Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Further references needed

The section Promotion needs sources, if anyone can find the time to locate some! This info may already be in the existing links about the show. Dreadstar ☥ 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TM Study

Hi, Dreadstar. Not sure why you removed the sentence citing OR. It's from the study itself. TimidGuy 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Was it in relation to the movie? If not, that's OR. – Dreadstar † 20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. So what can be done? The source is wrong. TimidGuy 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we can find a source in relation to the movie that refutes the incorrect information, then we can include it. It may be wrong infomation, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, per WP:V. – Dreadstar † 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess my argument would be that it's not a reliable source because it has errors, doesn't say where the information is from, etc. And it's misleading. TimidGuy 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Read through WP:RS, and the associated links, to see if there's anything that might help. – Dreadstar † 21:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

The last paragraph in the Controversy section is written in a very unencyclopedic style, it reads more like a sensationalistic tabloid headline. Need to be re-written. – Dreadstar † 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who can find positive comment from a scientist is welcome to add it. I couldn't.1Z 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The scientists' reactions impeccably sourced. The article used to contain a discussion of the actual issues...1Z 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The section reads much better now that Kww has rewritten it. I withdraw my objection to the style; the current version is acceptable. – Dreadstar † 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I really don't think the Quackwatch reference violates NPOV. It's verifiable, much better than referring to them as "a bunch of frauds" inline, and germane to evaluating what membership in that organization means.Kww 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Quackwatch is relevant to the movie. It might be something that can be included in the Institute of Noetic Sciences article without issue, but it doesn't relate to this article and shouldn't be included here. – Dreadstar † 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If a reader doesn't click the link to IONS, that's their business. Including the Quackwatch link is POV-pushing. You've already decided they're frauds- and that's a matter of opinion. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Any time you use a proper noun for the first time, it's good style to introduce it: "Beechan Cliff School, an elementary school in Somerset", "Charlie's, a cafe in Bellevue, Nebraska", "Wikipedia, an online encylopedia", etc. The only time that you don't do it is when the topic is so famous that it is assumed knowledge on the part of the reader. I wouldn't write "The United States of America, a federalist republic located in North America", or "Microsoft, a software company." The Institute of Noetic Sciences is clearly in the first category. I believe "Institute for Noetic Science, an organization listed by Quackwatch" is a legitimate summary, containing only verifiable information. "Institute for Noetic Sciences, an organization that studies the relationship between science and consciousness", "Institute for Noetic Sciences, a group of deluded fools", and "Institute for Noetic Sciences, a pack of charlatans and frauds" are all three biased. The latter two are obvious. The first, which you would normally consider neutral, I would object to on the basis that it presumes that they study things, which I do not believe they do. As for Martinphi's comment, it isn't my fault that they are frauds. I certainly wouldn't be expected to describe a Ponzi scheme as an "investment vehicle" under the auspices of NPOV, would I? Kww 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch itself has been discredited in numerous instances, including many times in court. search for Tim Bolen and Quackwatch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.83.249 (talk) 00:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Tim Bolen? You think of Tim Bolen as a reliable source? It is to laugh.Kww 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bangkok, listed by Amnesty International and other watchdog organizations as a city of sex slave trafficking and child abuse, and known in Thai as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon (IPA: [kruŋtʰeːp mahaːnakʰɔn], กรุงเทพมหานคร (help·info)) or Krung Thep (กรุงเทพฯ (help·info)) for short, is the capital of and largest city in Thailand. Bangkok is located at 13°45′N 100°31′ECoordinates: 13°45′N 100°31′E, on the banks of the Chao Phraya River, near the Gulf of Thailand. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So propose an introductory line that you believe is NPOV. Right now, mine's the only horse in the race.Kww 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to introduce. Please read up on policy. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, here's a good example: Bangkok Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the reference to the Institute of Noetic Sciences needs an 'introduction' in this article. The link and the context in which it is presented serves to frame it's inclusion, if a reader wants to know more, a simple click is all it takes. If indeed, Kww is correct, then an introductory statement such as he suggests above is so pejorative and biased that it would never pass WP:NPOV, and any statement long enough to include a reference to Quackwatch that would reduce concerns of WP:UNDUE would be too much detail for this article. It may be the only horse because there is no race. – Dreadstar † 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No context

These paragraphs of the Controversy section don't have enough context to be comprehensible. I'm removing them here till someone can provide enough context so the reader can understand.

Hagelin's meditation study, published in 1999 in the peer-reviewed journal Social Indicators Research, showed that the rate of violent crime in Washington, D.C., decreased by 23% during the period of the study. According to the study, the murder rate constituted 3% of the violent crime rate. Critics have pointed out that the number of murders increased during the study. Hagelin won the Ig Nobel Peace Prize for this study in 1994.

According to an article posted by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Emoto's work with water crystals has been criticized as unscientific, and has not been peer-reviewed. Skeptic James Randi has offered Emoto his Million Dollar Challenge to prove his claims to Randi's satisfaction, but Emoto has not accepted. The September 2006 issue of Explore The Journal of Science and Healing reported a study by Dean Radin, Gail Hayssen, Masaru Emoto, and Takashige Kizu, in which water crystals were judged under double-blind conditions to have greater aesthetic appeal than a control group.

They sound perfectly comprehensible to me. What about them makes them confusing? ---Bennie Noakes 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to tell the reader what they are talking about. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add this introductory sentence to clarify: "Two of the studies cited in the film have fallen under criticism: the Hagelin Meditation Study, and Emoto's work with water crystals." ---Bennie Noakes 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be fine, with links to an explanation of what those studies were about. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that wording would be fine for a new paragraph in the Controversy section. VisitorTalk 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

John Gorenfeld

I deleted these comments that were inserted in the article:

Move to delete this entry - Who is John Gorenfeld and why is he more credible than the people that made the film? Why is all of this stuff attacking Ramtha (which is not even mentioned in the film) relevant in this Wiki?

Putting here in case they merit discussion. TimidGuy 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

According to his own web site (http://www.gorenfeld.net/), "John Gorenfeld is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in Salon..." The correct citation in Wikipedia should be "According to an article by freelance writer John Gorenfeld in Salon,..." VisitorTalk 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of TimidGuy's comment is that that exact quote above was removed from the article, not that we are wondering who Gorenfeld is. It was inappropriate content for the article. I don't think we need to go into such great detail about Gorenfeld in this article, the reader can ascertain that information for themselves. The citation and current attribution is sufficient. Dreadstar † 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramtha

"Why is all of this stuff attacking Ramtha (which is not even mentioned in the film) relevant in this Wiki?" The allegations, if I understand them correctly, go something like this:

• Knight presents herself as a spiritual medium channeling a spiritual entity called Ramtha, but this is not how she is presented in the film. The filmmaker deliberately hid this information to make it seem that Knight was merely presenting a human opinion, making Ramtha's perspective palatable to a mass audience who would reject "channelled" material out of of hand if they were honestly told that was what was presented.
• Knight/Ramtha leads a cult.
• The filmmakers are devotees of this cult, and a major purpose of the film is propoganda or proselytizing for the cult, in an underhanded way.

I'm not commenting on these allegations, simply summarizing them. Please don't use this summary as an opportunity to debate them beyond whether or not they should be included in the article. VisitorTalk 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Neat summary. I'd like to see it included in the article. I'd have had a better handle on the film watching it if I'd had this information up front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.65.158 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already quite a lot of info about Ramtha in the article. The material above would seem to violate the policy of Neutral Point of View ("cult", "propaganda") and may not be appropriate in the article. TimidGuy 11:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to the lead

The lead should mention the names of the filmmakers, and the stars of the fiction section. I would also like to see the description of the movie expanded in the initial sentence: from "documentary interviews and a fictional narrative" to "documentary interviews, computer graphics animations of the topics discussed, and a fictional narrative dramatizing the key points." I believe this would better capture the unique genre-mixing character of the film. VisitorTalk 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see the article expanded, including the lead section. I don't think the article truly captures the spirit and content of the movie. I've had several readers comment that they read the article before they saw the movie, and were surprised by the fun, interesting, thought-provoking movie they saw. While I do see the need to make it clear that some, if not all of the concepts in the movie are not accepted, and indeed may be rejected by many scientists, I think we need to better represent the actual nature of the movie, which is to entertain and to provoke thought - IMHO...;)

We do want to be careful not to add too much detail into the lead section, per WP:LEAD, it needs to be a concise, brief overview of the article. Details should be presented in the body of the article. Dreadstar † 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to "see also"

In the see also section, why is Einstein in the Media column rather than the Science column? It might be clearer to have three lists, rather than one three column list - which could make it seem that Michael Talbot documents the many-worlds interpretation of idealism, for instance - when there is no connection between items on the same row. VisitorTalk 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures needed

It would be helpful to include at least one picture from the movie giving an example of:

• The fictionary narrative, e.g. the basketball court scene or wedding reception dance
• The documentary interviews
• The computer graphics visualizations

The poster picture doesn't really do a good job of representing the look of the movie. VisitorTalk 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Images of that nature would certainly be a nice addition. I would suggest to first read over Wikipedia:Fair use before adding, though. There are concerns over use of non-free and copyrighted images. Dreadstar † 18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Books

The movie spawned several books, which are completely relevant to the movie. Besides, the article's title and subject is "What the Bleep Do We Know!?", not "What the Bleep Do We Know!? (movie)". Perhaps the article's lead should reflect this. I doubt there's sufficient material to spin out child articles on the books...but I'm open to the idea..! Any comments or suggestions? Dreadstar † 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The references cited for the books all clearly mention the connection between the books and the movie, so those entries meet WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Dreadstar † 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If those books are linked to the movie, and not just to the kind of crap discussed in the movie, make the linkage clear in the article. As it stands, the paragraph looks like a New Age cheerleading section. I'll delete it again tomorrow if it hasn't been fixed.Kww 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The content is well sourced and is relevant to the movie. If you don't like the wording, and think it needs to have a clearer linkage, then by all means propose it. If you examine the references, you can see there is a very clear linkage to the movie, therefore you should assume good faith and try to improve the article instead of threatening an edit war. Dreadstar † 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon further examination of the disputed entries, I find that the wording makes a very clear and strong connection between the movie and the books, e.g.:

• "The filmmakers worked with HCI Books to expand on the movie's themes in a book titled What the Bleep Do We Know!?"
• "The Little Book of Bleeps was created by the filmmakers after they observed movie patrons taking notepads to the theaters to capture the essence of the film. The book contains excerpts from the movie personally selected by filmmakers Arntz and Chasse"

If you can find a way to make it clearer than that, please propose new or additional wording.

WP:NPOV requires fair and unbiased commentary from all significant viewpoints. Just because you view positive comments about the movie and it's content as "new age cheerleading" and "crap", doesn't mean positive comments about the movie and its subject should be left out. This is the very same argument for the "criticism" comments about the movie. NPOV goes both ways. Dreadstar † 18:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

None of which connects to the paragraphs I deleted:

New Page Books publicist Linda Rienecker, says it's a wider phenomenon. "A large part of the population is seeking spiritual connections, and they have the whole world to choose from now," she says. "They're beginning to realize that there is a universal force and it doesn't matter what you call it, it's how you connect to it." [4]

Author Barrie Dolnick says that "people don't want to learn how to do one thing. They'll take a little bit of Buddhism, a little bit of veganism, a little bit of astrology... They're coming into the marketplace hungry for direction, but they don't want some person who claims to have all the answers. They want suggestions, not formulas."[4]

Bill Pfau, of Inner Traditions, stated that the "New Age community have become accepted into the mainstream." Pfau attributes this acceptance to the baby boom generation, which grew up alongside the New Age movement from the late 1960s onward.[4]

Tie those to the movie, or delete them. The article doesn't connect them to the movie at all ... it just treats them as comments about New Ageism.Kww 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made stronger and clearer connections, which should satisfy the concerns you've raised. It may need some grammar tweaks, but the connection between each sentence and the movie/book is undeniable. Dreadstar † 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The editorial comments about the books are two steps removed from the movie. That is, they are not informative of the article topic and should be deleted. Furthermore, they are merely evaluative, rather than informative or descriptive, and do not pass muster for that reason anyway.Naturezak (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hagelin reference

You're right. Thanks for catching that. I just used the reference that was there already. I have been working on this article off and on and noticed Hagelin info said nothing about the science or publications, as info on most of the other individuals involved in the film did. Whatever personal opinions about the man are, he was or is a scientist. Thanks for remaining civil.(olive 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

I am stating that a scientist did in fact publish numerous studies in the fields mentioned. These are "contributions" in the field mentioned just because they add to the field -not whether these field's themselves benefited from the studies or not just added to. These statements are completely neutral. ..... This man also won the Kilby award considered to be one of the top 116 awards in the world, which also cooborates the fact that this scientist did in fact add something to fields he published in.Not arguing what, just that he did. The page SLAC cooborates that, as does the Kilby award page cited. There is big time POV here, a lack of civility on the part of one editor and frankly its not worth an edit war over. Just trying to create consistent material in this section of the article.(olive 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Hagelin may have written numerous articles claiming results in theoretical physics, but his recent work is not considered reputable by the scientific community. Do you know how many GTUs have been proposed? Out of curiosity, how did you get that 116 number? Michaelbusch 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why has his most-cited paper been cited nearly 600 times? He has coauthored papers with top physicists. He's done research at two of the world's top particle accelerators (CERN and SLAC). While his research on the TM-Sidhi program is very controversial, his physics research is widely respected. The research done by him and his collaborators was featured in Discover magazine. The figure of 116 is from the Kilby site. [1] Doesn't matter to me whether the article include this info that was deleted, but I can't imagine anyone scanning that list of publications and not realizing that this is an accomplished scientist. TimidGuy 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is specifying his recent work, past work nor is there any comment on the worth of the research. I am citing the work he did during his lifetime so far and these are the facts. This is a simple, general, neutral, one - line statement. Methinks your prejudice is showing. As I said its not worth an edit war over.(olive 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

The Kilby International Awards has been named by the International Congress of Distinguished Awards (ICDA) as one of the top 116 awards in the world following their study of 26,400 recorded prizes and awards around the world.

