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

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.  Dreadstar  †  21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Started  19:14, 14 July 2007
The result of the debate was Content deleted per discussion below. -- Dreadstar  †  19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source tracking table

message: 1. Essential aspects of quantum mechanics are bypassed in the movie.  However, few of the scientists involved are actually professional physicists doing research in quantum mechanics, and one of those that does do such research, David Albert, has complained that his views were deliberately misrepresented.
===Comments item 1===
Redundant.  Repeated several times in the article. Remove all but one instance.  Dreadstar  †  22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the only helpful information from a direct contact with Albert would be if he could direct us to a reliable source for the content.  Policy discussion moved here:Item 2. Dreadstar  †  07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are saying the problem is establishing whether Albert really said what is being claimed, not his status as an expert? 1Z 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if the entirety of #3's content is a statement from him.  (e.g. does he actually state that "the movie's interpretation of this position is far from what most physicists actually believe".  If so, then we can attribute that quote in the body of the article.    Dreadstar  †  06:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is in the letter as quoted in the blog you don't like. We could contact him and get him to put the same material on his faculty web page. 1Z 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Material from Consciousness causes collapse adn quantum mind could be used here. 1Z 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need citations and references per WP:CITE and WP:RS, not merely links to other Wikipedia articles.  Dreadstar  †  17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles contain citations and references.1Z 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, pull out the relevant ones and bring them here.  Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Victor Stenger and others have criticized Goswami's printed claims. We have yet to see whether making the the same claims in a move rather than a book sets everything back to square one. 1Z 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's related to the movie and from a WP:RS, it may be acceptable.  Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have an appropriate source in mind for this content? Dreadstar  †  07:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure that is accurate. It might be worhwhile to point out that some interpretations of QM dispense with collapse altogether, so afortiori, they dispense with consciousness-induced collapse. 1Z 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources please.  Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Michael Price 1Z 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relation to the movie?  Per WP:NOR? Seems odd, movie:2004, source:1995. Dreadstar  †  19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The source supports the comment: "some interpretations of QM dispense with collapse altogether (etc)". The movie purports to be a documentary, it is not dealing with some fictional universe where things are different.1Z 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source violates WP:NOR.  The relevant policy discussion continued here: Item 5 policy discussion.  We need to find another source that will meet WP:RS.  Dreadstar  †  06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements about quantum physics 

message: Redundant.  Repeated several times in the article. Remove all but one instance.  Dreadstar  †  22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments item 1

message: With some rewording, this could be supported by the comment from Albert: "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". However this is currently being disputed on the basis that it was sent to a blog. Perhaps Albert could be contacted directly.1Z 14:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the only helpful information from a direct contact with Albert would be if he could direct us to a reliable source for the content.  Policy discussion moved here:Item 2. Dreadstar  †  07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are saying the problem is establishing whether Albert really said what is being claimed, not his status as an expert? 1Z 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if the entirety of #3's content is a statement from him.  (e.g. does he actually state that "the movie's interpretation of this position is far from what most physicists actually believe".  If so, then we can attribute that quote in the body of the article.    Dreadstar  †  06:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is in the letter as quoted in the blog you don't like. We could contact him and get him to put the same material on his faculty web page. 1Z 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments item 2

message: :Material from Consciousness causes collapse adn quantum mind could be used here. 1Z 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need citations and references per WP:CITE and WP:RS, not merely links to other Wikipedia articles.  Dreadstar  †  17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles contain citations and references.1Z 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, pull out the relevant ones and bring them here.  Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments item 3

message: :Victor Stenger and others have criticized Goswami's printed claims. We have yet to see whether making the the same claims in a move rather than a book sets everything back to square one. 1Z 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's related to the movie and from a WP:RS, it may be acceptable.  Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an appropriate source in mind for this content? Dreadstar  †  07:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments item 4

message: :I am not sure that is accurate. It might be worhwhile to point out that some interpretations of QM dispense with collapse altogether, so afortiori, they dispense with consciousness-induced collapse. 1Z 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources please.  Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Michael Price 1Z 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relation to the movie?  Per WP:NOR? Seems odd, movie:2004, source:1995. Dreadstar  †  19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source supports the comment: "some interpretations of QM dispense with collapse altogether (etc)". The movie purports to be a documentary, it is not dealing with some fictional universe where things are different.1Z 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source violates WP:NOR.  The relevant policy discussion continued here: Item 5 policy discussion.  We need to find another source that will meet WP:RS.  Dreadstar  †  06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments item 5

message: Proposed source violates WP:NOR, as it does not relate to the movie. Dreadstar  †  19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments item 6

message: *Australian Broadcasting Company Article
*Relevant content from proposed source:
===Proposed source comments===
====Item 1====
* N/A.  Redundant content removal.
====Item 2====
*Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar  †  23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum physics proposed source

message: ====Item 1====
* N/A.  Redundant content removal.
====Item 2====
*Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar  †  23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed source comments

message: *Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar  †  23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Item 2

message: *Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar  †  23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Item 3

message: *Proposed source mentions consciousness in relation to QP, but does not support the content as it is currently written.  Would need to be rewritten to match the source's contents. Dreadstar  †  23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Item 4

