Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 6

message: I have filed a Wikiquette alert on User:Dreadstar in relation to his continued posturing regarding ownership of this page and his inability to discuss content rather than contributors. Please comment there. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquette alert filed on Dreadstar

message: There is no consensus on the following issues:
#That the article is better now than it was in the past.
#That previous versions of the article are not better than the article is now.
#That previous version of the article contained original research that cannot possibly be cited to reliable sources.
#That criticizing pseudoscience in the movie is necessarily WP:OR.
#That the movie isn't about science but rather philosophy.
In fact, there is substantial amount of controversy over each of these issues. I would say that all of these contentions are substantively wrong.
I will from now on refer all false claims of consensus to this thread.
ScienceApologist (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did anyone claim there was consensus on these points.(olive (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the impression that that was happening above. I just want to be clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think there was any kind of suggestion that these claims had a consensus, or that anyone thought there was  a consensus on these points, as far as I can remember.Just clarifying.(olive (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we have consensus on this ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: False claims of consensus

message: ::::: ^ I don't understand why this 'arbitrary break' was inserted... my comment below is not part of  "another discusion", it is a direct reply to the comment above it.  I don't really understand why an editor would edit a talk page in such a way to make it appear that I am saying something other than what I actually meant, and WP:AGF requires me to assume that there was some noble goal involved. But it still piques my curiosity. So I ask you, SA, why did you insert this 'arbitrary' break? What was your goal with this? Dlabtot (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tired of big hulking sections. Let's keep them smaller. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. My goal, in case you're wondering, is to make a semi-collaborative version of the lead as my submission. People were asking for my opinion on the lead. I gave it. My opinion is this is my favorite version. I would like input. The way I would like input on my version is not for people to !vote or make comments but to directly edit the version. But it is still my version. It's not your version, it's not the article's version, it's my version. Only I invite others to actively edit it and provide their own opinions by changing things around. This is opposed to the multiple versions of the lead above which were subject to single authorship and couldn't be modified at all. After I'm done with the workshop, hell, people can say what they think of the version. They may decide they hate my version. They may decide it's not so bad. They can even workshop their own version in the same way I did if they are so inclined. All I'm doing is offering the opportunity to collaborate on my version. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. And what are the words that I supposedly put in your mouth? Dlabtot (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You piped OWN into my mouth, James. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is your point in calling me 'James'? What is that about? Dlabtot (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seemed like a mini-bang, is all. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing important. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF requires me to assume that there is some point to your comment, and that it is in some way intended to further the discussion about how to write a better encyclopdia article about this film, rather than an attempt to disrupt by starting some sort of argument. So I respectfully ask you to explain, what is your point? Why did you call me 'James', instead of 'Dlabtot' and what does: "Seemed like a mini-bang" refer to? Dlabtot (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shhh, it's a secret! ScienceApologist (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aren't you aware that non-responsive comments like this are  going to affect people's ability to take you seriously?  What are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gents, care to move this to a user_talk page? Some of us here are both trying to preserve our sanity and follow this talk page. Antelan talk 09:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just want to know what SA is talking about.  He doesn't seem to want to say, but if he wants to explain what he said on this page, on some other page, that would be okay with me, as long as someone tells me about it, so that I get to read it. Dlabtot (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other discussions (arbitrary break)