The ICDA seeks out the most distinguished and unique awards programs in the world which recognize outstanding achievement in the arts, sciences, literature, medicine, the environment, and humanitarian concerns. www.kilby.org/

Oops. Michaelbusch, I responded to your post as it read before you put in the word "recent." TimidGuy 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ramtha in lead

Not wanting to start an edit war, but if I recall correctly, there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding having this in the article, let alone the lead. It seems POV to put it in the lead -- since this is an article about the movie, not about the interests of the producers. It seems like POV to try to highlight this as a way of discrediting everything that the movie presents. Eager to hear your thoughts. TimidGuy 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if it is to go someplace in the article, it should be sourced. By the way, sorry about the truncated edit summary when I removed it. I was going to make a point about POV. TimidGuy 19:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, TG, this was discussed not too long ago and consensus was reached at that time. Dreadstar † 19:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Water Messages

The movie includes photographs of water said to be responding to messages printed on the outside of the bottle. Does anyone have the specific references given in the movie for this? Is this considered factual, or is it part of the fictional aspect of the movie? Are these simply microphotographs of ice crystals? --Lbeaumont 01:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular form of bollocks derives from the work of Masaru Emoto. Michaelbusch 03:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How could anyone reliably determine where the fictional part of this movie ends and the "documentary" section ends? Essentially none of the movie is generally considered factual, and "water messages" is just one of the more egregious examplesKww 11:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fiction vs non-fictiom

It is clear from all the writing on this movie that there are documentary style inteviews (non-fiction) that go along with a fictional narrative. Dreadstar † 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. If all the reviews make this distinction, seems POV to disallow it in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The obvious distinction the editors are trying to make by removing "fictional" is that the non-fictional segments discuss what they believe to be fiction, which is a completely different thing than the segments themselves being fictional. One cannot say the movie does not contain a non-fictional narrative, even if that narrative is considered to be false or untrue. It's a non-fictional view. Dreadstar † 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If they discussed it in good faith, then "fictional" would be inappropriate for the "documentary" sections. If they are consciously lying (a very real possibility), then even the documentary sections can be labeled "fiction." Would you settle for "narrative" as an adjective for the section?Kww (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If they're consciously lying, they're consciously lying. It's still non-fiction, as they aren't acting, and do assert the truth of what they are saying outside of the film. --Philosophus ^T 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in lead

MichaelBusch, I really think it's a matter of POV pushing to put pseudoscience in the lead. Here's a useful metric: go to Google News archives and search on "What the Bleep." You get 2,240 results. Then if you add "pseudoscience" to the search results, you get 13. Obviously, most of the media reports didn't say anything about pseudoscience. It seems overemphasized to put it in the lead. Eager for your thoughts -- and justification other than your POV. TimidGuy (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not quite measured by Google hits. We've had this discussion before: the scientific community has consensus that What the Bleep is pseudoscience and ArbCom has stated that Wikipedia must reflect the consensus. That is sufficient. This discussion had been over for a long time, but I took a break from editing a while back and it seems that some inappropriate material has crept back in. Also, given the film's connection with Transcendental Meditation (admittedly indirect) and your COI, I would advise caution in your own editing of this page. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources for a "scientific consensus"- show us. You don't, however, because there aren't any. Please don't edit war your verion, but wait for consensus. We had a long haul coming to this version, and it isn't appropriate for a single editor to simply come in and edit war his changes. At the very least, you need sources for such a POV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, there are enough cites of the scientific community to show the consensus, as noted below by Kww. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Google, I said Google News. This is an index of media reports. If the scientific community has commented on the movie and called it pseudoscience, it would be there. You need to give evidence for your claim of consensus. Also, "vocal critic" was a subjective evaluation and not really suitable for encyclopedia writing. And my sincere apologies for inadvertently reverting a very good change you made when you added the word "fictional" in that particular context. TimidGuy (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no positive reviews of this movie from scientifically credible sources. Not one. What more evidence of consensus do you need? The problem with this article comes, as it has for a while, from a misapplication of NPOV. No reliable sources say positive things about it, so the NPOV is that it is claptrap. It's painful to see us give undue weight to this movie's positions by hedging the language enough that its farcical nature isn't obvious. It's true that reviews don't normally say "pseudoscience" (even though Physics Today Online and Simon Singh used that word) ... they use more direct terminology,such as "tosh", "ridiculous balderdash", and "deliberately misquotes science."Kww (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We aren't hedging. We are being neutral. Don't just come into an article and start edit warring. It won't work. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing this article for quite a while, and no, the article isn't neutral. It violates WP:UW by treating the opinion of spiritualists as being on par with that of quantum physicists on the topic of quantum physics. They aren't equivalent, and it isn't neutral to act as if they are. I have suggested better leads in the past, but they've been rejected for this compromise, faux-neutral version.Kww (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiritualists? Are you sure you know the subject of this article? I know of nothing related to spiritualism. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, you also know that I have edited this article considerably. I also have tried to implement ArbCom precedent here. Note that the lead you are objecting to so much doesn't even say that the film is pseudoscience - it simply says that there the scientific community has criticized it and gives the reason. That is cited and verified and is very definitely notable. Where then is the dispute? Michaelbusch (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A scientific consensus, or criticism by the scientific community must be sourced. Now, if you want to attribute criticism to particular scientists, that's fine. But if an institution of science, such as the NSF hasn't spoken a consensus, then you can't source it. And this doesn't meet the Time cube threshold for obvious pseudoscience. You need something like these: [2] [3]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to be clear what I was objecting to. I think the version of the lead before MichaelBusch's edit that says that the film has been criticized is fine. What I objected to was how he skewed the tone by putting "pseudoscience" in the lead and by using the subjective phrase "vocal critic." I think it's unfortunate when those with a strongly held point of view can take something that's already making the point and skew the language so that it hits the reader over the head. This isn't in accord with the requirement of NPOV to use a neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the edit that I thought was problematic [4]. I thought the lead was fine before MichaelBusch, in his words, sought to "emphasize the controversy." TimidGuy (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The controversy associated with the film is its promotion of pseudoscience. Now, the article correctly has a good discussion of that controversy - that almost every scientist who has published a statement on the film has condemned it as pseudoscience or nonsense (this is the scientific consensus). That controversy - and what it is - should be mentioned in the lead. Saying that the film is controversial doesn't convey the same information. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't have been more clearly mentioned. It was a matter of tone. "Pseudoscience" is a loaded word. And as I demonstrated, it was only used 13 times in 2,240 articles about the movie. Whew, what a lot of heat for a small point. But I guess you just love that word.

I love science and feel passionately about it. Take Intelligent Design. I've read Pennock's book, which is one of the definitive critiques. A wonderful book. But I was shocked when I went to the Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design and saw that the same group was there skewing the tone, beating the reader over the head with their point of view, and prominently putting their cherished word "pseudoscience" in the lead. I just don't think it's a way to make an encyclopedia. And frankly, I think it makes the scientific point of view look bad. TimidGuy (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed pending consensus

I'm removing the disputed passage here, pending consensus on how it should read:

The film has received criticism from scientists as promoting pseudoscience. Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film, has been one of its most vocal critics.

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the latest consensus on the lead paragraph, any substantial changes must find a new consensus. Dreadstar † 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the new version is much better, erring only by being a bit too tame. I'm going to restore the old consensus for a bit. To have a weak sentence is better than having no sentence at all, and to have no sentence in the lead which even hints that there is no basis for this movies claims is malfeasance.Kww (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't put the original back, because I have been threatened with a 3RR block.Kww (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me for being rather hostile here, but that doesn't look like consensus to me. The entire page, which isn't even an archive of this talk page, seems to be you pushing one point of view with a number of other editors disagreeing, save for one comment by TimidGuy, who has major COI problems. That isn't consensus. Did you mean to link to something else? I would argue that not noting the criticism in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE, especially since the controversial nature is notable enough to mention in the lead. --Philosophus ^T 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course not noting controversy in the lead would be POV. I did work on the version that people are trying to change now, and it was the consensus at the time. The problem is that people are trying to go beyond the sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Philosophus, it is an archive of this talk page, for the original see this. My intent throughout was that the article not contain original research per the Wikipedia policy WP:OR, I don’t believe that qualifies as “pushing a pov” as you describe. Criticism was noted in the lead from the very start, later modified to: this. The previous consensus was completely valid, as I’ve described in detail below. Dreadstar † 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

New lead

I would be happy with this version, if and only if DA actually did criticize using the word pseudoscience. Otherwise, we need another attribution.

Some scientists such as Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film, have criticized it as promoting pseudoscience.

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How is my new version? It doesn't use the word 'pseudoscience', it just notes that many of the claims are disputed. --Philosophus ^T 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me. My version was stronger on that score. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Publisher's Weekly

The Publisher's Weekly link given here is to a search on their website, not an article. Is there some specific article it is supposed to point to? I expect this is just a simple linking mistake, but the current reference isn't to an RS. --Philosophus ^T 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Which? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"According to Publishers Weekly, the movie was one of the sleeper hits of 2004..." It's reference number 4 in the current version. --Philosophus ^T 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. This isn't my article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I thought someone might know. I found it, however: [5]. Once I can get the PP lifted, I'll add that in, and fix the quote to make it clearer. --Philosophus ^T 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit war involved more than just you two. If you can get an agreement from all the editors involved that the warring stops and all edits discussed before being implemented, I think I could agree to have the protection lifted. Right now, I don't see it. Dreadstar † 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between edit warring and discussing all edits before implementation. Hardly any of the editors here would think of agreeing to the latter, especially considering past experiences with such attempts failing miserably. Considering your involvement, I'm also rather confused by why you would be in a position to decide on the matter. Regardless, we can wait and discuss the edits. --Philosophus ^T 01:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make insinuations here, I didn't say I was in a position to decide. I said I couldn't agree to lifing of the block, which is an entirely different matter. If I did agree, I'd petition the blocking admin along with you to have it lifted - something I can't agree with yet. We can't have the previous edit warring continued. Does that clear up your confusion? Dreadstar † 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted you there. I also agree that having another war like the one started today would be unfortunate. --Philosophus ^T 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks much for the apology, and I probably could have made a clearer statment, so my apologies to you for that. Your edits seem very good to me, so I hope we can lift protection soon. Dreadstar † 01:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me also refer you to the Protection policy section on unprotection, which talks about consensus for an article being unprotected: "However, unless consensus has been reached, pages should not be unprotected soon after protection without prior consultation with the administrator who first protected the page. This is particularly important in the case of controversial pages, where the conflict may start up again and the protecting administrator may be in touch with the disputants." If we have consensus, it helps get that protection lifed in a more timely fashion. Dreadstar † 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like we have consensus for version before MichaelBusch sought to "emphasize the controversy" in the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There may have been consensus among the editors that were here at the time. I was gone, and didn't notice the changes that were made; I think Michael had the same problem. Even then, the link given to support the consensus didn't seem to point toward any clear consensus, as there were a number of disagreements, and only two of the editors there seemed to give support to the proposed version, though there may have been more support that I haven't seen. Disregarding that, however, what is your opinion of the current version of the lead?--Philosophus ^T 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> First, let's clarify the history of the consensus version that was in place until a short time ago, the article had been prviously full of original research, and and edit war ensued to keep that OR in place. The article was protected until a consensus of 7/for 1/against and 2/abstain was reached. That's our starting point and we need to find a new consensus for any substantial changes from that version.

