Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 1

message: This page should probably talk about some of the allegations that the film is advertisement for the Ramtha cult. If I have some time later, I'll try adding some content myself. --NeuronExMachina 19:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Siroxo was attempting to move the page to its correct title, and the symbols caused MediaWiki to get confused. The problem is being worked on to get the page back properly and fix the bug that causes it. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: I trie to move What the Bleep Do We Know?! to its proper title (What the #$*! Do We Know!?), but I guess the software couldn't handle the #. And so it "seemed" to move to What the, but as you can see there is nothing there.  What the Bleep Do We Know?! has since been "restored" but only by an apparent copy paste from someone who had saved it.  IE, the history is gone, and there is no record of deletion since it was intended to be a move.  Anyone have any ideas on getting the history back? (I'm going to report the bug on sourceforge bugzilla right now)  —siroχo 04:14, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
:It's being worked on. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by Kate. Hopefully the code fix will prevent it from happening in the future. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the (help w/ recovering article) 

message: Some find the movie one-sided, though the article itself is onesided in its obvious agenda against the message of the film.
I don't dispute the fact the movie is misleading and has mostly really really bad science; however, that can be stated objectively (which I have done so by the way) as one can clearly see from the article's history page. It may be propaganda, but this should be stated as Pmj in the comments above (much of which is in the article, or at least was until recently). Please, I do not want to be in a position of defending the film, but don't write the article with inflamatory language.  Using the expression "propaganda" is inflamatory.--CSTAR 14:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda and other criticisms 

message: ""Critics have pointed out that there is not one scientist presented who does not try to tie quantum mechanics to spiritualism, despite the fact that only a small minority of physicists in the field ascribe to the view presented in the film. This is a common criticism of the film as it touches on other forms of science as well.""
I'm not quite sure this is NPOV.  It implies that Quantum physicists are by nature not spiritual people.  I think this is an unfair association to make.  Also, only a small minority of physicists will ascribe to any view if you actually sit down and ask them, so that doesn't make this view any more different than those presented by such Physical Science novellists as Stephen Hawking.
*While it is true that many scientists are spiritual, for most, their spiritual lives are separate from their academic lives. The question that needs to be asked is not: "How many scientists are spiritual?" but "How many scientists subscribe to the views presented in this film?" And the answer is: very few. It is not a mainstream view. Your second statement is incorrect. Scientists do agree on many things. The vast majority of scientists believe the Earth orbits around the Sun, that evolution occurred, that the theory of gravity is sound. ----Bennie Noakes 02:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Aethism or Quantum Science? 

message: I argued extensively against the improper use of the philosophical term, ad hominem, on the Jacques Derrida page and now it seems I'll have to here. Hopefully, we all can accept that the following is erroneous:
:...whether or not this is the literary equivalent of an ad hominem attack remains to be seen.
This is problematic because "ad hominem" is emotive among lay-people (of course this isn't an instance of the ad hominem fallacy) and it remains to be seen what is "literary" about any of this. This movie isn't literature, its a propaganda film. I'm removing the sentence, and adding links.
Maprovonsha172 16:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad hominem 

message: Using quotation marks on the word 'experts' is extremely POV and is terrible work on the part of the Wikipedians that are responsible. These people are experts, but this article hints that they don't know what they're talking about. Using words like "most" rather than "many" and giving no section of the article to the film maker's response to all of this criticism is extremely poor work. This really needs to be cleaned up, because this is possibly the worst POV article I've seen in Wikipedia to date. --Berserk798 03:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, the movie is scorned by experts. In the movie, various people posing as "experts" (many from J.Z. Knight's cult) pontificate crazy New Age Bullshit dressed up as science. It's not POV to call pseudoscience pseudoscience, or to call charlatans posing as experts "experts."
Maprovonsha172 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found that often on issues of pseudoscience, parapsychology and scepticism there is a small group who believe that Wikipedia should be based upon scientific fact. In reality Wikipedia is based upon showing both sides of an argument, both opinions whether proven or not. This is the case as many elements of Wikipedia are cultural and belief based rather than science based. It is also true as Berserk798 points out that many areas of parapsychology are hotly debated, and although they are minority beliefs they are within Wikipedia given due respect and space under general policy. I would like to request anyone who feels pseudoscience should not be included or not be treated neutrally to read NPOV#Pseudoscience, this is very important as it is Wikipedia official policy and any deviation from it undermines the structure of Wikipedia.  - Solar 14:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever happened to NPOV? 

