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

message: 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)
thread_title: Further references needed

message: Hi, Dreadstar. Not sure why you removed the sentence citing OR. It's from the study itself. TimidGuy 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it in relation to the movie?  If not, that's OR.  – Dreadstar  †  20:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I see. So what can be done? The source is wrong. TimidGuy 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Tim Bolen? You think of Tim Bolen as a reliable source? It is to laugh.Kww 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quackwatch 

message: 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.
 
:They sound perfectly comprehensible to me. What about them makes them confusing? ---Bennie Noakes 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to tell the reader what they are talking about. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That might be fine, with links to an explanation of what those studies were about. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that wording would be fine for a new paragraph in the Controversy section. VisitorTalk 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No context

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  John Gorenfeld 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ramtha

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revisions to "see also" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ramtha in lead 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Water Messages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fiction vs non-fictiom

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: We aren't hedging.  We are being neutral.  Don't just come into an article and start edit warring.  It won't work. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Spiritualists?  Are you sure you know the subject of this article?  I know of nothing related to spiritualism.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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:   . ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience in lead 

message: 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. 
——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the latest consensus on the lead paragraph, any substantial changes must find a new consensus.  Dreadstar † 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I can't put the original back, because I have been threatened with a 3RR block.Kww (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Removed pending consensus

message: 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.
——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's fine with me.  My version was stronger on that score. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Impasse resolution proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I hope this article isn't destined to remain protected forever.  Thane Eichenauer (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't be. Dreadstar † 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protected

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TM Involvement 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's not undue at all.Kww (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a problem of UNDUE, it's misleading. See my comment above. TimidGuy (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point, TG, I concur.  Dreadstar † 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop with the edits, please 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agree with Eleland and Lara Love, but especially Eleland. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed sentence in lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Which is SYNTHESIS.  We can source "pseudoscience," we cannot source a scientific consensus.  Nor is the whole movie pseudoscience. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: One more thing to consider with the above sourcing scenarios , , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Policy and consensus on this issue disagree with you.  Dreadstar † 20:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WP:NOR concerns

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: WP:UNDUE concerns

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archive of current discussion 

message: "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 ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Cool.  From the response, we see exactly why we should not allow OR. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a point to this? Antelan talk 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: The movie only made the claim about the sub-atomic realm, I think. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Time travel on the sub atomic scale