With that in mind, I can agree with the current lead section. How does everyone else feel? Dreadstar † 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So if this were a straw poll, we'd have 3 who are OK with Philosophus' version of the lead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I think that there could be a better version eventually, but the new version is currently reasonable and an improvement on the old one. I've also been working on the article on User:Philosophus/Sandbox. --Philosophus ^T 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That previous straw poll is rather confusing to me. The statement for the poll on the 20th was that there was OR in the article that needed to be removed. Most of the supports, made between the 20th and the 21st, seem to be addressing that part of the statement. Then, on the 22nd, after the straw poll was essentially finished, the statement was amended to give support to a particular list of changes. Surely I'm mistaken here? --Philosophus ^T 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The poll was not amended on the 22nd. The list of items identified as OR was clearly laid out in the bleep sandbox, it is this particular list of changes that the straw poll was based on from the very beginning of the poll - a link to which was provided in the original Straw Poll Statement. Dreadstar † 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Philosophus, for inviting my opinion about the current version. I think it's fine. I was simply objecting to the way MichaelBusch sought to emphasize the controversy by skewing the tone. If I could have my way, I would make the tiniest change to your nicely worded version: instead of "many of the" I'd simply use "many." TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I object to using the word "controversy'

I'm about to go to bed, but my last comment for the night is that the real problem with the article is that we discuss the "controversy." There is no controversy about this movie ... essentially every novel claim it makes is false, and there is no dispute within the scientific community about that. To discuss the "controversy" provides the false impression that scientists actually discuss the issues raised by this movie, and that there is some merit to the movie's claims. We have reliable sources that say the claims raised in the movie about quantum mechanics are false, and we have no reliable sources that say the claims are true. That is important, and that should be the lead. Not "criticisms" by "some scientists", or accusations of "pseudoscience", just "false".Kww (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While no doubt a lot of the movie is false, there are some scientists who discuss this- no doubt some would define them as non-scientists due to the fact that they discuss it, but that is neither here nor there. Also, we can't just do Synthesis and call something false, even if all our sources say so. Anyway, "controversy" isn't just between scientists. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

About quantum mechanics, "controversy" is only among scientists. If I sat down with the guy that runs the bowling alley and we got into a rousing discussion of the effect of observers on the pins and balls, that wouldn't be "controversy", it would just be "nonsense." Kww (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That the movie is bollocks of the highest order no scientist would dispute. That the movie was filmed and marketed seriously is also beyond dispute. Here is the disconnect and the cause of controversy. Since I don't want to dig through the text above:

• TimidGuy - there was not a clear consensus for the change to the lead a few months ago, as was noted, and I was on break when it was changed.

  Re. some of Martin's previous statements: with full knowledge of its connotation, I use the word pseudoscience to refer to a broad category of things that the scientific community uniformly/almost entirely rejects, purport to have some scientific basis when they do not, and are in some sense marketed on that basis. Thus What the Bleep is pseudoscience. ID is in a grey area between pseudoscience and work that is not, depending on what justification is attempted. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you think Intelligent Design can be a grey area- I think it's pseudoscience, and makes this movie look like science along side of it. And as noted above, with proper attribution I don't mind having the word in the article or the lead. But not if it isn't properly attributed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ID is pseudoscience when it attempts a false justification of itself based on science. When it doesn't, it is simply a religious/philosophical viewpoint that is not pseudoscience because science is not relevant to the idea. Regarding the article: please explain what you would consider proper attribution. At the moment, we have the Physics Today article, we have a couple more cases where scientists have used the word 'pseudoscience', and then we have a very large number of scientists who debunked the film without using that specific word but used other words with the same or worse meaning. These are cited in the controversy section. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here. Or we could just choose the most reliable publication that calls it pseudoscience and attribute to that. I thought ID was a euphemism for Creationism invented to get it into science classes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ID is a combination of creationism, bad mathematics, and willful blindness. Back to the discussion of the lead, it is far too soft. I would like something more along the line of "Bleep misrepresents quantum mechanics and other sciences, with critics describing it as pseudoscience or balderdash". When all reliable sources say the same thing, it is perfectly fine, even under NPOV, to report their statements as facts. There is no reason to soften it with language like "some scientists ..."Kww (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude.... this is an encyclopedia, remember? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 15:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Related to Kww's suggestion and my earlier questioning of Michaelbusch's edits is this section on Fairness of Tone from WP:NPOV: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views impartially."

My argument was not related to content but to the way some editors with a strongly held point of view tend to skew tone. In my opinion, it detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia as well as violates policy. TimidGuy (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What you keep skipping over is "bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views". The view that the movie presents anything worthwhile about science is an extreme minority view. It should not be held up as worthy. Can you find one reliable source that indicates that the positions this movie takes about scientific issues are credible?Kww (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia. Have you ever heard an encyclopedia which took such a mean, nasty, confrontational, emotional and invective tone? No, you haven't, because they don't. They state things in a neutral-sounding way. Saying pseudoscience, with attribution, is the very most that can be done. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that we are writing an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't represent fringe views as facts. That is really the crux of this disagreement. The article presents the views of the movie under the guidance of all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation when it should be presenting it as an extreme minority view. Nothing in that sentence was mean or nasty, and it did not manufacture anything that did not exist. The words it uses were quotes from reliable sources about the movie, that are not contradicted by any other reliable source. Trying to be nice about the movie is inappropriate.Kww (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing things. This isn't an article about, say, quantum mechanics, with the movie representing a position as opposed to other positions. Your argument about minority views would be exactly right in a different context. But this is an article about the movie itself. You must characterize the movie in a neutral way, while also presenting well sourced information contradicting specific claims made in the movie. Speaking of quantum mechanics, seems like we're really in a vacuum bubble here. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> There is no reason to treat it with kid gloves: that kind of invective "balderdash," is just unencyclopedia. You need to really read NPOV: you don't present extremem minority views in a biased way: rather, you don't present them at all. And please don't cite an essay to try and circumvent policy, especially when the essay doesn't even say what you argue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I can live without the specific word "balderdash". What I really want is for the lead to present a statement about the movie, as supported by reliable sources, not some watered down "criticized by some scientists for ..." lead. The thing I believe we need to stay scrupulously neutral about is motive. The movie does "misrepresent" science. That is indisputable. Whether that misrepresentation is because the creators genuinely believe their material or whether they were motivated by financial gain is unclear, and I don't want to touch it.

How about ""Bleep misrepresents quantum mechanics and other sciences, with critics describing it as pseudoscience", with citations to sources for "misrepresents" and "pseudoscience"?Kww (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we're getting closer. I'm not entirely sure exactly what it misrepresents, but I think the major thing is not QM, as QM effects have been recently observed on the level of atoms and larger, I think, but rather that there is very little scientific data which would justify the strong implication of a relationship between consciousness and QM. That, I think, would be where the pseudoscience comes in. I'm not sure what other sciences it mis-represents, given that the placebo effect is well known (I'm working from my memory of the movie). But I don't have time to look at the sources right now, what with Thanksgiving coming up. Perhaps we can take this a little slow, if that would be OK. The page is protected anyway. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

QM effects can be amplified as much as you care to amplify them.

A QM-consciousness link is taken seriously by some notable scientists. This isn't a black-and-white issue. the problems are mostly in the details 1Z (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Peterdjones, that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is the wording of the lead to reflect the controversy surrounding the movie - I admit to having partially derailed it. Now: Martinphi, you suggested citing the 'most reliable publication that calls it pseudoscience' for including a sentence such as what I put into the lead. That publication would be Physics Today, which has a readership of about 100000 and is probably the closest thing to a single journal for the physics/physical sciences community. Would you accept something like the following?

'The film has been criticized for mis-representing quantum mechanics, and is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community', with a cite of Physics Today

The film most definitely mis-represents QM - see the reviews and particularly the Physics Today piece for examples - and 'generally considered' allows for a small number of supporters of the film. Peter, please don't start again - your 'some notable scientists' aren't numerous and many of them wouldn't support What the Bleep, even if they were advocating quantum mind or something similar. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they would. 1Z 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims of consensus need to be sourced to a direct statement that consensus exists, not to an example meant to illustrate the consensus. If the "Physics Today" piece says no physicist could take it seriously, that's one thing, if it just says it's junk that's another. Which does it say? <eleland/talkedits> 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for a much more positive and direct statement, such as "Bleep is pseudoscience." One of the nice things about not trying to hard to be nice.Kww (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Um............. what does the word "Letters" mean at the top of the page? [6] Seems that was a letter to the editor in the Nov 2006 issue [7]. A very good letter, but still.... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The term 'pseudoscience' is used unambiguously in a highly critical review in the Chemical & Engineering News, the journal of the American Chemical Society. — BillC ^talk 12:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I really like the Physics Today letter (but we do have to consider whether it meets WP:RS). It makes a nice distinction that has been lost in the article -- and that gets lost in the zeal to hamhandedly apply the label pseudoscience. The Physics Today letter acknowledges that there is content in the movie that presents quantum mechanics, but that the problem arises that the viewer doesn't know where the quantum mechanics ends and the unscientific, speculative, new age interpretation begins. Their letter highlights what I love about quantum mechanics: the counterintuitive mystery of it: "For the most part, in our teaching of quantum mechanics we tacitly deny the mysteries physics has encountered." I wish we could somehow capture the same spirit in this article without beating the reader over the head with the errors and the label pseudoscience. I reread the article, and other than the controversy section, the writing is excellent. Let's see if we can find good sources and make clear that it represents the mysteries of quantum mechanics to a degree but crosses over into dangerous territory. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Right- I don't have a problem with the use of the word pseudoscience if properly attributed. But putting in a little nuance, rather than, as you say, the ham handedness of calling the entire movie pseudoscience (which it is not), would be much better. And rather easy to write, especially if we decide to use that letter as a source (which is OK with me if we don't merely use it as an excuse to bash the entire movie as pseudoscience). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, a 'Letter' in Physics Today denotes a short article that is still subjected to the normal review process. 'letters to the editor' are termed 'correspondence' and published in another part of the journal. Nature follows a similar format. With regards to terming the entire movie pseudoscience or not: don't make the mistake of confusing an attempt to explain quantum mechanics for anything but trying to promote the movie's central thesis. We can't dispute the purpose of the movie: the examples of QM in the movie are there only to promote some mystical or new-age or whatever agenda. That is one of the main points of the Physics Today piece - echoed more blatantly and with fair less tact in the Am. Chem. Soc. article. I won't dissect the flaws in the QM explainations in the movie - that isn't this thread - but their very presence and usage is why the term pseudoscience even applies. Michaelbusch (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the letter -which you have explained as a good source- says that the basic explanations are not so bad. We don't call a movie pseudoscience, we call parts pseudoscience- it would be hard to make everything in a whole movie pseudoscience. The "movie" isn't, but parts are. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Of all things, that disgusting review in Chem and Engineering News needs attribution. First it says, " “What the Bleep” alternates between interviews with ersatz scientific experts " then says "Despite their sometimes impressive pedigrees (many have Ph.D.s or M.D.s of some sort), most are affiliated with new-age institutions such as the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the Maharishi University of Management"

So in other words, it doesn't matter what the credentials are -probably much higher than the writer's- who seems to have "a doctorate in Engineering and Public Policy" if I got the right person. If the writer doesn't like what they say, then they're ersatz. This is just why we have attribution. I can't believe that review: doesn't matter how much you've studied, no, it only matters if you're on the wrong side of the tracks. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chem and Engineering review is one among thousands. Not sure why it's somehow definitive. It says nothing about the quantum mechanics being distorted -- rather that the problem is the extrapolation. And it incorrectly states the hypothesis of the experiment done in 1993 and published in 1999. I agree with Martinphi regarding the POV application of "pseudoscience" to dismiss the whole move. I think the issue here is whether this Wikipedia article should give undue weight to one particular point of view. I don't think it's appropriate to identify an agenda, dispute the agenda, and unduly emphasize that in this article and in the lead. You'd need to go through Google New archives and get a sense for what the general sentiment was and gauge the emphasis here accordingly. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not one of thousands of reviews from a reliable source. There were dozens of such reviews at best, and not all of them are readily available on-line years later. For evaluating whether or not the film is pseudoscience and misrepresentation, entertainment editors and religion sections are not reliable sources, much as I wouldn't apply a review from Physics Today to a Die Hard film.

