Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 2

message: For now I am deleting the lines referring to Hagelin'd mention of himself as faculty. It is perfectly acceptable to use the word faculty for any of the postions mentioned in the Wikipedia reference . As well professorship is usually the highest most tenured postion , but there are several other faculty positions including lecturer , researcher, assistant and associate professorships, and so on . If the writer of this section finds information indicating that this is not the case at Stanford then perhaps that could be added back to the article in this section.
 
"In North American English, the word "faculty" has also come to be used as a collective noun for the academic staff of a university: senior teachers, lecturers, and/or researchers.(olive 15:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed some major cuts to that entire section, and some rewriting.  It was way too much detail on those individuals, some of it looking very biased, some OR in there, and some of it poorly written.  It still needs some work.  Dreadstar  ☥  07:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing faculty reference for now 

message: The section Statements about quantum physics is also full of OR and needs to be properly referenced or removed.  The section is appropriately tagged.  Most of it has no sources at all!  Dreadstar  †  22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is unclear and less than accurate, but not, I think, OR. 1Z 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can figure that out.  The first thing that needs to be done is to properly source all those statements, and from those sources make the information clear and accurate.  That, in turn, should address the OR concerns I have raised.  I took the liberty of creating a sandbox for this to be done.  I look forward to the sources you can bring to that information.  Here is the sandbox: Bleep sandbox  - Dreadstar  †  00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Other editors will need to evaluate the links and decide whether to include them; it's not something an admin can unilaterally do.  — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements about quantum physics

message: If someone could check the very last entry in the External links section to see if it's truly related to the article's subject, that would be fantastic. This is the one:
Information on Buddhism and Quantum Physics, very similar ideas as What the Bleep Do We Know?  Dreadstar  ☥  21:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am travelling so difficult to make this check but think you have made excellent changes to the article .... was lots of POV, synthesis and maybe OR ...Hagelin section and some others was  too long, I thought, so happy to see you clean things up.(olive 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks olive! I appreciate the kind words - it was a lot of cutting!  Dreadstar  ☥  19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made a check on this entry. This is a  personal, professional web page of Jeffrey Grupp, and does not seem to reference the film nor does it really correspond to material in the film a far as I can remeber except that it is one of numerous ways of understanding existence, matter. I don`t beleive it belongs in this article. To include it would be to open the door for almost any philosophical expalnation for existence no matter how remotely related to the film. If someone else has already dealt with this apologies.(olive 14:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's excellent Olive! I'm glad you took the time to review the link, a constructive effort!  Dreadstar  †  16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link check

message: While I grant that the Hagelin section was much too big (I had indeed planned to move most of it to the main Hagelin article, but just didn't get to doing it yet), let me be clear what I was trying to do. On the one hand, Hagelin's role in the film crucially depends on his physics credentials. These need defending, especially in view of articles such as the "Bleep of faith" at Salon.com , which refers to Hagelin as a scientist in quotes, and could generally be read as doubting his scientific credentials. In fact, Hagelin's involvement with various Maharishi projects would arguably immediately paint him as a quack in the eyes of many readers. This is why it is appropriate to establish that his credentials as a physicist are impeccable, whatever one may think of the Maharishi connections; thus I said he got his Ph.D. at Harvard, and published extensively what by all accounts is notable scientific work (the info I gave on citations and the h-index supports this latter claim). I really think that at least some of the information highlighting his mainstream physics contributions should be included in the article.
At the same time, some of Hagelin's recent activities are sufficiently unusual as to needing consideration when evaluating his credibility on subjects other than technical physics calculations. The inflated (by a factor of 2) publication count and embellished CV (see the  discussion on "faculty reference" above) say even more about his attitude (at the time of filming) towards facts and evidence. Finally, the plan to teach technical aspects of string theory to undergraduates also speaks volumes about his recent state of mind (at least it should, to anyone who knows anything about string theory), and again I was just citing, with no distorsion, what was on the referenced web site. I think that a balanced view of Hagelin—and of what he says in the film—requires the mentioning of at least some of these facts also. Reuqr 11:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main issue in my mind is to make sure that we are just citing information. OR, synthesis of other material, becomes a sticking point. Although one may feel Hagelin is operating in an unusual way, we can't really approach the topic unless we can cite a reliable source who or which states this position. We should also note that this is biographical material on a living person and perhaps we should be scrupulous about our information and sources as is consistent with biographical articles in Wikipedia. I felt that whoever had written some of this material was an excellent writer but whose approach was more  consistent with an academic paper. We are unfortunatley or fortunately somewhat more limited. Just some thoughts on this article. (olive 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Hagelin 