message: The scientists interviewed for this film, by and large, are remarkable for the controversial nature of their theories. That is, what is remarkable about them is not that they are experts, but that they are at the center of controversy. They may be construed as experts, but not in the mainstream way presumed by the use of "expert". Antelan talk 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody who lives in the 21st century knows you can get an "expert" to say absolutely posomicklutely anything.  Some were fringe, perhaps, others were not.  What about the guy crying about being mis-represented?  He's one of the experts.  Anyway, we don't have sources for controversial, but we do for expert- such as the American Chemical Society one which says the credentials were impressive.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking over sources discussing all of the contributors to this movie, I can find only one who is not considered controversial or non-mainstream... and he is the one who takes umbrage at the film's misuse of his statements. For some of the others, I have quotations that are as forceful as labeling them "on the fringes of mainstream science." Fringe researchers aren't usually the type of people you would label "experts" in the lead of an article, at least not in a way that makes it seem like they are experts in what most people consider science. Antelan talk 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources?  They are all experts, but not all controversial.  So, what would you do? ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those are the sources that are listed in this article. But it's strange - these individuals are, by and large, on the fringes of science. There are sources to back this, but none have been referenced so far in this article. This is important, insofar as this article is making them look so run-of-the-mill. When Newsweek is calling you fringe, you know you're out there. Why, then, is this article obfuscating the fact that these folks are on the fringe? Antelan talk 07:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not obfucation: we are summarizing.  While they are all experts of one sort or another, not all are fringe.  That will come later. The lead as a whole gives the reader proper context.  I'm putting in a compromise.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to ask you this, but do you know the definition of ersatz? To back your claim that these folks are experts, you cited an article from the American Chemical Society that calls them ersatz scientific experts. This completely supports my point. Antelan talk 07:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be moot with the changes, but I think it's easy enough  to source "experts" if needed.  Dreadstar † 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From their promotional site? That hardly seems like a reliable source for stating that outright. --Philosophus T 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of other sources that agree with that statement, check out the Sep 10, 2004 Chicago Sun Times review by Roger Ebert, or the article by Catrina Coyle in the Aug 19, 2004 Monterey County Weekly Newspaper.  As for their promotional site, yes we can use that per WP:SELFPUB. Dreadstar † 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger Ebert does not approach being a reliable source for determining scientific expertise.Kww (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't claim he was. Dreadstar † 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Dreadstar, WP:SELFPUB says this type of sourcing is valid if "it does not involve claims about third parties." This is explicitly about third parties ('experts'). Shouldn't an admin know this, or at least read over it, before posting it to this page as an attempted justification? Antelan talk 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first of all Antelan, I recommend you restrict your remarks to the editorial content of the article instead of making insulting, rude comments about other editors.  Secondly, the site isn't referencing "third parties", it's referencing participants in the movie.  It's not really "third parties" at all.  I'm sure it can be argued the other way, but it's not nearly as clear cut as you seem to think it is.  There are also other considerations to take into account as well, the documentary nature of the film, the obvious linkage to and from the 'expert's' webstites from the bleep website...etc.  No, not clear-cut at all.  Dreadstar † 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There have been a slew of other admins involved on this very talk page an the article over the last few days.  You can also take it to Wikipedia:Village Pump if you think it's that important.  The term 'experts' is sourced and part of the movie, plus their credentials include Ph.D's and M.D.'s I can't see how that can be disputed successfully. And to be honest, it just looks more and more like an attempt to push a pov into the article.  Participants in a thing are not third-parties to that thing.  Using "claim" violates WP:WTA and I think anything along those lines is just an attempt to add bias to the article. The description of the movie should be true to the description provided by the makers, participants and the movie itself says; then the view of the critics can be added. Dreadstar † 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a compromise, instead of saying 'experts', perhaps we can substitute "Ph.D's and M.D's , etc"? But you know, 'experts' is sourced by the movie and number of it's articles, promotional sites, books, etc. Dreadstar † 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A degree does not an expert make. Antelan talk 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that?  ;D  Yeah, but the degrees and the work they've done lend credence to the statement that they are 'experts', can't just cherry-pick things out of the whole picture.  We should also take into consideration the context of that expertise, the context in the area in which they speak, work and have studied - in addition to the context of the movie - a movie that is the subject of this article.  Dreadstar † 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool.  Have a safe flight! Dreadstar † 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this has now been referenced from a different discussion, I want to point out that this portion had been archived within a week of its occurrence, and I recently de-archived it so we could continue the discussion. Now about the sources... Let me grab a few. Antelan talk 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The credentials and status of the movie paricipants is sourced by the flim itself.  Also, be cautious of WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE when adding material that contradicts other sources.  Dreadstar † 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite certain that Newsweek trumps this movie in terms of being a reliable source. Do you disagree? Antelan talk 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a matter of "trumps", it's a matter of presenting all views per WP:NPOV.  Presenting the views presented by the subject of an article is something that cannot just be ignored.  Dreadstar † 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly do disagree with Antelan. The Newsweek quote "identified as quantum physicists, which they are, although on the fringes of mainstream science..., merely the use of the word "fringe" in a sentence absolutely does not justify our use of the term "fringe scientists", which conveys a FAR MORE pejorative POV than the Newsweek use of the word, which characterizes the science as being on the "fringes of (the) mainstream". "Fringe scientists" is unacceptable on this basis, it's highly pejorative, and it's a "synthesized" name for them.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial scientists 