And, to Martin Phi, affiliations are important in evaluating sources, and always will be. There's a reason that you can't use Michael Behe as a reliable sources on evolution, despite his degrees, and the same applies to people from the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the Maharishi University of Management. Once a person has officially affiliated themselves with a fringe organization, their opinions become suspect.Kww (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Kww, I don't understand why you say there were dozens of reviews. If you search in Google New archives, it returns 2,240, a majority in major newspapers. It seems odd to say that a review by an entertainment editor, say, in the New York Times[8], is somehow irrelevant to this article and not acceptable as a source. This movie exists in popular culture -- it's not an article in an academic journal. There are many facets to the movie and a range of response. In my opinion, it's a violation of {[WP:UNDUE]] to overemphasize one particular view in this article and in the lead. Also, there's no guideline that says once a review is no longer available for free online, it is therefore no longer an acceptable source in Wikipedia. (And by the way, I like the balance in the New York Times review.) TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll try again. To evaluate whether WTB is entertaining, there are thousands of reviews. To evaluate its production values, there are thousands of reviews. I'll even buy that the NYT reviewer is capable of evaluating that most viewers would find parts of the movie "plausible." But to evaluate its science, there are only dozens. If you want to avoid undue weight, I could accept "WTB is a well-produced, entertaining piece of pseudoscience that misrepresents quantum mechanics."Kww (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a good laugh out of that. I feel like you're pushing the envelope in this thread and that you'll never achieve consensus. It's odd, because we agree on so many things. I agree with many of the criticisms. It's really the application of guidelines that we're disagreeing on, the issue of undue weight in particular. I don't really see any chance for agreement. TimidGuy (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There could be agreement if everyone wanted agreement. So the thing is to get over ones' biases and feelings, be willing to admit the possibility one may be wrong, and try to work for an agreement and a consensus. There's *always* a possibility for agreement, it's what the people *want* that counts. mike4ty4 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Be nice to each other. We can go with Philosophus' version, or we can attribute the claim of pseudoscience. But we can't say the whole movie is pseudoscience. That's not going to happen, Kww, it is out of the question (even the Physics Today article doesn't support it), so why not argue about possible versions? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, did it sound like I wasn't being nice? I was sincere. I thought his particular phrasing was clever and funny -- "an entertaining piece of pseudoscience." TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You set an impossibly high standard to meet, Martinphi. All pseudoscience contains some true things. It's the nature of the beast. A foundation of reality, mixed with one or two distortions, falsehoods, or wild extrapolations, and a false result. What parts of WTB would you exclude from the label of pseudoscience? The pseudohistory?Kww (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, that's the point: the standards we'd have to meet to call the entire movie pseudoscience w/o attribution are impossibly high. I'd exclude the same things as the Physics Today letter. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think such standards have even been defined. mike4ty4 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is not a reliable source, whether it's in Physics Today or Readers Digest. Dreadstar † 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is PT peer reviewed or what? And just for the record: Experiment demonstrates quantum entanglement between atoms a meter apart

Look, the thing here is that even though the film may be complete, utter tripe, that does not mean Wikipedia can say that. All Wikipedia can do is journalistically report 3rd-party material. Otherwise it would not be an encyclopedia. And any reasonable reader could see from the arguments presented that nearly all the claims in the film are either false or useless (ie. truth value undeterminable). However I have no objection to calling this a "controversy", as the term controversy simply means a wide-scale, often prolonged, dispute between a significant amount of people, not who those people are or what the subject of the argument is, just the fact that such an argument is or has been going on. mike4ty4 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's about it. Also, we don't necessarily even use the wording of the sources. If they call it tripe, we might report that that they call it untrue. Encyclopedic language. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly you aren't suggesting that "pseudoscience" falls out of the range of encyclopedic language.Kww 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

It appears from some of the comments above that there is some question about the validity of the previous consensus. Just because certain editors weren't here for the poll, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a valid and clear consensus established, including at least one Administrator with excellent knowledge of WP:NOR policy.

According to Wikipedia:Consensus, “In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected”. At the time both an RfC and a request for comments on the WP:NOR talk page were posted, so plenty of community exposure of the issue was made. Several editors responded to both requests for comment.

The previous consensus is valid and a new consensus will have to be made for any significant changes to the consensus version. This is a very highly contentious article, so policy and guideline need to be strictly followed, including consensus.

And the bottom line here is that the article was full of Original Research and was an egregious violation of that policy. The poll which resulted in consensus was an attempt to keep the OR out of the article, had that failed we would have taken it right up the chain. OR is OR, period. And turning this into an attack article on the movie is completely indefensible. Dreadstar † 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The essence of this is that we need to find consensus on any new version, perhaps the draft proposal by Philosophus will fit the bill. It's definitely looking like a good prospect! Dreadstar † 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That version looks quite good. The problem is that whatever the affiliations, they are definitely experts in science, and spiritual expertise requires no qualifications. They have the degrees, and even a POV pushing expert is still an expert.

"The film features interviews with scientists and experts in spirituality, interspersed with the fictional story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her situation. The scientific accuracy of many of the claims made in the movie has been disputed."

"The film features interviews with scientists and experts in spirituality, interspersed with the fictional story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her situation. The scientific accuracy of many of the claims made in the movie has been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience.

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I read Philsophus's version. I think the lead is fine, and in general the draft is good. I hope he'll have a go at rewriting the controversy section, because it doesn't seem on par with the rest of the article. I feel like the Physics Today letter (if it meets WP:RS) could be better summarized. Right now I don't think the summary conveys the sense of the letter. Also the controversy section seems weak and difficult to read because editors simply found damning quotes and essentially listed them. Also, I feel like the Australian Broadcasting article is a weak source. I believe it's misleading and inaccurate, such as this statement: "The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." As i understand it, the "thereness" at the subatomic level is very different from the macroscopic level, because the wave nature of the particle is so much more evident. Famous experiments like the double-slit experiment on photon interference suggests that our macroscopic understanding of something being "there" is very different from the subatomic reality. TimidGuy 12:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section could be better, but we were somewhat hamstrung by a fairly rigid reading of OR policy by a number of editors. We couldn't quote the thousands of sources that say that these are subatomic level phenomena, we could only quote articles directly dealing with WTB that said that the phenomena it talked about occur only at the subatomic level. I've pleaded with the editors that did that to come to bat for other OR issues on other articles, but they only seemed to be interested in making sure that this article couldn't refer to peer-reviewed science in discussing the movie.Kww 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The ABC are right, the subatomic particles making up the rock will be localised within the rock.1Z 13:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it conflating the quantum scale with the macroscopic scale -- which is what this movie is being criticized for? TimidGuy 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way? 1Z (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Impasse resolution proposal

I would like to go for RFC or some similar thing on what I see as the source of the impasse: does maintaining a NPOV require us to present the scientific perspective on this film in some kind of "balance" with the spiritualistic perspective, or, since the movie presented itself as scientific, is it permissible to treat the scientific consensus as "true", and the spiritualistic perspective as a fringe position? I really don't want to go through that kind of process sentence by sentence, but I would like to get the overall position ironed out by multiple people. I may get grumpy at the result, but I didn't hack away at the result the last time, as much as I hated the way the article turned out.Kww (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not Spiritualism, it's New age. But anyway, that is a quandary. I think if you wanted to go and make an article "scientific criticism of WTBDWK," you would be alright. But an article about the movie itself- in that context, you have to consider the viewpoint of all the fans, and you are looking at a piece of New Age entertainment, which makes no bones at all about being fringe science which is way out beyond what the mainstream says- at least that is my take. So I'm not really so sure that it misrepresents as much as you say. In the context of a New age movie, the scientific mainstream is one notable perspective, but far from the only one, or even the main notable perspective. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we all understand NPOV and understand that the mainstream scientific viewpoint can't dominate over everything else in the article. However, the major point of contention seems to be the portrayal of the scientific viewpoint itself. --Philosophus ^T 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

I did have the article protected for a day, but the talk here indicates users are not ready to cease edit warring, so I've extended it to 20 December, full protection as the involved users are not new. Work your issues here on the talk page first. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What if the dispute got resolved before then? Also, just as an FYI, I wouldn't edit war over it, I decided to immediately go to the discussion instead of demanding edit privileges. Too bad none of the other people want to do it that way. It's totally up to the freewill of the individuals to choose to become ready at their sole discretion. mike4ty4 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this article isn't destined to remain protected forever. Thane Eichenauer (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It won't be. Dreadstar † 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Funding

"Lacking the funding and resources of the typical Hollywood film,"

Except that in the extras, they said it cost FIVE MILLION dollars to make! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.192 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A figure that solidly backs up the quoted statement. In 2004:

the average cost to market a film domestically in 2004 was $34 million, roughly half the $64 million average price tag to make one, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Blockbusters cost even more to market: as much as $60 million domestically and $125 million worldwide.

Compared to that, five million is 'chump change'....;) Dreadstar † 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

TM Involvement

I picked up at least two hints of TM involvement. Firstly one of the "experts" comes from Maharishi "University" (or whatever it's called), and then the claim that a bunch of meditators in Washington DC lowered the crime rate, which seems to be quoted by TMers all over the place. In the UK, it's "Liverpool" which still has a big crime problem.

I thought the whole thing reeked of some kind of recruitment film, although to be fair, it doesn't seem to be recruiting for any one organisation. Confusing perception and observation with reality is a gross error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.192 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to include that in the article, the statement would need a reliable source that meets WP:V and WP:NOR requirements for inclusion. Dreadstar † 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

Not much progress on a new version. I have troubles with the second paragraph in the lead of Philosophus' proposed version. The second sentence in the second paragraph of the lead section seems to be a bit run-on, and doesn't present a truly brief, concise summary of the movie's notable controversies that reflects its importance to the topic per WP:LEAD. I think the prior, consensus version is a better fit:

The film has received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film.

This concise, accurate summary is then followed by the necessary and relevant details provided in the body of the article, including the statement made by some that the movie is 'pseudoscience'. To be quite honest, I've never heard of anyone referring to a movie as pseduoscience before.

Thoughts, everyone? Dreadstar † 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I had rather forgotten about this issue, as the protection was so long. It appears that it centers around "pseudoscience": one group of editors thinks the article can't be neutral when the word is included, and another group of editors thinks the article can't be neutral without the word being included. This is really annoying, as there isn't much room for compromise. I'm of the opinion that the previous version, which has been called "consensus" by a strange straw poll that was confusing at best, isn't acceptable, and needs to change. We have a reliable source, quite notable in the scientific community, that refers to the film as pseudoscience. There are quite a few other sources given that don't use that particular word but say essentially the same thing. If you want to trade anecdotal evidence, I've heard quite a number of people refer to it as pseudoscience, and a number of other people, including experts in similar fields, refer to many of the scientists presented as crackpots. --Philosophus ^T 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right . What we may have here is a little syntax problem. This is a movie not a science. The movie could present a pseudoscientific viewpoint or information that might be labeled as pseudoscience, but is not itself a pseudoscience. (olive (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Excellent point, Olive. Which is detail that needs to explained in the body of the article not "hinted" at in the lead, where hinting is directly addressed, "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article". This is in addition to the WP:UNDUE it provides when included in the lead. Dreadstar † 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you seem to persist in commenting on a minor point in my comment rather than the proposed changes. Also, do note that WP:LEAD is a style guideline, not policy, and wouldn't be that important even if the proposed lead (not my comment!) violated it. ---Philosophus ^T 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are generally accepted standards that all editors should follow unless there is good reason not to. Even though WP:LEAD isn't set in stone, I think it would be important if it were violated...what is the 'rare exception' or commonsense reason you see for violating it here? Dreadstar † 09:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

<ec> Philosophus, apologies if this wasn't made clear, but not a single editor has expressed a view that the article can't be neutral when the word "pseudoscience" is included, there has been absolutely no one, afaict, questioning the need to include it since it is indeed mentioned in serveral reliable sources on the movie. If you look at the article as it was in its consensus version, it mentions the word 'pseudoscience' at least twice. The question is whether or not it belongs in the lead section, some editors believe that the word in the lead provides undue weight to that statement and that view, and as Olive points out, paints the entire movie with the overbroad brush of "pseudoscience. Undue for certain.

As for prior consensus, there is a lot more to that entire, long discussion than what you refer to as a confusing "strange straw poll". That consensus is valid, and not only that, but the content that was being disputed was clearly and undeniably orginal research. There is no doubt about that, even some of the disputing editors admitted that some of it was OR, but thought it should be included anyway. So, we need to find a new consensus for any substantial changes to the article.

And, I don't think the anecdotal evidence offered was a fair trade...;) I'd truly like to know what other mainstream movies have been called pseudoscience...well, I can well imagine there are folks out there who have referred to Superman, the movie as psuedoscience, but the undue there would really bite the Kryptonite bullet...;) Dreadstar † 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You see, this is what such long protections do: I've forgotten some details. Yes, the problem is whether to include it in the lead section, and that does seem to be where some editors insist upon it and some insist against it. I'm one of the editors who insists upon it, and believes that it isn't undue. Both you and olive also seem to be commenting on one minor slip in my comment, which isn't present in my draft of "aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience." This doesn't paint the entire movie with the label, and is strongly sourced. As for the validity of the consensus, I still question it, but we probably should just ignore that dispute because it doesn't really have much bearing on anything now. I'm not sure how the superman comment is relevant: when I said anecdotally that I had heard a number of people refer to the film as pseudoscience, I meant that they referred to it as primarily being a vehicle for the promoting and expressing pseudoscientific views. But again, anecdotal evidence doesn't really matter here, and we have a number of sources, including one directly using the term in Physics Today, that supports it, and not including it would essentially exclude the scientific viewpoint from the lead entirely, which would be an undue weight problem as well, especially when considering such decisions as WP:ARB/PS. --Philosophus ^T 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right your version does not specifically say the entire movie is pseudoscience, however since the statement is in the lead, it provides undue weight to that view; the phrasing of the sentence is both vague and yet still manages to provide too much detail, contrary to what is stated in WP:LEAD. It's even possible that a statement containing wording such as "certain aspects of this movie are pseudoscience", leads by implication that the movie is pseudoscientific. This sentence is run-on and provides too much detail for the lead in this article:

"The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality, though the accuracy of many of the claims made have been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience."