message: *Proposed source mentions measurement and observation in relation to QP, but does not support the content as it is currently written. Would need to be rewritten to match the source's contents.  Dreadstar  †  23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Item 5

message: *Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar  †  23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Item 6

message: *Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar  †  23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Item 7

message: *In the second paragraph:
:The film has received widespread criticism from the scientific community. Physicists, in particular, say that the film misrepresents the meaning of various principles of quantum mechanics and is pseudoscience.
*We need to source:
# "widespread criticism from the scientific community." - There is no current reference 
#Physicists, in particular, say that the film misrepresents the meaning of various principles of quantum mechanics and is pseudoscience. Current ref is a letter to the editor, which is no RS, and to include the "pseudoscience" label in the lead, it needs to be shown to be a 'notable controversy' per WP:LEAD.
====Comments====
=====Widespread criticism (#1)=====
Sourced criticisms are mentioned throughout the article body. 1Z 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a reliable source that states that fact.  To say "widespread" or "physicists in particular", we need a source that says that.  Dreadstar  †  02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes he does, and we can use the Guardian as an attributed reference for Singh's statement in the body of the article - great find! To include it in the lead section we would need to show that it is a notable and important controversy per WP:LEAD.  The lead is a brief, concise overview of the article, and I believe it is sufficient to state that there is controversy over it's scientific content, and then provide detailed content in the body of the article per NPOV and undue weight.  So we're good with a reference for "pseudoscience" in the article, just not in the lead section.  Dreadstar  †  00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead unless it's a major controversy. Otherwise it seems to violate undue weight. I do think it's appropriate to include in the body of the article. TimidGuy 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second paragraph

message: =====Widespread criticism (#1)=====
Sourced criticisms are mentioned throughout the article body. 1Z 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a reliable source that states that fact.  To say "widespread" or "physicists in particular", we need a source that says that.  Dreadstar  †  02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes he does, and we can use the Guardian as an attributed reference for Singh's statement in the body of the article - great find! To include it in the lead section we would need to show that it is a notable and important controversy per WP:LEAD.  The lead is a brief, concise overview of the article, and I believe it is sufficient to state that there is controversy over it's scientific content, and then provide detailed content in the body of the article per NPOV and undue weight.  So we're good with a reference for "pseudoscience" in the article, just not in the lead section.  Dreadstar  †  00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead unless it's a major controversy. Otherwise it seems to violate undue weight. I do think it's appropriate to include in the body of the article. TimidGuy 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Sourced criticisms are mentioned throughout the article body. 1Z 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a reliable source that states that fact.  To say "widespread" or "physicists in particular", we need a source that says that.  Dreadstar  †  02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Widespread criticism (#1)

message: Simon Singh calls it pseudoscience here: Guardian 1Z 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he does, and we can use the Guardian as an attributed reference for Singh's statement in the body of the article - great find! To include it in the lead section we would need to show that it is a notable and important controversy per WP:LEAD.  The lead is a brief, concise overview of the article, and I believe it is sufficient to state that there is controversy over it's scientific content, and then provide detailed content in the body of the article per NPOV and undue weight.  So we're good with a reference for "pseudoscience" in the article, just not in the lead section.  Dreadstar  †  00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead unless it's a major controversy. Otherwise it seems to violate undue weight. I do think it's appropriate to include in the body of the article. TimidGuy 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience in lead (#2)

message: 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. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
====Proposed source====
*Australian Broadcasting Company Article
*Relevant content from proposed source:
 
====Proposed source comments====
*Source does not appear to support the content.  The source mentions that we are only aware of a small percentage of what our brain is processing, and it is a 'rubbery' figure, at that...no definite percentages.  It's apples and oranges.  Dreadstar  †  10:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. Brain use

message: *Source does not appear to support the content.  The source mentions that we are only aware of a small percentage of what our brain is processing, and it is a 'rubbery' figure, at that...no definite percentages.  It's apples and oranges.  Dreadstar  †  10:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed source comments

message: *Proposed source: Fortean Times 
(Entire article is on this subject, I won't copy it here for copyright and spacing concerns.  Dreadstar  †  05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fortean Times proposal

message: *After reviewing the FT article, it does not support the content as written.  There is no mention of Carl Sagan, or Cosmos, Episode XIII in the FT, no mention of the blind man or raven. 
*None of this is in the FT proposed source:
:The story in the film may be a garbled and mis-interpreted version of an incident described in Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Episode XIII describes an oral retelling of how the Tlingit encountered the La Pérouse expedition in the 1780s. The Tlingit were afraid to look directly at the ships at first, because they imagined that the ship and its sails were manifestations of Raven, who might turn them to stone. One of their party was an old man who was nearly blind, who decided to take a canoe in closer, and eventually understood the vessels and their crew for what they were.
*There is also no mention of:
:"However, there is no mention of this in any of the journals of those voyages, and the oral traditions of the local population were lost in the following 150 years of Spanish rule."
Dreadstar  †  10:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fortean Times comments

message: *The source does not appear to support the content.  Dreadstar  †  10:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC comments