message: * Reactions to Bleep have been mixed.  Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received, playing in 200 theaters across the US and grossing over $10 million.  It attracted the attention of scientists as well; the scientific community has criticized the film for inappropriately applying quantum mechanical principles and concluding, erroneously, that human consciousness directly influences the physical world.Rracecarr (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: V. Rracecarr

message: *"Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received (needs a little more here). Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience concepts, like a relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics, and modification of ice crystals by thought." Anthon01 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: V.Anthon01

message: *Reactions to Bleep have been mixed. The film, a moderately inexpensive, low budget production  played in 200 theaters across the US, and grossed over $10 million. The film has been criticized for making connections between new age, spiritual concepts and established scientific theories. These critics say that the connections, speculations and conclusions in the film appear to be based on scientific understanding, but in reality are not. 
or 
 
*Among the New Age spiritual communities, the film was well received. or In the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received.The film has been criticized for making connections between new age, spiritual concepts and established scientific theories. These critics say that the connections, speculations and conclusions made in the film appear to be based on scientific understanding, but in reality are not.(olive (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: V.olive - Version A with possible additions/addition

message: What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that misrepresents science as supporting New Age beliefs. The film combines special effects and interviews with the story of the life and struggles of a fictional deaf photographer, played by Marlee Matlin. Considered a moderate to low budget film, Bleep grossed over $10 million dollars, a success some see as the result of grassroots and guerrilla marketing to members of New Age spiritual groups. Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, members of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Bleep features extensive interviews with the school's controversial director, Judy Zebra Knight. Knight and others interviewed in the film explain their views of the supposed impact of human consciousness on physics and chemistry. Members of the scientific community that have commented on the film have criticized the film for supporting unscientific theories such as quantum mysticism, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought.David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to misrepresent his views, making him appear to agree with the ideas presented in the film.
Kww (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  V.Kww 

message: This non-binding straw poll is meant only to summarize our feeling about two suggested wordings to go in place of second paragraph in the lead. This is not a vote, but merely a chance to see if we are close to a resolve or consensus.
Please place either a -1, 00, or +1 below the two suggested wordings. Here's what it will mean:
-1 = I don't like it at all.
00 = I like it.
+1 = I like this one more.
Please vote on both suggestions. Thanks!
Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for promulgating pseudoscience.
00 -- Levine2112 discuss 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: From the responses above, I have formulated four more suggestions. It is clear that Suggestion B. above is preferred but there are some caveats. Please reply the survey with the same scheme (-1, 00, +1) as above:
----
Suggestion A. Among the New Age spiritual community, the film was well received. Members of the scientific community have criticized the film for presenting many ideas which are not supported by science, such as that consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, and that ice crystals can be influenced by thought. Physicist David Albert, who was interviewed for the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he agrees with the ideas presented in the film
00 -- Levine2112 discuss 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New suggestions, narrowing it down 