message: Since HALF of the people listed there aren't scientists, but new age [quacks], there's no reason to use the headline "Featured Scientists", and something else should be used, i.e. "Featured People" or something else.
:This has since been changed to "Featured scientists/speakers" —Pengo 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dislike that, its wordy. Why not just "Featured speakers"? The article makes clear that some are scientists and some are not. JoshuaZ 05:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest to "Featured Scientists" as headline 

message: Calling people quacks because they may or may not have a different P.O.V. from you is inappropriate.
: People who espouse patently false and disproven methods of treating depression and other medical conditions for a quick buck are, by definition, exactly that. Note how no one is calling YOU a quack, only people who purport to heal others with their Points of View. Furthermore, this is the TALK page. Everyone is completely entitled to POVs here. Unigolyn 12:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny, you should say that. How many doctors are you going to call "quacks" because they consistantly set forth IMMUNE SYSTEM DESTROYING treatments for HIV and claim without a single double blind study (semi-false, see end comment) that ALL of these "AIDS" deaths were caused by HIV and not the drugs? How many doctors are you going to call "quacks" when they give patients antipsychotic medications that work through almost completely unknown mechanisms and metabolism? Regardless, I agree people are welcome to their POV on Talk pages, but it's certainly inappropriate when those POVs bleed through to Wiki articles. (End Comment: The only full studies done with the antivirals used for HIV treatment have shown patients on those drugs suffer greater immune suppression than those not on them. This would lead to a conclusion that the drugs themselves could *possibly* cause "AIDS deaths", however  every single such trial was ended early.) 24.49.74.240 23:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quacks? 

message: In the interest of NPOV, i would expect the link to the official site always first, then followed by the criticism of it. First let them speak, then argue. Should be applied to all other controverse topics as well, of course.
::As much as I have problems with the movie, I agree.  I reorganized all the links.  The two categories that previously existed seemed to work well: after moving some non-movie links to related links, I then reorganized the movie-related links to be Official, IMDB, Reviews, Interviews/Critical Examinations, then a bit on the Extended version (which included a review and a separate entry).  I also tried to clean up the descriptions for reviews to look more uniform.  I added a few links as well.  Bobak 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can order of links be POV,too? 