That detail is perfectly acceptable in the article, but it needs to be more concisely stated in the lead section. Your statement that not including the word 'pseudoscience' would "exclude the scientific viewpoint from the lead entirely.." is incorrect, the consensus statement covers that very well, "The film has received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film.". Further, there is really no overarching "scientific viewpoint" on the movie, a small group of scientists commented about the film, so to state or even imply there is some kind of "scientific viewpoint" or "scientific consensus" on this movie would sorely violate WP:NPOV.

I've read through Wikipedia:ARB/PS, but applying that to a movie like Bleep? Nah...heck, you might just as well apply what is found in the ParaCom decision. Applying ARB/PS to the individual articles on the specific "sciences" mentioned in the movie is fine, and then the links to those articles in Bleep provide an adequate framework without violating WP:NOR. There's no argument that the use of the word is 'strongly' sourced, that's why it's included...the question is one of UNDUE, and detail that would be needed in the lead to avoid hinting or teasing or brushing with too broad a stroke.

Ach, the Superman comment is humour, but even so is relevant in that both Bleep and Superman are movies. Trading anecdotal evidence can be fun, I guess...but you're right, just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

If anyone would like to question the validity of the consensus, then I invite them to take it up the chain. I would be more than happy to participate, and I'm sure every editor that participated in that consensus would too, although I think it would be better to just try and find consensus for any proposed changes instead of wasting time pursuing that avenue. Dreadstar † 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Philosophus. Apologies. I wasn't in any way trying to focus on some small point or to be trite. I was commenting on the language which seemed to me could be causing confusion in understanding between major editors on this article which I am not. I apologize for any "muddying of waters" that may have occurred. (olive (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

As I implied in my comment on the TM talk page, I'm far more understanding of other viewpoints when fully awake. --Philosophus ^T 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that this sentence also muddies the water a bit, because it is mixing what the movie is (description), with the criticism of it, this gives it a POV slant. They need to separated:

"The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality, though the accuracy of many of the claims made have been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience."

Dreadstar † 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to make an attempt at entirely rewrite the lead. One of the problems with trying to gradually evolve a section into something acceptable to everyone is that it often ends up with other problems and a general feeling of awkwardness, and that has become an issue with the lead. Also, Dreadstar, now that I'm awake I should also note that, while you probably didn't intend to insult anyone, a run-on sentence is the product of a specific and basic grammatical error, not simply a long sentence. --Philosophus ^T 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely no insult intended, heck I do it all the time. There are two clauses there, which I alluded to earlier:

Clause 1: "The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality;

Clause 2; "The accuracy of many of the claims made have been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience."

Two subjects and two predicates; run-on. Dreadstar † 06:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And a conjunction, so as to prevent it from being a run-on. I've read some perfectly correct sentences with at least a dozen subjects and predicates each. I understand what you are complaining about, and think it might very well be valid from a content and POV perspective, but it isn't a grammatical problem. --Philosophus ^T 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My experience as an English teacher is zero, so I may be wrong, so apologies if I am. I've pinged a couple of English professors to get an opinion, mainly for my own peace of mind...;) Maybe it's just long sentence. Dreadstar † 07:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update just for informational purposes; got a reply from a senior English expert that it is a run on sentence and should be broken up. I pinged several professors and senior English teachers, I'll update if any contrary comments come in. Dreadstar † 09:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LoL...I've gotten a lot of responses on this sentence, seems there are a number of problems with it. Seems that consensus is leaning toward it not actually being run-on. Lots of suggestions on fixing it, but I think Philosophus is going for a re-write anyway. I love the English language... :) Dreadstar † 08:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at the lead from a more general perspective, I am even more upset with it than before. It only really covers the content of the film and the criticism, and thus isn't an accessible overview of the article. It also contains an unsourced mention of CGI that isn't elaborated on in the article. The plot and content is given far too much weight, and things like the production, reception, and so on aren't given any weight at all. Most other film leads aren't like this; for comparison, look at the lead to Superman (1978 film). --Philosophus ^T 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Contestation and dispute will do that to a lead. If this article weren't so contentious, I'm sure it would have a wonderful, flowing, descriptive lead section that accurately and concisely summarizes the wonderful article that follows it. I would love to see something better, but most of what I've seen from the "other side" has been overwhelmed with attack material. Getting consensus on anything in the article has been like pulling teeth, and I'm afraid that usually results in some bloody gums and pain. Gotta love lead suggestions that say things like "Bleep is pure balderdash, according to scientists who were in the movie and lied to.." ...lol... I would love to see a better article all the way around...but it's tough to pull off under such contentiuos circumstances...I hope you can come up with something GREAT! I really do. Dreadstar † 07:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in again ... the lead must not contain a waffling statement like "some scientists, like David Albert, classify it as pseudoscience". To do so gives undue weight to the unsupported fringe position that the movie contains anything of scientific merit. The lead needs to contain a positive direct statement that corresponds to the reliable sources. I can't get too excited over whether the lead says "is pseudoscience" or "contains pseudoscience", but it needs to state it directly.Kww (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Some added thoughts:seems that Pseudoscience is one of those words used to generalize a large body of ibformation and as such might be more about opinion than anything... although an educated opinion in many cases.There is after all no research on pseudoscience itself . rather this is a way of classifying "poor"science. If the word is used in the lead it must be used with a citation otherwise it is the opinion of the editors or editors who add it. Using a citation probably a statement from an individual scientist immediately make a general statement more specific and perhaps unfit in a lead. Would a statement like, "Scientific claims presented in the movie are controversial." be more neutral. Not attached. Just some thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point it out one more time ... the claims aren't controversial, they are wrong. No reliable source believes them to be accurate.Kww (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps or... the fact that the movie presents them as legitimate and the reliable sources you are familiar with do not, indicates a controversy.... "The movie's presentation of scientific viewpoints is considered to be controversial". Any better?(olive (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

No. "The movie's presentation of scientific viewpoints is considered to be incorrect" is OK. Remember, NPOV doesn't require us to give credence to the material. No reliable source with regard to the science asserts that the science is correct. Thus, we don't need waffle language, and saying that it is "controversial" implies that the movie's views are credible with some legitimate minority of scientists.Kww (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, "controversial" indicates that the information in the movie is considered to be credible by some viewers, and not by others . Some of those viewers may be scientists. Is there a consensus that indicates that only scientists have a right to judge this movie and what it presents. Are there are other non- scientific sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards. I don't see controversial as waffling but rather a term that leads into more specific explanations contained in the body of the article.Is it neutral to include only the opinions of scientists and not other viewers in this section of the article if there are reliable sources.(olive (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Exactly, Olive. If it weren't controversial, we wouldn't even be discussing all this. Plus, "controversial" as it is applied to the movie itself, is sourced. I initially removed the word, but then found sources. So yeah, controversial is in. Many editors consider the word "pseudoscience" to be pejorative, so we must be very careful in its use. This statement does not waffle, it is specific and accurate: "The film has received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film." Dreadstar † 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, some of the people in the movie are scientists, and since they (and I presume their usual allies) support the ideas in the movie, I'd say that there actually is some "controversy in science" about the movie. The entire issue over the movie is a tempest in a teapot, because of the limited voices from the scientific community that actually commented on the movie. Dreadstar † 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Only the opinions of scientists need be taken into account about the science, and, per WP:FRINGE, people that take extreme positions can have their views discounted. If New Agers say that the movie presents valid science, that simply doesn't matter, because their views are not qualified.Kww (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and those fringe sciences can be addressed in their own individual articles. For this article, which is on this movie, all significant views on the movie must be represented fairly and, as much as possible, without bias, from published reliable sources. The scientific view is limited by the very small number of the scientific community who commented on the film, the lack of peer-reviewed articles on the film, and etc. Too much focus on the anti-Bleep, "scientific perspective" is undue. And just what is 'extreme' considering the baseline provided by the platform the movie presents? I say the common person's view of the science in the case of this movie needs to be presented, not just the opinions of scientists. This is not a scientific article. It's an article about a movie. Dreadstar † 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is the the fact that this movie misrepresents science should not be represented as a false controversy. I don't want to bash it, insult it, or deride it in this forum. Among those qualified to have an opinion, there is no controversy about the science in this movie. A simple statement to that effect, in the lead, is appropriate. To state that "The movie's presentation of scientific viewpoints is considered to be incorrect" or that "The movie misrepresents science" is quite reasonable and appropriate. "People, including so-and-so, have criticised its presentation of scientific issues" makes it sound like there are other people who disagree and should be considered on the topic. There aren't. The view of the "common man" on science is not, and never has been, of any particular importance.Kww (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we may be closer than I thought. How does this sentence for the lead section sound to you:

" "The scientific concepts presented in the film have received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film."

Dreadstar † 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it was the extrapolations of the scientific concepts that were criticized. Why can't we make that distinction in this article? I've only seen parts of the movie, but my impression is that it accurately describes certain aspects of quantum mechanics and brain physiology and chemistry. The Physics Today letter says, "Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins." Both the ACS and Physics today reviews explicitly say that it's the extrapolations that are the problem. If we use these as sources, seems like we should accurately represent them. TimidGuy (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Points-of-view statements

Dreadstar, I think you mis-understand some of the subtleties of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and perhaps Wikipedia:Undue weight. If I read the above correctly, you say roughly 'the scientific community has not said very much about What the Bleep, while fringe groups have, therefore we should not give the scientific community's views as much prominence in the article'. Taken to an extreme, that's equivalent to saying that the more verbose you are, then the more Wikipedia should have about you. This is not correct, and even your version is off the mark.

WP:FRINGE states clearly 'An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is' - which automatically makes most of the fringe sources non-notable and not suitable for inclusion. It also implies that notable debunking of the film - such as that by Physics Today and the American Chemical Society - should be given great prominence. Additionally, WP:FRINGE states that Wikipedia must not give a fringe idea additional prominence than it deserves. Emphasizing the fringe sources at the expense of the debunking does that, and should therefore be avoided.

Now, WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy, and therefore subject to exception. But the policy WP:NPOV states that Wikipedia must maintain a neutral position, and de-emphasizing two high-profile debunkings in favor of more numerous fringe sources is not NPOV - it is a subtle form of POV pushing. While NPOV does state, under Wikipedia:Undue weight, 'Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views', you must understand that the scientific consensus is not a minority view. It is a summation of the general views of the scientific community, which is a most important source. So NPOV isn't a rationale for side-lining debunking - it requires that the debunking be emphasized.

Finally, we have WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, an ArbCom case of last year. In this case, it was decided that Wikipedia must be in accordance with the scientific consensus. A lot of the material in What the Bleep - including pretty much everything the film was made to promote - has been deemed nonsense by the scientific community at large, hence the debunkings must be made clear. The movie was made to promote a particular flavor of pseudoscience. That is inescapable. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said at all. The only thing I've said that's even close to that relates to the word "controversial", mainly about the film, but I did express the idea that perhaps there was some limited controversy in the scientific community (since I believe some of those supporting the movie are part of that same community - although that wasn't a major concern of mine, and I could be entirely wrong about that). And no, I'm not suggesting the outer fringes of the scientific community outweigh the views of the mainstream scientific majority when talking about the scientific commentary that exists on this movie in reliable sources.

I haven't seen anyone present evidence that the scientific community has come to a consensus on the movie - the scientific community is pretty big. All I said was that due to the fact that this is a movie, then sources that are related to the movie are what we go by. The vast majority of sources are non-scientific, and talk about the movie, the reviews, and the articles and books by non-scientists, books on what the audience thought of the movie, etc. The scientific view by the scientific community is sorely lacking, please provide some links that show that the scientific community "at large" had deemed anything at all about this movie. Some few scientists made comments about the movie, which is a very tiny percentage of the scientific community. So, yes, please provide some links that show us the scientific consensus and the summation of the general views of the scientific community on this movie, I'd truly enjoy reading the information, and adding to the article.

No one is 'de-emphasizing' anything. The content in both physics today and the American Chemical Society are given their due prominence, they have their very own section. And each of the individual "fringe sciences" talked about in the movie has their own Wikipedia articles - those articles are the scientific articles where the bulk of the scientific community's views are presented...per WP:FRINGE. This article is about the movie, not about those fringe sciences, so adding content that does not mention the movie is original research.