message: I don't care how you do it, but quantum mysticism needs to be in the lead at least as a piped link. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, it depends on who you ask really. Quantum consciousness is a concept which is a valid hypothesis and should be linked, but if attributed to critics quantum mysticism is very related in order to understand why the critics dislike the concept. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Quantum mind article is really quite poor, and the validity of the hypothesis is really up for debate. What is true is that consciousness is generally a derided term in physics and the people proposing "quantum consciousness" are generally on the very fringes if not completely immersed in pseudoscientific claptrap. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it describes the hypothesises properly. And I am quite happy that it isn't filled with POV from uninformed skeptics; we get that you subscribe to some kind of radical materialism. Really, these people in physics who deride consciousness are probably not even studying the topic. And it is not like physics has made much progress lately because of the limits that reality sets on people, so perhaps you should take a hint and read up on Bohm and follow his suggestion that spirituality is the next logical step for physics in order to understand the deeper concepts of reality. Because the field of spirituality is sorely needing people who can cut the crap, and you rational skeptics has so far thrown the baby out with the water. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This commentary on what you believe my personal prejudices are is quite irrelevant to this discussion. In the meantime, I'm gald we agree on including quantum mysticism. I'll see you at quantum mind in the future when I start decimating that article with my radical materialism. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Where is 'quantum mysticism' to be placed in the lead?  Dreadstar † 22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I cleaned up  quantum mysticism. It now reflects a suitable label for the film. Still needs some work, but at least now it doesn't (incorrectly) say it's just a pejorative. It's just an idea no one takes seriously. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum mysticism needs to be in the lead

message: There are particular science issues with the movie. I propose we have sections about these issues including sections detailing the criticisms on:
;Quantum mechanics and quantum mysticism
;Water memory and ice crystal pseudoscience
;Transcendental Meditation study bullshit
;Neuroscience psychobabble
;Ahistorical lies
etc.
ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but this should also include the original idea; preferably sourced in the original papers. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The last three need a NPOV check : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems like enough for a whole article of it's own... you might even be able to get a reliable source to publish it, that is, if there were actually any interest in this movie beyond a small group of Wikipedia editors. Which seems doubtful.   Dlabtot (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep, see below. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Particular science issues with the movie

