Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

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

Removing faculty reference for now

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

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

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

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

OR in "Conflicting facts" (Factual errors)

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

Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements about quantum physics

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

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

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

External link check

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

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

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

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)

More on Hagelin

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

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

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

See also section

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

Based on Ramtha claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pseudoscience

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

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

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

Something that jumped out at me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

Inaccuracies in movies

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

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

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

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

Replying to this:

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

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

Albert quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandbox for sourcing

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

Dreadstar † 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Usage of double and single quotation marks

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

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

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

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

This should never be done.

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

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

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

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

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