And I certainly do not appreciate attack-headers and have changed this section's name. I suggest you focus on the editorial content of the article and not on other editors. Dreadstar † 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You are taking WP:OR to an extreme if you claim there is no consensus on this film. There is a consensus in the scientific community on each position that this film takes, and it doesn't come out on the side of this film. Do all those sources discuss the film? No, so we can't use them as sources about the film. But to claim that the sources that do discuss the film don't represent the consensus on those topics is stretching things to the breaking point. There is no controversy about this film. The film misrepresents science.Kww (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking OR to the extreme. Please provide evidence of the consensus you believe exists. We need solid sources to say there is consensus from the scientific community on this film. That there is controvesy is sourced. In much the same way, I don't think anyone is really advocating that the article say there is controversy in the scientific community about the film. So, this is a dead horse. Dreadstar † 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to go back and provide you with pointers to all the references you ripped out? I granted that they were OR-violating because they didn't specifically reference the film. All I am saying is that if we could only find a handful of scientists that noticed this thing and bothered to write about it does not mean that the hundreds of sources that agree with them about quantum mechanics don't exist. This film was not important enough for most scientists to take notice of. Your rigidness about OR is distorting NPOV by preventing that consensus from being in the lead. This movie was created to produce the illusion of a scientific foundation for New Ageism. There is no such foundation, and there is no controversy about that. The argument is only dead because you steadfastly refuse to listen to it. It is perfectly and absolutely legitimate to lead this article with a factual statement such as "This movie misrepresents science." There is no need to be mealy-mouthed about it, because there are no reliable sources that contradict the statement. If you think there is one, please provide me with a reliable source that supports the science in this film.Kww (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Dreadstar † 20:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so I don't waste my time, let's presume that I can show that on every single point where the science was criticized, that criticism represents the scientific consensus on the topic. Would you then agree that it was legitimate to say "The movie misrepresents science" without any waffle language?Kww (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but if the movie mis-represented science on every point it made which was supposed to be scientific, AND if the movie were about "science" rather than ...whatever... then we could say that. So you'd need a statement from some organization which genuinly represents science in general. And one could say that anyway if one qualified: "Mis-represents on such and sucha a point." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have given offense, Dreadstar. The heading was meant to reflect my confusion. Regarding the scientific consensus - I've explained this before. Physics Today is the closest thing to a single journal that reflects the views of the entire physical sciences community, and the American Chemical Society is also very large. So we have sources that are as close as you can get to a single summary of the scientific consensus, and they say that the movie is pseudoscience. As Kww notes, there are no sources in the scientific community that show support for the film, while there are sources that show the contrary. There is in fact no controversy in the scientific community about the film - it is agreed to be nonsense. The controversy arises since the film's producers claim that their ideas are supported by physics - which they are not, making the film pseudoscience. Now, promoting one particular pseudoscience is the entire reason for the movie's existence. That must be made very clear. If it weren't pseudoscience, then this talk page would not be anywhere near as long. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, I accept and I understand what you meant. Well, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, so while the Physics Today letter may be the closest thing, it is clearly not a document that represents the consensus of the scientific community. It is a letter written to PT by two scientists who do not appear to be speaking on behalf of any group or be representatives of larger groups who have opinions on the movie. The American Chemical Society article is a movie review that cannot be remotely mistaken for scientific consensus, if the article can can be considered "scientific" at all...it reads more like a tabloid review than anything I'd take as the official view of the scientific community. Wikipedia cannot make sweeping statements about the scientific community's view or consensus regarding this film. The film has received attributable criticism from a few members of the scientific community, that's all we can say in the lead. Further details can are presented in the body of the article. To do more is undue, unless we can come up with more sources.

The rest of what you write is your opinion, and can't be included. If you have specific content and sources that you'd like to add to the article, you're more than welcome to present them here or in a sandbox for discussion. Dreadstar † 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, some of your statements may be supported, but 1. We have no source for a scientific consensus, 2. those sources are nothing like the statements on something like Astrology, where you can indeed cite a scientific consensus 3. The sources do not say the movie is pseudoscience, but only parts of it, 4. I think that some of the scientists in the movie were showing support for the film- not all of them. But one of the attack sources says that the credentials were impressive. 5. You don't know of and can't source any agreement in the scientific community, because most there probably don't bother with the film. 6. Do the producers actually claim the movie is supported by physics? 7. The movie is promoting spirituality as well as both science and pseudoscience 8. the length of the talk page is not an indicator of pseudoscience and 9. Wikipedia does not debunk. Let me repeat that: Wikipedia does not debunk.

So what this means is that POV is being pushed. There is nothing wrong with an attributed statement that some mainstream sources say the movie edges over from science into pseudoscience. That is the limit of the sources, and it is the limit of what Wikipedia can do. Further, it represents the truth as society as a whole has understood it- the mainstream in mainstream encyclopedia. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While this film can be discussed as the pop culture piece that it is, the ultra-minority viewpoint that the film espouses needn't be presented as science in Wikipedia. From WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. If you can demonstrate that the film's viewpoint is not held by such a tiny minority, then this statement doesn't apply. Antelan ^talk 04:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's right on the mark and something I've been alluding to all along. This article is on the movie, and focuses on the pop-culture, production, synopsis, reviews and basically just movie rather than "science" or "pseudoscience". The individual "science" articles, such as water crystal work, are the place to discuss the "science" in detail, not here. This is a movie article. Dreadstar † 17:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not, currently, about pop culture. It heavily emphasizes science. This is fine, but given this approach, the fringe theories must be subjected to WP policies on fringe vs mainstream science. Antelan ^talk 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article heavily emphasizes science? No way. It summarizes what is contained in the movie but does not go into detail about the 'science' presented - it contains a brief synopsis of the movie.If you want to see what an article looks like that "heavily emphasizes science", take a look at Quantum mechanics or DNA, this is not an article that heavily emphasizes science - well, with the possible exception of the other viewpoints section. There's more than sufficient focus on criticism and pseudoscience to satisfy WP:FRINGE - maybe a little too much emphasis on the criticism and not enough on the movie itself. Dreadstar † 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramtha school aricle

This article mentions Bleep, everyone involved here may want to review it. Dreadstar † 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the edits, please

I'm under constant threat of block for editing this article to match reality, so please stop putting changes into this article that I strongly disagree with. "A number of scientists believe "... how ridiculous.Kww (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to all editors if my edits are a concern and if they add any "fuel to the fire".They are simple copy edits for syntax and weasel wording.(olive (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Oops...read changes in article after writing above comment. Lots of other edits. I thought article was blocked for content disputes.Syntax changes didn't change fundamental meaning or content and were simply added to make reading and judgment easier. Don't intend to get into this dispute... enough players already so onward all, and I will happily butt out.(olive (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, that's why the article was protected, eh? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We were still discussing Philosophis' version, but he was bold and added it anyway. Lots of activity since then, and I see many of those edits are controversial, so why don't we go back to the version that was protected (let's add in the sentence that was removed on the criticism), then come to a consensus on proposed changes. Unless we just need to have the article protected until consensus is found. Dreadstar † 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon review, although there have been several changes, perhaps we can move forward without going back or protecting. This version is much better than any of the previous ones since the protection was lifted, and actually seems to address all major concerns. Just please do not start edit warring again - further major changes should probably be discussed before implementing. Dreadstar † 06:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the most current version. Here is the diff comparing the most current version with your favored version. Antelan ^talk 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Antelan, that looks good too. The diff I posted was the most current version when I posted it...;) Dreadstar † 09:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Antelan ^talk 09:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's gotten closer. I would prefer to replace Parts of the film that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience, and David Albert, one of the scientists featured in the movie, says that his views were intentionally misrepresented. with Parts of the film that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics have been criticized as crossingcross the line into pseudoscience, and David Albert, one of the scientists featured in the movie, says that his views were intentionally misrepresented.Kww (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Really seems like both versions greatly skew this article toward conveying the sense the the featured individuals are parroting the Ramtha school when in fact they likely know nothing about it. TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that, TimidGuy. I think we may need to tone down the posited connection between the production of the film and RSE. Mention of the producer's connection to RSE may be fine in the body, but in lead it's a bit undue-y... Dreadstar † 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not undue at all.Kww (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a problem of UNDUE, it's misleading. See my comment above. TimidGuy (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Great point, TG, I concur. Dreadstar † 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed sentence in lead

I reverted the following: "The scientific community believes much of the movie crosses the line from spirituality and philosophy into pseudoscience." It just makes no sense. Who can say what the "scientific community" says? This sort of generalization violates guidelines. The word "much" is subjective. Philsophus did a great job at rewriting the lead judiciously. It was neutral. Please don't start distorting the article again. TimidGuy (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the many, many, many times that I said that the proposed "neutral" lead was gave undue weight to the beliefs presented in the movie? Or are Michaelbusch and myself simply not included in measuring consensus?Kww (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed the discussions. I guess from my perspective, you and Michaelbusch had a month to try to get consensus for your point of view. And no one agreed with you. And now that the article is unprotected you revert to imposing your view via edit warring rather than trying to get consensus. TimidGuy (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article at all, and have objected to people that did. I view the events in the opposite perspective. There is no consensus for your point of view, and you have made no effort to persuade me that the article is being written in a neutral fashion. Language like "some scientists believe" is unacceptable.Kww (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that an encyclopedia should be precise. As Martinphii has argued eloquently, how could one ever know what the "scientific community" thinks? There used to be a guideline that advised against such ad populum arguments. It's weak. TimidGuy (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been in favor of using "scientific consensus" in the lead. I just want to be able to clearly and precisely state that the movie makes false statements, without having to weaken the statement by making vague attributions to "a number of scientists."Kww (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, I have lost all patience with discussing this article because you and others refuse to accept the sources demonstrating the scientific consensus. If you do not take the over-view sources (from Physics Today and the American Chemical Society) and the lack of any sources supporting the film to be sufficient to reflect the consensus, then you will never accept existence of consensus at all. When any attempt to convince you would take several hundred KBy of debating, it is a waste of my time. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sources do not even come close to showing scientific consensus, something that I've already addressed. Your citation in no way supports the content you've provided it for. Put the citation tag back until you find an appropriate source. Dreadstar † 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I said before that there are cases such as Flat earth, Astrology, and other beliefs where a scientific consensus can be sourced. This is not one of those cases. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. A review from one scientific magazine does not "scientific consensus" make. Nor should a single review from a magazine be considered to represent the "scientific community". Lara❤Love 00:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: In the absence of any contra-indication from reputable scientific sources, it's perfectly acceptable to highlight the negative reviews of What the Bleep from Physics Today and the ACS. We can't call them "the scientific community", but it would be OK to just say "scientists", or better yet say "the American Chemical Society and Physics Today, the membership journal of The American Institute of Physics..." Attributing the claims actually strengthens them, and if the claims are not contradicted by anybody notable in the scientific community, it's perfectly well in line with WP:NPOV. <eleland/talkedits> 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Including the information is fine as long as it is appropriately attributed. To base "consensus" of the "scientific community" from a single movie review in a magazine is not. Lara❤Love 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Eleland and Lara Love, but especially Eleland. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific community and scientific consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needs to be reverted back to the version before SA started his main attack on it, [9]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOR concerns

One more thing to consider with the above sourcing scenarios [10], [11], as long as those "introductory textbooks" and other sources mention the movie it may be ok, otherwise it would be strictly original research as it relates to the subject of this article...the movie. Dreadstar † 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy? Should science textbooks be allowed as sources to refute false statements made by third parties even if the textbook doesn't mention the party explicitly? !! time=21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I just watched it in the movie. You can read it in the transcript here: [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/what-the-bleep-do-we-know-script.html]. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is John G. Cramer a pseudoscientist? Apparently he thinks it's possible also [12] [13] [14]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealparr (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No. John Cramer is not a pseudoscientist, though, as with any working scientist, his ideas may be deployed in the service of pseudoscientific ideas. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer

Oh, I completely agree with that. The question here was whether their pseudoscientific statement was completely factless. My argument was that their pseudoscientific conclusions were drawn on a real hypothetical idea in mainstream science. It's still pseudoscience, of course, I was disagreeing with the contention that it is flatly factless. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This seems to be alternatively grasping at straws and nitpicking. I will point out an error in your estimation: retrocausality is not the same thing as simply "traveling backwards in time". That's iteratively irrelevant, however. The fact is that the movie states that quantum theory allows "you" to travel backwards in time. This is flatly contradicted by mainstream texts. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not grasping at straws. Your example is totally out of context and your argument that the movie contradicts mainstream science is based on that out of context quote. In that scene they are talking about how time is perceived as moving forward before he says in quantum theory it can also be backwards. He's not talking about "you" (as in actual people) time traveling. He's talking about perceptions of the movement of time. It's totally speculative, interpretive, and theoretical, which is what the movie is about. The movie borrows theoretical ideas and draws wild unsupported conclusions. That's not fact based; it's an interpretation of a real hypothesis in mainstream science, namely that in quantum theory there can be backwards perception of time (backwards causality). This is the problem with original research. You assume that 1) you know absolutely what they are trying to say, and 2) that you are correct that they are incorrect in what you think they are trying to say. These assumptions are based on a quote taken out of context. If you are wrong, by proxy, Wikipedia is wrong. That's why we attribute criticism to a source. If the criticism is wrong, it's not our problem. It's the critics problem. When you assume the role of a critic, you make it our collaborative problem. Even if the criticism is right, we're not critics. We're encyclopedia writers that report on other people's criticism. If you'd like to be a critic, that's what blogs are for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They are wrong that in quantum theory time moved backwards. It's as simple as that. It's not speculative, interpretative, theoretical. Physics owns time and how it is perceived. Einstein showed that in his fundamental treatises on special relativity. The rest of this is just pandering to ignorance. The facts of the matter is that the movie contains statements that contradict the facts of science. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The movie is talking about the perception of time, and I'm sorry, you're wrong on the statement that Physics owns time and how it is perceived. If physics owns the physical aspects of time, then surely psychology owns the perception of it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought of a clearer way of saying what I meant to say: Flat-fact - people cannot travel back in time. Disputed-fact - this movie says that people can travel back in time. That's what makes OR and synthesis a bad thing. Allowing people to insert their own independent interpretations of the movie that are not sourced to reliable critics opens the door to a whole mess of other problems. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this movie is saying that quantum mechanics has aspects of a the theory that allow for movement back in time. This is false as I demonstrated above. There's nothing original about this statement: it's just plain false. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC responder comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the first:Yes and of course. To the second, I dunno, as the policy stands now, but our policy should permit and indeed encourage this type of citing.