message: To the editors who've put in the hard work so far: thank you.  This is exactly the kind of article where Wikipedia should be the weakest- there is an activist minority with a perception of reality at odds from the majority belief of subject matter experts.  For a science illiterate reader I think that the article (as of 1 June 2006) does a reasonable job of convaying that the film does not speak with scientific authority even though it claims to.  In my book, that is a function of NPOV.  Actually, I would like to see a stronger case in the article text for what the agenda of the Rathma community in making the film was, and why links between Rathma and WTFDWK were not explicit in the film.  Consensus is possible if subscribers of the "action from a distance" wouldview would remember that their's is a minority posistion without any scientific support (by definition). Accusing the text of suffering from systemic bias is false: elements from quantrum physics are used to bolster a metaphysical argument in the film in a manner that is bogus.  If elements of science are used to persuade, then that argument gets to stand up to scientific scruntity.  The consensus of the scientific community is clear.  I think that the NPOV tag should come down.  Adelord 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How on earth can you give equal space to the proponents of propaganda and its detractors? What the proponents propose is what the movie is about - and that's already described along with the movie. There actually aren't any "proponents" of the movie, at least no one doing anything but regurgitating the already mentioned talking points of the movie - their only actual argument is that any criticism should be toned down or removed outright. Also, do you go around the Talk pages on Holocaust denial or infanticide arguing that the "detractors' hysterical tone does them a disservice"? The movie is notable in the first place because of its claims about QM and consciousness, and its affiliation to the suspect Ramtha movement. The fact that these claims are baseless and therefore criticized, and the fact that the Ramtha movement is considered a cult have their place in the article, and aren't POV simply because Ramtha proponents find the truth uncomfortable. Unigolyn 13:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest you read well on Wikipedia's policies, particularly about NPOV, before you post any further on the topic. (A primer on the basics of logical arguments might help as well.) You open up with an ad hominem slandering the film as propaganda (which is assuredly POV, no matter "how true" you "know" it to be). If you want to assert the film is propaganda, provide verifiable and reputable references declaring the film as such. Regardless, you follow that section with a comparison to HOLOCAUST DENIAL and BABY KILLING. That's about a good example of poor debating and subjective POV as you get. Also, it is considered a cult by SOME PEOPLE and that is far from a universal view. Such assertions of "culthood" should only be placed in articles with references and counterreferences, given the highly subjective (and inflammatory) nature of such a label. Leave your personal opinions at the door if you expect to get far as a Wikipedian. 24.49.74.240 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The movie takes a new age religion and attempts to pass it off to the general public as science.  The article reflects that.  The movie IS controversial so why shouldn't the article state that fact? NSWelshman 22:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent question NSWman.  In the answer (perhaps) lies the key to a NPOV approach.  It gets back to the issue of 'what should the article state?'.  In a democratic Wiki sense - 'as much as we think is appropriate', which includes an obligation to report on things (or aspects of things) that readers are likely to coming to Wiki to 'get a viewpoint on'. But there is also an obligation to report on the 'core or fundamental aspects' of whatever the article is about.  My sense of a successful NPOV strategy is to start with the 'bare facts' and then proceed (gradually) to the contentious aspects.  In this case it means giving the details of the movie - production details (including cast), release details - at the beginning.  Then move onto the plot.  Then cover the 'themes' and also the 'intent' of the producers (if that is stated or apparent somewhere we can quote from). This includes possible reference to 'unstated intents'.  Then cover the 'mechanism' by which the producers used the plot/production to present the themes or deliver on the 'intent' (this is where comments about 'hokey' science belong..).  Then (finally) talk about what the debate (and audience reaction generally) and what it tells us about science/arts/culture.  Essentially starting at the 'core' and working outwards.  It's what I'd call a structured 'film criticism' approach, and (theoretically) should give someone who hasn't even seen the movie and good understanding of it.Tban 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What do wiki readers come to this article to "get a viewpoint on"?  IMHO it is to determine if the link between the metaphysical events and the science of quantrum mechanics is true, as the movie argues.  The concensus of those whose area of expertise is physics is "no".  Again, the NPOV tag should come down. Adelord 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I think it is important to distinguish between scientists who have legitimately established themseves in their field, but may also be involved in speculative research (isn't all research speculative before it becomes mainstream?), and on the other hand, folks like Masaru Emoto who got his PhD from a university in India which sells them for $300 and one year "residency".  Those people working at major universities wouldn't be there if they had not proved themselves.  --Blainster 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You leave out the fact that previous academic credentials and/or extensive work experience are required for this "fast track program". You also neglect to mention that five published papers are required for the award of the degree. 24.49.74.240 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also since you are discrediting Emoto, I thought I should add that Dr. Dean Radin has found validity in Emoto's claims in a double blind experiment he conducted. The results were published in the Explore Journal Vol 2 No 5. See point 37 for more info. AS 61.68.191.123 06:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respected scientists/experts