message: The survey above is really helping (me at least) to better understand the issues we all have with the lead. If you have not weighed in yet, please consider doing so above. Thanks all! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let us know your feeling on each and every suggestion. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather people just edit the draft. Jefffire (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although you have clearly stated that: "The goal I have is to make a semi-collaborative version based on my overall vision "diff, you may end up having to accept a truly collaborative version that is not based on your overall vision.  WP:CONSENSUS means that sometimes you  have to accept a compromise. Dlabtot (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The survey is above. Survey --Anthon01 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working on the draft will be fine, once we understand where we all stand with regards to the second paragraph. I will add the current draft version of the second paragraph to the survey above, please come back (if you have responded already) and let us know your thoughts on that version as well. If you have not replied to the survey, I urge you to do so, so we can have a broad look at each others feelings in one spot. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A better idea would be for people to discuss their ideas for achieving an intelligent and amicable solution to any pertinent concerns in the draft discussion section, and eventually incorporating it into the draft. This survey is just fostering the "version mania" which got us into this mess. To put it simply, a survey cannot hope to convey the complexity of the issue compared to a dialog. Jefffire (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, that draft is irredeemably flawed, and not useful as a starting point.  Still, it has now rightly been included in the survey. We didn't get into this mess through "version mania", we got here through an unwillingness to compromise and a lack of a genuine desire to reach consensus.  No one is saying that the survey should take the place of dialog, rather, the survey is meant to foster dialog by making apparent what are the specific items of contention and who exactly disagrees with what.  Dlabtot (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current draft is only marginally different to all the current static versions, I'm at a loss as to how it can be "irredeemably flawed" since only a few choice edits would make it functionally identical to any one of them. Jefffire (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's clear that we have different understandings of what the phrase "marginally different" means, as well as the phrase "functionally identical". I'm pretty sure we also diverge on what would constitute "choice edits". Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on the "fundamental flaws"? I'd sincerely like for there to be a working draft article and I am open to your suggestions for its improvement. Jefffire (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, the fundamental flaws are that it doesn't follow the guidelines of WP:LEAD. Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to be obtuse, but could you elaborate on how the current draft violates WP:LEAD, and if possible some of your possible suggestions. Jefffire (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   WP:LEAD states: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. Those are the guidelines that it does not meet. I already offered my suggestion - which that this version is too irredeemably flawed to serve as a starting point, and to work with others to find a compromise version. You apparently disagree - fine. It's okay for us to disagree. WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity of opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  FWIW, I think the current version is not too bad, except for: (1)the clause about New Age reception should be taken out as I explained below, (2)the third sentence is unnecessary, and (3)I think the wording about David Albert was better in this version, (which however, I don't think should include the clause about the LttE). Dlabtot (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty good news, because the current draft is really just a slightly more streamlined version of the current intro :)! If you can detail what you think is important that's been removed in the draft discussion section I think we can make a pretty good job. Jefffire (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what you are talking about; I totally disagree with your characterization. Are you referring to 'Suggestion F' in the ongoing discussion? It's not 'streamlined' - exactly the opposite.  It's clumsy, clunky, and polemical. Dlabtot (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I think we've been talking on mixed wires. I've moved the draft to the bottom now, it's in its own section . "Suggestion F" was Levine's attempt to have people vote on a past incarnation of a paragraph in the draft. Given how often it changes, this turned out to be unwise. I hope you'll participate in the draft. Jefffire (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: One's thoughts cannot be reduced to a choice between these different version, and for that reason I am not, nor will I ever, participate in this survey which I regard as a folly. As you suggest, I think we should move on. Jefffire (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, we can ask you to participate in discussions designed to work towards consensus, but we can't force you to do so. I do remain hopeful, however, that you will reconsider you position and participate.  Your lack of participation will not keep the discussion from continuing, however. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My decision to forgo the survey does not mean I do not intend to work towards consensus. Indeed, my entire point is that the survey is anathema to that aim. I think you'll find that we are very much co-operating already. Jefffire (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One's thoughts cannot be reduced to a choice between these different version Please, Jefffire, don't misunderstand. These versions  are not the only choices nor are they intended to be so. These are merely suggestions based on individual preferences working towards actual choices. We are not trying to reduce your thoughts down to anything but rather looking for your feedback (good = +1, alright = 00, not good = -1) on these suggestions. That way we all know your position and work our way to tailoring a consensus version which addresses your concerns as much as it addresses everyone else's. What's the harm in at least trying this suggested dispute resolution method? -- Levine2112 discuss 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "harm" is that I sincerely believe that the survey is creating a negative attitude towards editing. Jefffire (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't seen any negative feedback about the survey other than from ScienceApologist (and now from yourself, to a much lesser degree). Every other editor participating in these discussions have contributed their thoughts. It would be a "positive" step if we could all at least agree to just participate in a dispute resolution method. I don't think this is a matter great enough to go to mediation about, so please be a sport and just let us know how you feel about the suggestions... even if it is just to tell us that you think all of them are "not good". I'd really appreciate it. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jefffire: I don't see the negative attitude you're speaking of? Last week we were having a lively constructive discussion under the "How other encyclopedias handle pseudoscience" section. The survey came as a result of that discussion and many of the same editors have participated in the survey. THe survey is helping to clarify many different POV all in one location, concisely and clearly. Anthon01 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking Levine suggestion and moving on from this issue. I invite others to continue with helpful discussions on the lead, as Dlabtot is doing. Jefffire (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine if you want to "move on" while we continue to discuss a consensus version.  However, I  still think it would be better if you participated in the process with the rest of us. Otherwise we run the danger of ending up with two versions, one written by you and ScienceApologist, and another written by everyone else, which seems like a recipe for further conflict and edit-warring. Dlabtot (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above. I assure you for one thing SA wouldn't approve of the draft, since it leaves out a number of things he considers critical. Now, I am participating in building a consensus. I suggest we all move on from this survey obsession. Jefffire (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, if you aren't willing to work with anyone other than ScienceApologist on what you and he call, "the draft", while no one else agrees that it is, "the draft", I would have to say that no, you are not participating in building a consensus.  No doubt you believe you are working for the best of the project, but insisting that cooperation with the rest of the involved editors is impossible looks more like obstruction than participation to me. Dlabtot (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea where you are getting this from. I've incorporated a number of your ideas into the draft, and maintain an open invitation to you to give your suggestions. Jefffire (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey above, please let us know your thoughts 