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

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

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

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

(If our policy doesn't state this now then we need to change the policy.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

• Comment For those who aren't familiar with the movie, the part ScienceApologist is quoting occurs in a drammatized portion of the film that isn't part of the interviews with actual experts. It occurs on a basketball court and is meant to be illustrative, not a fully explained discourse on scientific principles. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't quite buy this. The basketball court scene is meant to be pedagogical in my estimation. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. In my opinion, this is an online encyclopedia not a parlour game so it is not really against Wikipedia:NOR policy to simply state that statements made in a movie are contradicted by mainstream science and give appropriate citations and further reading or link to our appropriate article on the mainstream science topic.

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

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

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

  "nothing to do with the film" except that the film purports to explain quantum physics. A reliable source on quantum physics contradicts content in the film. It was published before the film came out. Are you asking for it to predict the future to be used as a reliable source? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• It often -very often- seems to us as editors that we should be able to cite "obviously" (as opposed to what OR means by "directly") relevant sources to contextualize, refute, or support a subject. For example, research on whether fish can feel pain seems to me quite relevant to whether a fetus can feel pain. And QM textbooks seem very relevant here. In an ideal world, with ideal people, one could allow OR. But in the presence of POV pushers, the general effect on WP of allowing any OR would be highly deleterious. It would also cause source wars, for instance, my Stephen Hawking source against SA's textbook. The guideline has stood up for a reason. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  In an absense of such a source, we'll have to defer this rhetoric. The policy question itself still stands. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No It is OR, the purpose of this Wikipedia article is neither to refute nor to corroborate any supposed claims made in the movie, rather the purpose of the article is present all significant viewpoints about movie that can be cited to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Nothing beats the simplicity of the basics. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad point. I'm not saying that we should refute nor corroborate, I'm saying that simply reporting the contradiction is a verifiable fact based on reliables sources. I'm not saying "refute" their nonsense, I'm saying we should be able to say that standard texts plainly refute their nonsense. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We are responding to an RfC that asks "Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie" Dlabtot (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that means that the textbook refutes it, not us. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. That is, if you know of a textbook that actually does refute the movie. Now all you have to do is find a textbook that mentions this movie, and it appears that the consensus would support such a citation being included in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dlabtot, you aren't making sense here. You have just quoted above: "Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie" Then you ignore the key point ("refute a pseudoscientific statement") and focus on the movie itself. The question wasn't about using any book to refute the movie itself, just a statement in the movie. The movie as a whole isn't the problem (well it's all garbage, but that's another point...;-) in this discussion, it is a "pseudoscientific statement" made in the movie. When dealing with anything related to science on any subject at Wikipedia, whether it be a movie, a biography, an article on alternative medicine or quackery, etc., scientific sources are perfectly appropriate for dealing with the scientific matter at hand, and WEIGHT would so dictate. If someone in an article about themselves here is quoted as making an obviously unscientific statement, it would be appropriate to quote a mainstream scientific source to prevent readers from being misled by the Wikipedia article. That's not OR, it's common sense. If it weren't common sense, IOW used to help fringe ideas violate WEIGHT, it would be another matter. If necessary, just invoke WP:IAR. -- Fyslee / talk 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you for the reasons I've already stated. Dlabtot (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense needs to be common. IAR needs a consensus. Avb 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, it can't be used, Yes, it violates WP:NOR. It's true that there are more articles where this type of OR is done routinely by their regulars. That does not make it acceptable, tempting as it may be. Avb 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some elaboration on this opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I too would be interested. I am surprised at your statement, Avb. Keep in mind we are discussing the statement, not the movie. The movie is being used as a red herring and diversion here. Stick to the topic, which is the statement. How do we deal with it? Readers must not be misled by reading Wikipedia articles. -- Fyslee / talk 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Basic policy interpretation. See my comments below response by Count Iblis. Avb 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS This is not to say that SA's question is without merit. A 1:2 !vote ratio is quite significant and more than a hint that in specific cases a consensus may be achieved to use such a synthesis anyway. Editors may have varying reasons/arguments for supporting such a consensus, e.g. (1) stating the obvious (my POV here is that the statement is trivially wrong to me and those that believe it is supported by science clearly lack insight into the basics of quantum physics) (2) IAR (3) a preference for a ScientificPOV (still NPOV but with some additional weight assigned to mainstream science views) in mixed articles such as this one (a shift I support and that may materialize if (near-)consensuses to IAR in cases like this one happen more often). PS written in a hurry, feel free to shoot down in flames if I missed something important. Avb 11:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• We aren't writing a research paper here in which case good sources might include a textbook, although, a textbook is generally seen as a teaching tool and not a research tool per say. This is an encyclopedia which is an account of material relating to the topic - a movie. The title of the article is What the Bleep .... - the movie. The fundamental question is not about whether this is a textbook but rather whether references are made in the textbook to the topic, again, a movie. Otherwise we are dealing with Original Research because we have to make jumps in logic and application from the information in the textbook to the topic. Encyclopedic content does not require such jumps, but reports from reliable sources info. that has already been published on the topic. As Jossi notes ... classic OR. And as noted, no need to attack any editors because they disagree-at best, a red herring. Just deal with the discussion.(olive (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

  What jumps in logic are made to simply point out that the plain statement made in the movie is contradicted by the textbook? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the textbook that refers to the movie itself, and that is different than material in the textbook that refers to some aspect of the movie. What if we use a different movie and two different reliable references A and B (textbooks or not is not the issue). The movie is the Bourne Ultimatum. Reference A states that car chases in modern movies are unrealistic . Reference B states car chases in the Bourne Ultimatum are unrealistic. Wikipedia Policy allows us to use Reference B, because the movie is directly referenced. To use Reference A we would have to jump from:

• 1. IF: Car chases in modern movies are unrealistic

over

• 2.Bourne ultimatum is a modern movie
• 3.Bourne Ultimatum has car chases

to

• 4.Then: Car chases in Bourne Ultimatum are unrealistic.

In a research paper we can make this kind of jump... its called research and support of an argument. In Wikipedia this has been noted as OR and has been disallowed because as in any research paper the door is open for individual arguments, research and mistakes.There are some checks and balances in the research world for this such as peer review.My concern personally isn't with whether the movie has worth or in proving that it does or doesn't . As a editor in an encyclopedic format , my concern is that what is include in an article, specified as being about the movie, not about science but about the movie itself is verified.I don't want to get into discussions about Wikipedia policy.This seems inappropriate here.(olive (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Borne Ultimatum isn't making a prima facie claim of fact. This movie is. Fiction is fiction. If this movie were purporting to be totally fiction, there wouldn't be problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, refuting trivial things is certainly not OR. In this case it is a trivially wrong statement about Quantum Mechanics that anyone who knows about Quantum Mechanics can agree is wrong. OR refers specifically to statements about a certain topic that are nontrivial even if you have knowledge about the topic in question. In that case we demand that the statement be published in a peer reviewed journal first. Being a nontrivial statement, that would be possible. Trivial statement cannot be published in peer reviewed journals, so it would be unreasonable to consider such statements to be OR and demand that they be published first before they can be used in wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"... anyone who knows about Quantum Mechanics ..." fails WP:V (see e.g. WP:SPS). Where major peer-reviewed journals don't provide scientific info on the more contentious (pseudo-)scientific subjects, we typically use self-published sources that are written by experts and (on a general level) have solid support from scientists, such as www.pandasthumb.org, www.quackwatch.org, etc.

Then again, this is not what SA is asking. He did source both viewpoints in mainstream sources (the film itself and a science textbook). I think the disputed content is a new synthesis, which violates WP:NOR (see e.g. WP:SYNTH). Apparently this is intended to satisfy WP:WEIGHT, which in itself is a good thing. However, we assign weight on the basis of sources that discuss the subject - i.e. the film. Avb 10:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the WP:SYNTH angle is what people are going for. However, there is a problem with this. If you interpret the synthesis clause too strictly then one could say that every article at Wikipedia that uses more than one source is in violation. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The position advanced by the new synthesis would be that the statement from the film is rubbish. Now that a V RS source advancing this position has been provided, the synthesis is no longer a new one: the textbook can be quoted as well. Avb 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion Reel Science, a division of the American Chemical Society aimed at "encourag[ing] critical thinking about the way science is presented in film" says: "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought." [15] Why not include that quote, attribute it, and move on? Fireplace (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

^There you go. That's all anyone was asking for before SA went off on a tirade about POV pushing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good quote. But this RfC is useful in that quite a few editors gave and explained their opinion on the matter. Avb 10:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That deals with the accidents of the argument but not the substance. Is a textbook written before the movie came out a reliable source about subjects the movie itself purports to be about? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No to the first question and Yes to the second. A text book (that is not about the movie) cannot be used to refute errors in a movie point out that the movie contradicts mainstream science [change inspired by ScienceApologist below]. To do so is to do original research. The purpose of this article is neither to reveal to the public the truth -- or lack of -- that might be in the film — not a place for idea spam. The Wikipedia Spam policy advises:

Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of ... ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is [or conversely how bad] ... you're in the wrong place.

The purpose is to reveal what the reliable sources are saying about the film. If one wants to know what reliable sources are saying about quantum physics, then one goes to articles on quantum physics, not this film. If this means some falsehoods in the film go unchallenged, then so-be-it. It is not Wikipedia's mission to reveal the truth.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