message: I am considering whether or not the section on the TM study is really supported in a paper from a reputable publisher. Please provide the reference. In accordance with the
verifiability policy I am allowed to delete that section, but I can wait a few days.  --Lumiere 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This wouldn't seem to be OR under Wiki policy:  the research is reported by the movie, not the editor (unless you are referring to the editorial analysis, which could be removed).  So the "publication" of the TM study in the movie qualifies as a secondary source.  Now its verifiability is another matter, and if no source is stated in the movie (or can be found on a literature search), then that fact should certainly be added to the section.  --Blainster 05:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I meant the editorial analysis from the wikipedian editor. The analysis of the wikipedian editor goes much beyond the movie. --Lumiere 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Now, as far as reporting what was said in the movie about the TM study, if we only use the movie as a source, I am not sure how much can be said about the TM study.  I think that we cannot present a scientific content in Wikipedia if it is only sourced in a movie. We cannot say anything of a scientific value, negative or positive,  about the TM study, if this is only sourced in the movie.  A scientific content that was mentioned in the movie can only be presented in the article if it is available in some reputable scientific publication and relevant in the article (e.g. if there is a section about the scientific content per se.)  I understand that it seems like a strong suppression of information, but this kind of suppression is necessary to maintain some quality in Wikipedia. --Lumiere 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I read more carefully your comment, and I see that you suggest that we can mention a scientific content that was mentioned in the movie, even if it does not have a reputable scientific source, as long as we say that such a  source does not exist. Is it what you are saying?  This seems akward. How do you say that some content does not have a reputable source?  This statement (about the non existence of a reputable source) is impossible to source. The best one can say is something like "To the authors knowledge the study was not published in any peer reviewed journal". This does not seem a valid style for an encyclopedia.  I think the most reasonable solution is simply to suppress any scientific content that does not have a reputable scientific source. We should not even mention the study unless there is something non scientific that is interesting to say about it, but I cannot see anything interesting about a scientific study that has no scientific significance. It maybe a strong suppression of information, but it is the price to pay to have a reliable Wikipedia that is not misleading --Lumiere 06:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the need to discuss what is now hypothetical, because the issue is not straightforward, but I will correct the number of persons involved to what is posted on the web site reporting the study, and delete the editorial commentary in the article.  You can take it from there. --Blainster 08:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, this is not hypothetical at all. It seems to be the situation for the water crystal experiments. The skeptic seem to present the "scientific" side, but in reality the whole thing is not the kind of science that can be included in WP in accordance with WP policies. --Lumiere 08:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Likelyhood", for scientific purposes is determined by a statistical test, not by opining. Did you not read in the preceeding discussion that this research was published in 1999 in Social Indicators Research ?.   SIR is published by Springer, a huge publisher of many scientific journals, for example: Applied Physics.  Surely you are not suggesting that Springer is a vanity publisher.  And many of the IgNobel awards are not for invalid research, but for research that the committee deems impractical or of doubtful usefulness.  --Blainster 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research on the TM study 

message: And not having seen the movie, I was interested in having a look at it. My God, they have one of the worst interpretations of "science" I’ve ever seen. They’re even worse than Answers in Genesis ;) porges 11:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There’s a book as well... 

message: My problem is that the movie really gives wrong 'facts'. The movie states humans are "90% water". Well, If that 90% claim were true, there would be no way we could so much as stand up. Instead, to be more exact: newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55%. No way near that 90%.
And it’s just these kind of mistakes – where they don’t get the facts parted from fiction – that makes the movie just useless....
    Well I guess they might have meant the number of water molecules rather than the mass ratio. Those figures you attained are valid
    for mass proportions. If you calculate the ratio of the number of water molecules in the body then you should end up with a figure
    like 90%.
This is precisely the arena where a site like Wikipedia could/should excel.  Rather than debate the merit of the movie's (controversial) opinion, or hypothesis, I was hoping for an examination of that material which was presented as scientific fact.  68.8.12.35 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts? 

message: 1. Considering that there are already links to "Controversial," "Protoscience" and "Alternative, speculative and disputed theories," it the inclusion of the CSICOP seems rather unnecessary. Unless that organization specifically investigated this movie, there's no explicit reason why it should be linked to.
2. Another suggestion for establishing a more neutral point of view would be to shift many of the descriptions of the concepts and theories brought up in the movie in the "Synopsis" section. Currently, the section on the controverial elements of the movie dwarfs the rest. If the concepts questioned in the "Controversy" section were described in the synopsis, it might make the article as a whole seem a bit more balanced. 
3. Certain elements in the "controversy" section seem particularly ungrounded. The sections on experts and methods, in sentences such as this one:
The film uses quantum physics as a medium to pass off their ideas as fact, despite the fact that all of their ideas contradict with evidence provided by real scientists. The "scientists" in this movie provide evidence from experiments that were carried out improperly or without any grasp of error propagation, thus making their results poor.
would be more credible if they contained more detailed references to the film. As it stands, they seem highly biased against it. While these statements may be correct, more evidence is necessary for them to meet Wikipedia's standards. -Cordialatron 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSICOP, and other NPOV concerns 