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

message: The claim that the ideas presented in the movie were based on Ramtha's School of Enlightenment is not backed up by the source presented, Salon.com.  I admit that I may have missed it...the article on Salon is long, and somewhat difficult to read, but while it implies that everything is Ramtha-based, it does not seem to explicitly say so.  As a matter of fact, the statement it quotes from the directors of the movie, is that it is not Ramtha-based.  Also read through WP:LEAD for more information on what the contents of the lead section should be.  Dreadstar  †  06:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to look into this, as well as your other concerns. I'm sure others will too. Please don't go deleting stuff just because you don't agree with it. Bennie Noakes 01:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's not that I "don't agree with it", what I removed was material that violated Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.  Edit warring will not get your version into place, so I suggest you take your own advice and discuss before adding all this material again.  Dreadstar  †  01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly suggest you read this section.  Please also read my other posts and edit summaries, I very carefully explained in great detail each change I made and why I made them.  Dreadstar  †  02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you did, but you DID NOT discuss them and achieve consensus on how the article should be presented. You simply went in and deleted all of these people's work, because, according to you, it violated Wikipedia's policies. There has to be discussion of each alleged violation, and then changes can be made as a community. Please follow established process on this. I would rather not get into a revert war with you. Bennie Noakes 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is not required for removal of information that violates Wikipedia policy, in this case virtually all the information you have re-added is clearly OR/Synthesis. Dreadstar  †  04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't clearly OR/synth, the question is currently being disputed. 1Z 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you don't agree, but a highly respected, veteran Wikipedia Administrator with vast experience in the relevant Wikipedia Policies responded to my plea for assistance on the WP:NOR Policy talk page by examining the disputed content then weighing in on the matter, agreeing that it indeed is OR/Synthesis that needs to be properly sourced to remain in the article.  I believe that should resolve any concerns you have about the material being OR and help you move on to the next step of working to find appropriate sources per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Dreadstar  †  17:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All that stuff you deleted (the Factual errors section and Controversial studies) are well-cited. It addresses important controversial aspects of this film. How is it "original research"? Bennie Noakes 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that material was not "well-cited" if was even cited at all.  I believe I've thoroughly addressed your question about how it is Original Research per Wikipedia policy in the OR in Conflicting facts/Factual errors section.  Now is the time to properly source it in the bleep sandbox I created, if it's possible to find such references.  Dreadstar  †  07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of the material you removed was cited. Some could easily have been. Lack of citation is not a reason for removing material, it should be removed if it cannot be verified, ie if no citation can be found. That involves trying to find citations. 1Z 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some of the material was indeed cited, however those citations did not meet the WP:NOR policy requirements and some also violated WP:Verifiability policy.  None of the citations were appropriate for this article.  Please go to the sandbox and focus your efforts there or elsewhere to find good sources for the material you believe should be in the article, instead of continuing to argue policy application.  Dreadstar  †  17:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Template:Failed_verification may be the tag you're looking for. There are many other tags you could add to the article to mark problems you have with citations, POV, etc. instead of just deleting them. Bennie Noakes 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores the material. That is you, sir.  Please do not threaten an edit war, that will get you nowhere.  Dreadstar  †  04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Based on Ramtha claim

message: Wikipedia consideres "pseudoscience" to be a pejorative, thus requiring a high standard of sourcing from mainstream science.  This is especially true for it to be placed prominently in the lead section of an article.  The information recently put in the lead is already in the body of the article.  Upon further review of the sourcing for that statement, it appears to be a letter posted on Physics Today org.  I'm not certain that a letter is a reliable source - especially for including it as a reference for a comment in the lead section. Dreadstar  †  06:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My major concern with the pseudoscience statement is that it be properly sourced and follow NPOV.  Many editors have serious reservations about using a pejorative term like "pseudoscience", and we must be careful to avoid prima facie saying, in Wikipedia's editorial voice, that this movie is a pseudoscience.  It needs to be adequately sourced and attributed. Plus stating that a movie is pseudoscience...well...kinda weird sounding, huh?  It's a movie with acting and all that....;)  Dreadstar  †  06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more little thing, to the editor who added the "Physics Today" reference, the reference was already there, so the edit added a duplicate reference (#2 and #13) to the references section.  Just fyi.  Dreadstar  †  06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience

message: " applicable only to matter on the scale of the de Broglie Wavelength."
No. Everything has a de Broglie wave, hence de Broglie wavelength, so there is no one de Broglie wavelength to have a scale. Better would be "applicable only to objects whose mass is so small that their de Broglie wavelengths are an appreciable percentage or multiple of their diameters."
For enormous macro-objects taken as a whole, the dual wave/particle nature is so far shifted to the particle side that any double-slit-type quantum experiment would require, as my link shows, a slit only 10^-31 mm wide.
Similarly, macro objects are assemblages of micro-objects, all of which, according to the Standard Model, have wave-like and particle-like properties, with the importance of the wavelike nature being dominant as your particles become smaller. The same applies to (resolution of) the superposition of states in quantum theory. 
In all cases, random chance and the law of large numbers ensure that quantum differences cancel out for macro objects with a probability approaching certainty.
What makes WTBDWK pseudoscience is that it ignores the computational and manipulative requirements for inducing macro change with micro-level determination of quantum events. Ironically, the Uncertainty Principle is not their friend here, but a big part of the reason they're wrong according to the Standard Model. Even the "Choose your Own Adventure" model of a particulate soul-like consciousness choosing which of the "many worlds" paths it will follow non-randomly assigns tremendous computational abilities to the consciousness involved. You might as well embrace a religion and get it over with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarionADelgado (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 July 2007 
:The comment regarding the de Broglie Wavelength isn't even sourced and will probably be removed soon if it isn't properly referenced according to WP:CITE.  While I agree that some or all of the subjects presented in the movie may be pseudoscience or at best a fringe or questionable science, a statement about it needs to be properly sourced and follow NPOV.  I've never heard someone saying that a film is pseudoscience, even if the concepts presented therein are indeed that very thing.  A subtle, but I think important difference.  It's like saying a person who's presenting a pseudoscientific concept is pseudoscience..."Bob is pseudoscience because he ascribes to Time Cube theory....  Dreadstar  †  19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing that line will make the article more accurate. By the way, people use WTBDWK as shorthand for "the thesis of WTBDWK," just as astronomers said "Worlds In Collision" was bad science. Synechdoche is not an error, and the key difference is whether a film or book makes a serious claim or is solely fiction. MarionADelgado 07:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I removed it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 12:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll probably have to wait until the current edit-warring has been addressed before we can truly make progress with this article. Dreadstar  †  17:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something that jumped out at me 

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

message: The film makers are apparently convinced that such a collapse would straightforwardly resuscitate the old metaphysics of God and spirit and so fourth, but they offer no reasons whatsoever for thinking that, and I cannot imagine what such a reason might be.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/02/david_albert_wh_1
1Z 20:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's a blog, which is not a RS according to WP:V: "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."  And although it's a very interesting source of information,  I don't know if an online tabloid that claims to be "Seattle's only newspaper" and which pushes the envelope of science, and has such socially significant sections can be used as a Wikipedia source.  ;)  - Dreadstar  †  23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: In case it gets lost in the above, I've created a sandbox for everyone to source the statements there:  Bleep sandbox.  
:Dreadstar  †  00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have copied a fair amount of material to the sandbox, where everyone can work on sourcing, commenting, and rewriting.  Hopefully this can be done in short order and in an orderly manner.  Dreadstar  †  03:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox for sourcing

message: There seems to be a misunderstanding on how quotes should be applied grammatically. 
Specifically use double quotes when you are quoting relevant direct text only, which cannot be rewritten or expressed in any other way. A source for the quote must be provided in the footnotes.
Also avoid coy quotation marks. Many students put quotation marks about any expression which they regard as in any way exotic or clever. For example: 
:The settler was really 'flummoxed' when faced with the problem of building a bark roof with an internal gutter. 
This should never be done.
Single quotation marks around individual words should be used for terms coined by the author in question, and when such a word is not commonly understood by the general public. The word should be the preceded with an explanation and be sourced.
Now how this relates to the article. An example can be found in the Experts section, in the following sentence.
:The most severe criticism of this film is that the ideas and theories presented are based upon the beliefs of JZ Knight[17], a medium who claims to channel a "Lemurian" warrior Ramtha who raised an army and fought against the Atlantians over 35,000 years ago.[18][19]
Grammatically there should be no double quotes around the word Lemurian (in effect there shouldn't be any), as it is incorrect.
I have stated this before however the change was reverted. Consider getting rid of the quotation marks after the article becomes unprotected. 61.68.149.210 05:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of double and single quotation marks

message: For</br> 07	Against 01	Abstain 02
----
*Agreed -  Dreadstar  †  06:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: Consensus has been reached, the protecting admin has reviewed the results and unprotected the article so the content could be removed until it is properly sourced or rewritten to reflect the source.  Congratulations everyone on a fine job of discussion and collaboration! Dreadstar  †  19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nicely handled Dreadstar, I thought - smooth with litte room for personal insults and hurt.Learned a lot from observing this process.(olive 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: But since I urged one point to be pulled, as you can imagine, I agree with the consensus. MarionADelgado 10:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the OR can be properly sourced and reinserted.