message: When y'all stop fighting over the wording of this, I'd like to request that this uncontroversial edit be restored, and comment that blanket rollbacks that remove uncontroversial edits don't do much to improve the encyclopedia. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: That's what the lead says now, but it seems misleading to me - unless readers follow the wikilinks, they'll get the impression that these are prosaic interviews with a school's director... aren't these interviews actually with "Judy Zebra Knight speaking with the voice of 35,000 year old Lemurian warrior Ramtha" ?  Therefore, I think that's what it should say. Or some other wording that makes that clear. Dlabtot (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "the film features extensive interviews with the school's director Judy Zebra Knight who during these interviews claims she is  "channeling" Ramtha, a long dead warrior/philosopher from the mythical Continent of Atlantis, who lived 35,000 years ago" ? That help confirm the credentials of those responsible/taking part in this movie also. Might be very helpful. Really2012forgotpassword (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really2012 wording seems the better. I'd like to see the reliable source to verify Judy Knight was really speaking with the voice of a Lemurian. Jefffire (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever, the point is that the reader is informed that the movie was made by PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWRs. Dlabtot (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the draft to a version inspired by Really2012's version. It might not give the exact impression of PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWR, but it's getting there. Jefffire (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the film features extensive interviews with the school's director [[Judy Zebra Knight]] 

message: The survey above is really helping (me at least) to better understand the issues we all have with the lead. If you have not weighed in yet, please consider doing so above. Thanks all! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let us know your feeling on each and every suggestion. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey above, please let us know your thoughts - please keep at bottom 

message: What am I'm talking about? Two different groups of editors, both supposedly 'working towards consensus', but unwilling to work together on the effort. Seeing as discussion has stalled I'm going to ask that the page protection be extended indefinately until there is some sign that folks are willing to work together. Dlabtot (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that discussion has stalled. You yourself have made a number of highly useful suggestions for the draft which have been incorporated, and other are also making the effort to work together. I do agree that unlocking is premature though. Jefffire (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I've made suggestions.  But the reality is that getting me to go along with whatever, is not going to be a problem, since I'm actually totally uninterested in this film and this article per se, have never edit-warred over it, and don't really care whether the article 'unjustly criticizes the movie' or whether the article 'lends false credence to pseudoscientific ideas', et cetera ad nauseum... my primary interests in this topic are because it has been staked as a battleground by two groups of editors, both pushing divergent agendas, and as a test case to see whether the Wikipedia model works. So the fact that both sides are able to discuss edits with me doesn't say anything about whether both sides will be able to work together to form a consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Viewing things as "sides" and "battles" isn't helpful. You've done some good work with our co-operation, and I'd like it to continue in a good nature. I believe other editors will join in as well in the same vein. Jefffire (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Dlabtot: Do you consider all the editors taking part in the survey to be from the same side? BTW, you picked a tough one for a test case. Anthon01 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not continue the aggro, anthon. There is a possibility to actually make this work, please don't throw it away, Jefffire (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was not my intention, but since you consider it such I will not press it. In that spirit, I'm not sure about the title of this section. Anthon01 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the section title is deeply unfortunate. Frankly I don't consider storming in and telling everyone how they are completely incapable of co-operating is the right behavior for someone who claims to be trying to aid dispute resolution, but that's Dlabtot's issue, and I hope he'll adopt a different tact. For example, my initial language choice was much blunter, but things have made much more progress with a different tone. Jefffire (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow motion train wreck in progress 

message: Maybe this will help, maybe not, but I see (having just spent another three hours reading and adding (insufficient) commentary...
1) The idea that the film was created to recruit students to Ramtha's School of Enlightenment is important.
2) The idea that the film presents the "boundary" questions at the border between physics and metaphysics in a way that misrepresents what science does and does not know is important.
3) The idea that the "scientists" featured in the film were largely selected because they all (with one exception - Dave Albert) have POVs that are unsympathetic to scientific materialism, or sympathetic to addressing the "Quantum Enigma" as an "enigma".
Does that characterize the competing POV's fairly, or did I miss something?
I agree that these are all important viewpoints, but I don't think these will be "lost" if they are not in the lead. I think the quickest way to get this article unlocked is to strip the lead of contentious issues (for now), and let the rest of the article develop, and then we all agree to "lock down" the lead for another couple of weeks, work on the body of the article and see how things look afterword. Thoughts? 
I've also looked at The Great Global Warming Swindle, that film has all of the same issues with scientists, "hidden agendas" and so forth as "Bleep" does, and to a MUCH greater extent than Bleep. Anyway, maybe some ideas there? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarize points of contention for intro 