message: I saw Astanhope had reverted my change about Amanda being mute, not deaf. I saw the movie, and she has a lot of trouble speaking, so she's not completely mute. But she certainly isn't deaf, at least that's what I think. The only example I can remember right now, is that she can hear the little boy on the basketball court speaking.
From what I can find elsewhere, f.ex IMDB, this is also what others think. I'm going to change it to  "a photographer with a speech disorder", please tell my if you don't agree. antabus 20:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe she reads lips? GangofOne 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that may be. I changed it originally, since I don't remember anything in the movie about her being deaf, and thought it was an error. Maybe I missed something?
Astanhope convinced me I was mistaken, so I'll change it back to deaf.
she is most definately deaf, and says to her roommate "I can read lips" when she uses sign language in the beginning. there are many other references to her being able to read lips including camera shots focused on mouths talking. Also, sign language is used to talk to deaf people, and used by mute people to talk to others. 142.35.144.2 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaf or mute? 

message: Someone stated that the Spanish presence in South America led to complete genocide so that the movie was incorrect in relaying a minor fact in Aztec history. As there are many Mexicans with varying degrees of Aztec blood alive today, I removed the term 'complete' from 'complete genocide'. A.V.
:Columbus encountered the Arawaks, not the Aztecs. The last Arawak died in the seventeenth century. None of their descendants survive today. That would be a rather complete genocide, in my opinion.  Tenebrous 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't massacre everyone he met, though, so that can stay as it is. Tenebrous 21:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor error in Controversial Aspects of the Film Section 

message: Including the vector arrows and italic theta and changing the omega to mathematical script w: What tнe⃗ ♯$*! D⃗𝞱 𝓌Σ (k)πow!? porges 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's my attempt at the title 

message: Then why does wikipedia call the 'Der Ewige Jude' propaganda? Surely something can be called propaganda and be NPOV. And surely one can argue this has to be the case for this movie as well. At leat call it '...is a 2004 film made by the Ramtha cult in order to promote certain new age concepts' or something like that. The article doesn't even mention the cult at all. Surely that is very POV. There is already a whole article on the Ramtha cult. And there are links that already have provided the facts conserning that this movie has been funded and created by people of the Ramtha cult. Furthermore, we already know that many claims made in the movie, or maybe things that are suggested, are wrong. Really, would NPOV require wikipedia to say on the scientology mythology page something like "Some people are highly skeptical about..." or "Not many people believe in..."? Wouldn't both the general consensus be that their myths are insane and that science knows their claims are utter rubbish? And therefore wouldn't it be NPOV to report this. Really, if such absurd claims are made and presented in a way that suggests they may be true, do we call that NPOV. I would call it POV because when you suggest something can be true while it isn't then this is just a false statement.
And for all those people defending this movie, maybe you should try to watch it first, then read a book explaining scientific method, and then come back so we can work on this article.
: Be Bold! Edit it yourself :) porges 08:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling something propaganda isn't NPOV? 

message: Sorry to spoil your fun, but I think it's fair to say the title containing various Greek- or math-symbols is merely an artistic rendering of the movie's title ("What the #$*! do we know!?"). Trying to use make the article name reflect this artistic rendering is unnecessary at best. Both the film's end credits and web site refer to the film without any Greek letters. The article should be moved (back?) to a more appropriate title. —Pengo 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it is the way it is because the hash function is used for something in the wiki system, causing unpleasantness if an article name uses it, or something of that ilk. So we are forced by neccesity to have it the way it is. Jefffire 16:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't referring to the #/♯ problem, but to the rest of it, such as the pi for "n", and Sigma for "E" —Pengo 17:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this should be "What the bleep do we know!?", as this is how the official page refers to it (and says it is trademarked as well). I think I may have been making a point with the title, but I'm not so sure... ;) porges 23:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What tнe⃗ ♯$*! D⃗𝞱 𝓌Σ (k)πow!?" (article title) 

