyone who's listed above this as "Featured": "Credits" could be retitled "Other credits".-- Hoary (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest, if someone objects they can revert and explain why on this talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 02:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Awards

Till today, none of the awards (other than the raspberryish Pigasus) was sourced. Today all these awards are sourced to ... the website of the film.

Uh, no. Let's have links to the awarders, if possible; or to disinterested sources. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB is fine, but I'll be glad to look for other sources. Dreadstar ☥ 02:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This again suggests that one of us misunderstands WP:SELFPUB. I take it to mean that, for example, the "Drudge Report" is a usable source for innocuous assertions about (and not claims of feats by) the Drudge Report or Drudge. (It's not usable for claims about its or Drudge's strengths or successes, or of course for claims about Obama.) A movie's website is not a suitable source for claims that the movie won awards or that it had however many hundred special effects (claims that would be self-serving).

I'll illustrate with one of my articles. Chris Steele-Perkins is a respected photographer. I've no reason to think that any claim he makes on his own website (or anywhere else) is untrue. (Well, I did notice a handful of spelling mistakes there.) If he says there that he lived in such and such a town or likes football or is married, I feel free to cite this. On the other hand I ignore his list of awards (though I'm sure that they're all true as well), because such a list (however credible) is self-serving; instead, I get independent sourcing for each that I list. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're all multi-sourced now. Let me know if you think any others need to be added. Dreadstar ☥ 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good sourcing there, Sir! Or indeed Madam. I have deleted the unreliable sources for the awards as obviously superfluous as well as unreliable. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)