message: ::And at the risk of stating the obvious, I would suggest that the film itself is the single most important and reliable source for the topic of THIS article, and perhaps any who are unfamiliar with the single most reliable source (have not seen the film) should recuse themselves from the discussion of the intro, as you appear to represent tertiary sources, at best. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since I have seen the film, I'm happy to continue editing. Thanks for the vote of confidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, WNDL42. Well said."I would suggest that the film itself is the single most important and reliable source for the topic of THIS article."(olive (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, I strongly disagree. The use of primary sources is discouraged on Wikipedia, and a reliable secondary source is always better than a primary. Since our task is to compile the contents of reliable secondary sources, not seeing the primary could even be viewed as beneficial, since it helps to reduce bias on the part of the editor.Kww (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having reviewed WP:Primary source, I can find no basis for your statement "use of primary sources is discouraged " Specifically, this, this, and this appear to contradict your statement. I might add that the film's presentations of it's scientists are, by definition, secondary source presentations. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Review it more carefully. Primary sources are good for establishing what a primary source is saying. That's it. While it is important for us to establish what the film is saying, it is equally if not more important for us to make sure that the critical evaluation of the film's content gets properly made to reliable sources. That's the essence of WP:PSTS in conjunction with such guidelines as WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the film as a source

message: Ok, in response to numerous comments...there are "mainstream" scientific POVs, "minority" scientific POV's and then there are "fringe" scientists. In the film, Albert represents "mainstream", most are "minority" and one or maybe two can reasonably called "fringe".
So...(rply to several above...) "OK, let me put it this way: There are a number of sources that say they are "fringe scientists" exactly, exact words, not as a question but as a statement, and it's not original research .
:Not exactly. There are exactly zero reliable sources saying "they" are (all) fringe scientists. I was going to take this offline to user:nealparr, but I really think we all need a refresher on what we can say about search hits, and what we can't.  It's best to take a look at WP:Google before proceeding further.
:Any Google search test must be carefully constructed to avoid spurious results, as information theory predicts that "noise" will predominate the "hits" in this kind of search construction (above) to assert "fringe". For example, if I wanted to assert that "Scientific materialism is a religion", I could use an unconstructed search like this to prove my point, and this is identical to the seach used above. I would "win" this "niosy" argument, with a score of 125,000 "hits" to 5,970, but in reality we'd both be wrong to use that "hit count" to prove anything. On the other hand, I could construct an explit search, like this, and with only two hits I could try to "prove" the other side, that "scientific materialism is a religion" is merely a "fringe" viewpoint, but this is also faulty because the overly long explicit string excludes other constructions that a reliable source might say.
:So both of the results I just provided are faulty, illustrating the logical fallacy of a "noisy" argument. A better approach looks like this, and the 28,800 hits shows that there are many web sites that explicitly refer to Scientific Materialism in the context of a religion, most of them saying that scientific materialism IS a religion. But even so, there is no real way of saying with any certainty (or even guessing) that the hit count represents reliable sources, and so I would rightly be refuted by atheists, who could also deny that there are any reliable sources to "prove" that atheism is a religion, but again, who knows if there is a reliable source, like a legal decision to prove that atheism is a religion.
:So far, we still don't have anything of substance to say from a statistical perspective, because we have done nothing to filter out unreliable sources yet. This is where the tactic of using specialized search databases comes in handy. For example, a search of the Google News Archive or Google Scholar will "filter" out blogs, user comments or rants posted in response to articles on the topic, etc., and this is critical. Now, in the news archive, we find a "control population" of 429 articles in Google's news archives on "scientific materialism", and then (adding the word religion to the explicit string "scientific materialism", we could observe that the resulting 207 hits divided by the control population (429 hits) gives us a pretty fair idea that the idea is mainstream enough for inclusion -- "Scientific materialism is a religion" is a notable and valid criticism of philosopher David Albert, and this is not a "fringe" criticism.
:While that's probably good enough for a Wikipedia entry on a pop-culture film (that IS what we're all editing), there is also a heated controversy about the scientific content of the film from psuedoscience-fighters and cult-fighters, these editors must be fairly represented here, so now we can turn to Google Scholar for a database of reliable sources from science and academia wherein we discover that the Google Scholar "physics specific" database" seems to indicate that "scientific materialism is a religion" is actually the mainstream view. A main point of the film is that scientific materialism is a religion and that that religion deserves as much scrutiny from a science perspective as any other religion, and so we find that the "What the Bleep" film actually represents a valid POV speaking from within the scientific mainstream viewpoint among physicists, that "scientific materialism is a religion".  
:And, if I wanted to, I could also use this control population 793 of reliable academic sources compared to 342 from the physics database reliable sources support my assertion that all of us here (and the keyboards we type on) are mere holographic illusions, and that all "matter" and "energy" are merely the hallucinations of some very cleverly designed wetware, so that all of us and everything we see, touch and feel are nothing but WP:Synthesis.
Meanwhile the film says "The universe is best seen as made up of thoughts or ideas, rather than matter and energy"
So..."In the beginning was the Information Structure, and the Information Structure was with G-d, and the Information Structure was G-d" - is a work of WP:Synthesis from the "Book of John (Archibald Wheeler)", which might represent a "Spinoza's G-d" minority (Albert Einstein), but certainly Wheeler and his teacher Einstein would see the similarity between this construction and that of the film... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Characterization of scientists - analysis per [[WP:Google]]