message: I think someone should slap a point of view on the 'controversial' sections, or at least give some background.
It seems the original writer was intent on merely slamming WTFDWK, without giving legitimate justification for certain possible human errors.
For example, the brain is composed of 90% water/aqueous fluids, as as a majority of the movie relates around neuroscience, I believe it would be justified to put some sort of an explanation.
Agreed it is ridiculous but the statements about the Arawaks are incorrect : there are native american oral traditions even to this day - but the idea they couldn't see a huge ship is not evidenced in any oral traditions known to anthropologists , there are still Arawaks in Puerto Rico and their descendants are to be found all over the south American rain forest as is shown by a cursory glance at etymological studies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.240.229 (talk • contribs) 
Furthermore, the statement on Native Americans not being able to see Columbus' ships seemed to be a completely ridiculous assertation - how does this belong under "factual errors", especially when whoever wrote the article can be no more right of the facts than the producers of the film!
Not providing contradictory information seems to be in the spirit of most films, documentary or not.
The links, I think, could be categorized into something that's more like "Movie links", "Links Dealing with the Controversy", "Other Links". As it is, it seems that the article links imply negatively towards the movie.
: No problem with organizing the links, the other issues however, are not acceptable. What does the fraction of the brain that is aqueous matter? And the claim about native americans when we have no records of such is a factual error, since there is no way for anyone to determine its truth and the movie takes it as a given/claims that it is true. JoshuaZ 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Is there consensus to remove the NPOV tag?  If not, I would like to see the POV issue resolved before the movie fades to obscurity & the article stops getting traffic Adelord 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... you should probably as on WikiProject Pseudoscience and WikiProject Physics for a larger response. As for my opinion after a cursory overview, I'm actually rather suprised at the state of the article. It seems to do a rather good job at being NPOV. A few small problems remain - the "Featured experts and scientists" section seems to have some POV problems that are not mirrored in the rest of the article for example. --Philosophus T 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I cleaned up the experts section and took down the tag.  Thanks for the feedback Philosophus.  Adelord 14:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mainly looks ok to me, however, I strongly prefer "claims to channel" which is more NPOV than "channels." JoshuaZ 20:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Everyone who channels a spirit or whatever, merely claims to channel.  Other people choose to believe the performance or not.  That is why I considered "claims to channel" redundant compared to "channels".  My preference is mild though, so if you edit I won't edit back.  Adelord 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The concern to me was that "channels" makes it sound like we are endorsing the claim. If you don't mind terribly, I'll will reinsert "claims to." JoshuaZ 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries.  Adelord 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove NPOV tag?

message: As long as there is a sub-section dedicated to Quantum Mechanics and its involvement in the film (and even expanding on ideas), there is definitely a key point that is missing(and SHOULD be included), decoherence. Particularly, decoherence and how it "fogs" a wave function, giving us the world run by classical physics. Those who understand where I am making my point with this will realize it implies a particular conclusion on human conscienceness and reality. Gagueci 16:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although decoherence is most likely responsible, in some way, for the elimination of most quantum phenomena on the macroscopic scale, it's not really relevant to any of the points brought up in the movie.  Whether the "collapse" of the wave function is a real (Copenhagen) like effect, or whether due to decoherence, the point is it's still probabilistic and we can't control it.  What exact conclusion does decoherence imply for human consciousness?  I don't think anything is considered clear cut just yet. Joel.Gilmore 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Mechanics 

message: I have reverted the recent addition of POV statement tags.  These tags do not make sense, because the statements concerned are objective statements concerning the scientific community's view of the film.  In particular, putting POV statement tags into quotes is meaningless.  Michaelbusch 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Statement tags

message: I have never heard the Ig Prize called an Ig Nobel Prize "For Peace." I removed it and MichealBusch replaced it saying that is how it is listed on the website.... I browsed the website and could not find it, so removed it. If I am in error, please replace it AND provide the speicif page where it is listed that way. Thanks Sethie 01:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been added.  For reference, the URL is http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html#ig1994 Michaelbusch 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just like the Nobel Prize, the Ig Nobel is given out in many categories each year. For instance, that year W. Brian Sweeney won the Ig Nobel Prize in Biology. Hope that helps. — coelacan talk — 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sethie 02:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is incorrect, if you read the IgNoble prizes that have been awarded.  Of course, what constitutes a 'genuine achievement' is open to some debate. Michaelbusch 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited page doesn't carry the wording that's in quotation marks in the article -- "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced." The Ig Nobel page itself uses the other wording. TimidGuy 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ig Nobel Prize"Peace Prize"