(Quoted from Wikipedia:No original research#Verifiability) —Len Raymond (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really "refuting" errors, I'm pointing out that the movie contradicts mainstream science. There's a subtle but important difference. Wikipedia is not meant to be a debunkers' paradise, but it is also not meant to simply ignore verifiable facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No This is a clear violation of NOR. If the sources do not mention the movie, then they are not literally mentioning the content of the movie, they are mentioning content that you (or I) believe is "really" contents of the movie. This is at best a slippery slope leading wikipedia editors to insert their own views into articles. The issue hee is not what is a reliable source but what is an appropriate source. An appropriate source should be a source concerning the topic of the article. If the topic of an article is biology or physics, then sources on biology or physics are appropriate. If the topic of an article is a film, then sources on the film are appropriate sources.. It sounds like Science Apologist has his or her own opinion and wants to make that part of the article. If the movie really is not an authoritative documentary on science, can´t we find appropriate sources - e.g. reviews of the movie by critics or scientists who watched the movie - that say so? NPOV requires us to include notable views ... about the film. Science Apologists´ views about the film are not notable. Let´s find real sources that are appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. Say someone makes a documentary about Margaret Mead that states, in part, "Margaret Mead received her PhD from Cornell University." Are you saying that we cannot use a biography written about Margaret Mead to cite the simple contradiction that this movie makes to the historical facts of the matter? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made it quite clear what I think. Why are you asking me this question? I have already explained what the policy means. Your question serves no purpose except to disrupt this RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't do a very good job in my estimation, which is why I want you to explain what I consider to be a poorly considered position. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein wrote: "An appropriate source should be a source concerning the topic of the article." -- IMHO, an appropriate source is a reliable source concerning any assertion of fact made in an article. To deny this is to permit articles to contain incorrect information, which can't be challenged because "that's not the main topic of the article."-- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, this textbook can't be used in this way. The above passage isn't self-evidently contradicting what the film says. I must rely on ScienceApologist's understanding and interpretation. Yes, this is therefore a good example of the sort of original research disallowed by WP:NOR. If one were to open Wikipedia up to the interpretation of sources by various editors, then why wouldn't I also be able to support the point using Hawking and Cramer? There's a good chance that I'd misunderstand and misinterpret what they say -- and that's the problem. We'd be forced to decide which editors know their stuff and can properly interpret sources and which ones don't have the requisite knowledge. This would be a fundamental change for Wikipedia -- and seriously problematic. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  Your lack of understanding of physics is not an excuse for not dealing with the substance of the argument. Let's say that the statement was made that "1+1=5". Would you allow us to source a textbook that was written before the movie came out that states "1+1=2" and point out that the movie contradicts that statement? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an additional can of worms. Then we'd need to decide, in each instance, whether it was a simple and straightforward refutation or open to interpretation. I feel like you're misframing the issue. You're creating an artificially simple situation and suggesting that policy be changed on this basis. When in reality, the ramifications would create serious problems by opening the door wide for original research. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that science textbooks are reliable sources that can be used to contradict statement made under presumption of fact when the context is right. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using this talk page to personally insult other editors. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if TimidGuy would cut out that crap, but I'm not holding my breath. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, this type of use would be original research, so it won't work for inclusion in the article. That's my response to the RfC question. However, the movie clearly presents pseudoscience, and that can be stated in the article if it can be attributed to a reliable source who states it in context of commenting about the film. I've found a few of those and will add them in a new section below titled "bleep pseudoscience sources". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why does that constitute original research? Imagine the statement: "the movie presents, as fact, statements which are contradictory to maisntream physics theories." Then we include a footnote pointing out an example of such a contradiction. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• yes you *can* use a text book to comment on a film's accuracy. Whether you want to or not depends on whether the film has any pretensions to describe reality William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No Obviously original research. Can we bend the rules? I think WP:NOR says no. Anthon01 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to your characterization. I don't get how consistently you get away with this? You yourself admit to being an agenda-driven editor, as the defender of science, albeit your version. I do have an agenda and that is to support alt-med where justified based on RS. I think it will make wikipedia a more balanced, useful and attractive encyclopedia. You are trying to bend the rules here in order to further your own agenda. For the record I support the reinclusion of the Benviste affair at homeopathy, based on WP:RS, in spite of my suspicion that homeopathy has some merit. Anthon01 (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple: SA is pushing the dominant POV, he's more of an NPOV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So pushing the dominant POV allows editors to make such characterizations? Does WP policy sanction disparaging remarks made against editors interested in presenting RS minority POV? Anthon01 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is plainly original research. While this would be perfectly appropriate for a periodical article addressing the flaws and inaccuracies of the film, it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article about the film. We should be drawing on reliable sources that report about the film and leave it at that. This is not the appropriate place for "debunking" the film and its claims. The path suggested would allow a wide swath of inappropriate original research and could lead to many articles covering new age, supernatural, religious and similar topics being bogged down by debunking and other skeptical baggage. (That is not even close to the whole of the potential damage, but rather just examining the principle within the debunking context.) On the flip side, the claims that disallowing this type of original research would lead to an acute undermining of FRINGE and related rules is simply bunk of its own. If the topic is notable enough for inclusion, there are certainly reliable sources that explicitly contradict the FRINGE claims. This particular article is a good example. There is a virtual mountain of reliably published sources that review and analyze this film from a wide variety of perspectives ranging from the secular humanist debunking model to the new age apologetics models (and quite a fair swath in-between). As noted by comments above, the potentially erroneous claim is contested by published sources discussing the film, eliminating any "need" to act outside the core content rules. Vassyana (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that there exist other sources is beside the point. What makes a textbook about quantum physics original research? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• No A source should not be used to criticize a topic unless it is actually criticizing the topic. While the science being cited may be valid it still violates WP:NOR if the criticism originates from a user and not from a third party source. If this were allowed then anybody could simply add a criticism section to any science fiction movie or TV show and thus imply that they had been serious academic criticism of them, or they could take any entry on a politician and imply that a particularly policy of theirs received criticism simply by citing a criticizing a different politician with a similar policy. perfectblue (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it can be used. Keep in mind we are discussing the statement, not the movie. The movie is being used as a red herring and diversion here. Stick to the topic, which is the statement. How do we deal with it? Readers must not be misled by reading Wikipedia articles. -- Fyslee / talk 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• NO Not only can it not be used, but the same question was hashed out on NOR talk and exists in the NOR archives. The answer was a clear and resounding NO. I forget if it was a text book, or a regular book used to challenge a statement of fact made in a movie, but the difference is immaterial. Doing this, is a clear violation of NOR. I’ll try and adding something of more substance to the conversation later. Brimba (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC etiquette When we ask for comments via an RfC, involved editors should avoid trashing or pressing on their viewpoints on respondents. Let them make their points, and when the RfC is closed you can continue on your debates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC response tally

It has become difficult to keep track of the responses to the RfC because one user has been cluttering up that section by arguing with every commentor who did not agree with his position. In the interest of clarity, here is the current tally of responses:

YES it can be used, it is not original research.

ScienceApologist

Elhector

Writtenonsand

Fireplace

Alice

Count Iblis

William M. Connolley (talk)

Fyslee

YES it can be used, YES it is original research.

Kww (technically OR, but necessary to avoid an absurd result in this case Kww (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

NO it can not be used, it is original research.

Nealparr

Professor marginalia

Dreadstar

Joshua Davis

SlimVirgin

Martinphi

Dlabtot

Avb

olive

Len Raymond

Slrubenstein

TimidGuy

Jossi

Jack-A-Roe (talk)

Anthon01 (talk)

Vassyana

perfectblue (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Brimba

Objection to some participants Note that I object to the enfranchisement of more than a few of the people voting "no" as obvious disruptive editors and POV-pushers. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I make the same objection. It is very interesting to see the same names, even admins, who usually back fringe editors and defend fringe POV. Whatever happened to common sense? -- Fyslee / talk 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is because of common sense that I object to the use of a textbook to refute a claim in a movie. The WP:OR guideline isn't a tool for supressing truth; it's a tool for writing better articles. If a claim made in a movie is perceived as false, and the movie is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, there is always a review pointing out the discrepancy, because that's what critics do: they criticize. That's certainly the case here. There's dozens of better sources that are compatible with the OR guidelines, so common sense asks why break from the guidelines? As for seeing the same editors responding to the RfC, SA's contributions show that he canvassed the usual places (Fringe Noticeboard, Project Rational Skepticism, Project Physics, etc.), so if it pulled the same editors as always that's probably the reason why. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee. I take it that you believe that my vote should not count because you agree with SAs characterizations. Please note that SA is currently blocked for recurrent incivility and not AGF, which could be considered, a form of disruptive editing. Anthon01 (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replying to ScienceApologist: Yes, persons at Ramatha think, "quantum mechanics explains their woo-woo beliefs." And yes, the producers of the film play loose with "scientific terminology." So what? Why should it be Wikipedia's problem if no reliable sources pick that up? —Len Raymond (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that destroys the reliablity of the movie to report on its own content. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "the reliability of the movie"? That phrase has no meaning in the context of this article. This bogus movie is not a source for this article, the movie is the subject of this article. Dlabtot (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I am not sure how to follow up on your comment. Do you mean to say that if claims made by the movie can be debunked that such debunking would serve to discredit the movie as a reliable source regarding quantum-physics & consciousness? —Len Raymond (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

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

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

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

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

ScienceApologist, I greatly respect the work that Dreadstar and others did to improve this article starting in July. They followed due process every step of the way, including RfC and consensus, and adhered to closely to Wikipedia policies. In fact, in my mind it was a model of due process -- and helped Dreadstar to become an Admin. Fine if you want to reopen the issues, but please be cautious about making accusations. And please be civil. TimidGuy (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I suggest you review WP:NPOV. You seem to be misapplying the term. You have not actually noted anything about the article that violates NPOV. Would you care to do so? Thanks in advance.

I would also advise you that personal attacks against other editors are not appropriate for this talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I share ScienceApologist's NPOV concern, even though I have given up on directly editing the article. By taking such a narrow view of OR, the article winds up in the absurd position of not being able to effectively point out that the movie is a tissue of falsehoods. The article does give undue weight to the concerns of whackos, because most scientists ignored it. Instead of being able to treat the scientific position as being against the movie, we are forced to attribute these concerns to "some scientists." We are force to act as if there is some sort of controversy. Thus, the OR concerns crippled this article, whether that crippling was intentional or not.Kww (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it is the role of this Wikipedia article to "effectively point out that the movie is a tissue of falsehoods" ? Wouldn't that be better left to reviews of the movie? (Reviews, which, of course, can be appropriately cited in the article.)

As for "sharing his NPOV concern", since you share it, maybe you could try articulating it: what is it specifically about the article that violates WP:NPOV? Dlabtot (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the film have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience instead of the film crosses the line into pseudoscience. It took a lot of arguing to get Ramtha mentioned in the lead, because other editors thought that point that out was biased. Vegso, Rienecker, and Dolnick come in front of the scientific criticism. The article has grown much better since ScienceApologist went through it ... compare it to the locked version, and you will see how much better it has become. Today, it is nearly acceptable.Kww (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned with the article as it is; I have no interest in examining old versions that have already been discarded. You seem to think the article presents the film in too sympathetic a light, but, I have never heard of this film before today, I know nothing about it other than what I've read in this article - and it's absolutely clear to me that the film is a crock of shit, to use the vernacular.

Responding to your specific example, I refer you to Let the facts speak for themselves and Attributing and substantiating biased statements Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that we were having a civil conversation about whether "refuted" is the correct word to use before ScienceApologist jumped in with a what I say "needs to be taken with a grain of salt". Then he went nuts when we asked for a source that verified what he was saying, posted an RfC, and WP:CANVASSed half of Wikipedia for responses, misrepresenting the issue when doing so. When he was done with all of that he posted this stupid NPOV section calling it a conspiracy (of which I'm apparently a part of) and said that science "owns" this article. It's irritating, and he clearly needs to unplug and chill out on these things. Fireplace posted a great solution above:

Reel Science, a division of the American Chemical Society aimed at "encourag[ing] critical thinking about the way science is presented in film" says: "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought." Why not include that quote, attribute it, and move on?

That's all that was needed. It's something SA could have done if he had just chilled out for a second and not freaked out and started calling everyone POV pushers. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the film, and I don't remember any place at all where it said people could travel backward in time. I doubt very much it said that. And one of those animations doesn't necessarily count. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It comes down to a source vs your memory in this case, I'm afraid. Antelan ^talk 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr has evidently gone back to the movie and examined that section. Here he presents what actually takes place.[16] TimidGuy (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive of current discussion

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

Time travel on the sub atomic scale

"Each history will be a curved spacetime with matter fields in it. Since we are supposed to sum over all possible histories, not just those that satisfy some equations, the sum must include spacetimes that are warped enough for travel into the poast... So the question is, why isn't time travel happening everywhere? The answer is that time travel is indeed taking place on a microscopic scale, but we don't notice it. If one applies the Feynman sum-over-histories idea to a perticle, one has to include histories in which the particle trevels faster than light and even backward in time. IN particular, there will be histories in which the particle goes around and around on a closed loop in time and space....One cannot observe particles with such closed-loop histories directlyl with a particle dectector. However, their indirect effects have been measured in a number of experiments... It seems, therefore, that quantum theory allows time travel on a microscopic scale."

Stephen Hawking, The Universe In A Nutshell Page 148-150 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to me to be totally unrelated to a discussion of how to improve this article. Why did you post it here on this talk page? Dlabtot (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with the article, but anyway, Hawking is just being silly here. Sum-over-histories is not a theory, it's a way of doing calculations in wave mechanics. It's not obviously causal, but it's mathematically equivalent to the wave formulation, which is obviously causal. Sum-over-histories works for any linear wave theory, including Maxwell's equations, so Hawking might as well have said that classical physics allows time travel on a microscopic scale. -- BenRG (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. From the response, we see exactly why we should not allow OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point to this? Antelan ^talk 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point is that ScienceApologist, in his RfC, made it sound like the claim in the movie was simply contradicted by textbook physics. But Martin, I think, was making the point that it's not such a straightforward situation, suggesting in my mind that the point in the RfC was a bit misleading. Anyway, Nealparr's later discussion convinced me that ScienceApologist didn't accurately represent what was in the movie. TimidGuy (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As a matter of physics, ScienceApologist is correct. You, due to your size being orders upon orders of magnitude beyond the quantum scale, will never travel backwards in time. A photon can do so, depending on how you feel about Feynman diagrams. The question revolved around whether or not this info could be used to refute wrongheaded notions in the movie. We probably have enough sources refuting the inaccuracies that we don't need to do so. Antelan ^talk 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The movie only made the claim about the sub-atomic realm, I think. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't even do that. The section we're talking about referred to the perception or experience of time, not actual physical objects moving backwards in time, whether they be photons or photon torpedoes. My issue on the whole time travel thing was that the movie doesn't actually say that people can physically travel through time because of quantum theory. It's talking about the perception or experience of time, not physical time, and it's only a tiny blip in the movie. An introductory physics book can tell you that you can't physically go back in time, but an introductory psychiatry book on the effects of LSD will tell you that you can certainly experience time backwards. Regardless of my opinion, at least one source thinks it actually does make the claim that people can go back in time (Reel Science). Eventhough I disagree with that source personally, I have no problem with printing it as long as it's attributed as their opinion. Like I said above, there's two separate issues on criticizing for factual inaccuracies. The first is whether or not it is a factual inaccuracy (flat-fact: people cannot physically travel through time). The second is whether or not the movie is actually saying that they can (disputed-fact: the movie says that people can physically travel through time). I don't think (at least not because of this example quote) that it should be flat-fact stated that the movie is inaccurate. But as long as it isn't original research, is sourced criticism, and is attributed to the critic, I don't care otherwise. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)