message: This version is awful for the following reasons:
#Film is not a documentary film 
#:Point made - it's a "docu-drama" riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to side with SA on that one ... anyone associated with the Institute of Noetic Sciences abandoned any credibility they may have once had.Kww (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Abandoned any credibility" is a pretty strong claim, and statements based on hyperbole are generally "exceptional" claims, but I will buy it if it can be supported. Please provide a reliable source in support of it if you want the discussion to rest on that assertion. Suggest you use a query of the Google Scholar database to establish this....there's a tutorial above. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Members of IONS hold to pseudoscientific explanations that make them unreliable sources for describing mainstream science. WP:REDFLAG. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true, but WP:REDFLAG does not identify IONS, and the threshold for inclusion is verifyability, not truth. Again, not saying it isn't true, just unsupported. A quick check of Google Scholar does not indicate support for the idea, and a broader general web search also fails. Also, when I broadened the search to include any instance of "noetic", we get zero hits. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping to find that at least Quackwatch would support the use of the word "psuedoscience" (if nothing else, to find at least ONE credible source in support, so we can end this noisy debate), but alas, even Quackwatch does not describe the institutions we're talking about as "pseudoscience". FYI, here's the current Wikipedia treatment of criticisms of IONS...and again, no "pseudoscience" found, but perhaps some Wikiprecedent there. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cant find a source, then aviod the use of the term psuedo science. While its probably currect, adding it is as as I said before unnecessarily inflammatory and might lead to a srevert source. It owuld be better to impeach the IONS institute in the actual text of the article by linkingto sources that criticize the resaerch done by these people. a psuedoscience bog honestly isnt' necessary for every atticle it is better to do a verifable criticism of the IONS than to allow its uspporters to be able to say that this article violates WP:V. That's just my thought though, but I honeslty have to recommend against it unless you can find a source. Smith Jones (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Passes the duck test. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the 'duck test you refer to is (unless I am mistaken) an essay on civility among editors. Can you help us understand how it applies to article content? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sometimes people have done good research even while they are crackpots in general. That doesn't make them any less crankish. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SA, I understand and agree, but my point is that there are solid and sincere scientists in the group of "them", the "scientists" in the movie run the gamut from "crackpot" to "wheelerish", and want us to be careful not to use too broad a brush.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enumerated issues