message: These two subheadings are redundant.  From Experts: "Critics have voiced concerns that the film is disingenuous and that it selectively presents information while not presenting contradictory information."
from Methods: "The film does not present any contradictory evidence or discuss any contrarian point of view, nor does it discuss how certain conclusions were reached."
from Experts: "Arguably, their presence in the film represents the filmmaker's efforts to find people who are sympathetic to the film's ideas and largely the people in the film do not represent the general scientific community's views since they do not use the scientific method in their experiments nor do they present their experiments in peer reviewed journals."
from Methods: "Ideas which have little acceptance in the mainstream scientific community are portrayed as fact, despite many of them being contradicted by evidence. Many identified as scientists in the movie provide evidence from experiments that were carried out improperly or without due consideration of error propagation, casting serious doubt on the results."
Point 1: There are no contrary points of view.
Point 2: Scientists in the film don't use traditional scientific techniques, thus are criticized by traditional scientists.
Do these points really need to be repeated? Or are their inclusion just more contempt for this movie? 67.10.194.54 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this article seems to have been hijacked by editors who do not assume good faith,  resulting in a very POV article. 59.101.176.223 01:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts vs. Methods 

message: I wrote this out, but I can't get it to sound smooth enough to include in the actual article under a new category, possibly "mistakes". Please clean up the text below and add it to the article when you see fit.
Thanks!
When the Elliot takes the drinks, he hands her a cup with a yellow umbrella in it and he holds the red umbrella in his cup. Elliot takes a drink, and Amanda holds the cup against her face. She breathes, and the yellow umbrella in her cup falls on the floor. He picks up his red umbrella out of his cup and places it in her cup. At this point we should assume his cup is empty and her cup has the red umbrella. Immediately after he says "that was in my mouth...forget it" we see Amanda with a YELLOW umbrella in her cup and him a RED one in his cup, just like how that scene started. The camera angle changes, we briefly see Amanda holding a cup with a RED umbrella, then the angle changes back and she's holding a cup with a YELLOW umbrella. The camera angle changes back and the umbrella is RED. After a brief shot of some dancing we see Amanda helping Elliot with her camera and she's holding a RED umbrella. Then Elliot turns and takes another 2 cups from the waiter, in his left hand is a cup with a yellow umbrella and in his right a red umbrella. She accepts the cup with a YELLOW umbrella. A few seconds later she's looking at Elliot holding a glass with a RED umbrella! Then we see Elliot holding the red umbrella glass in his right hand and the camera in his left. Then we see Amanda holding up her hand trying to prevent him from taking her picture and she's clutching the yellow umbrella cup in her left hand. She's still holding the yellow umbrella cup when she makes a toast to the groom.
The sequence was obviously shot out of order and some of the situations can be excused because perhaps they were served extra drinks during periods of time the audience doesn't see, but often the scene happens live and they're seen holding very different colored umbrellas.''
TheCleanUpCrew 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this is not suitable for inclusion in the article.  See WP:FICTION: we aren't supposed to provide such detailed descriptions of a movie.  I'm also not sure that this is notable.  There are much more serious errors in the movie. Michaelbusch 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yellow and red umbrellas in Elliot and Amanda's cups at the wedding party 

message: Regarding the TM research revert, where's the citation? This is a published study. Shouldn't a critique of the study come from a reliable source rather than simply being the opinion of an anonymous Wikipedian? I thought the idea behind Wikipedia was to attribute content to sources. TimidGuy 16:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the citation 

message: Members of this cult made this movie, financed it, promoted it so that they could spread the Ramtha doctrine. Ramtha is the subject of the movie. This article mentions 'Ramtha' several times, but it never really explains what or why this is. Ramtha is the main subject of this movie.--80.56.36.253 01:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has this article still no 'Ramtha Cult'-section? 

message: I find this article very influenced by those who claim that the film is a pseudoscience film. In my honest opinion, we should try to balance this article, because it´s mainly negative. 
We have to be present that this is a mainstream film, directed to average people who don´t have high science knowledge.
I think that is sad that anybody decide not to see this film because he has read on Wikipedia that is a fake film.
"What the Bleep do we Know?" made me to be more curious about this subjects and I think that anything that make people to take interest in anything is acceptable.
Please, don´t make a whining and perfectionist article of this film. Review the film, meditate and think. You may disagree, but at least it will have make you to think.
100056255 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance