Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 5

message: Remember-there are certain clearly specified ways #NOT# to write for this encyclopedia.  Less than 24hrs after the RFC was filed, Fireplace found a suitable reference source , to replace the WP:SYNTH claim, thus solving the problem.  So what gives in here?  For the past three days, the talk has deteriorated into personal attacks, histrionics about fringe, and hollow excuses for ignoring WP:SYNTH.  Close the RFC--it's a moot issue which serves no purpose except to invite soap boxing and other tendentious mischief.  The claim has been suitably sourced for days now, without sidestepping WP:NOR. Thank you, Fireplace.  Professor marginalia (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did add the quote that Fireplace found to the article, already, btw.  I agree that the RfC should be closed. Dlabtot (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks Dlabtot.  Sometimes it feels editors are more interested at WP to throw their weight around and bust some heads than to build the encyclopedia. I'll close the RFC.  Professor marginalia (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:SYNTH]] AND THE RFC

message: When writing an RfC, it is important to ensure that there is a balanced summary of the goings-on. People on any side of the disagreement should be able to see the summary and think "Yes, that accurately and fairly summarizes the issue." I don't think the current summary accomplishes this. It is unfortunate, because I think the language may poison the well of ideas incoming via the RfC. Antelan talk 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Antelan, with respect, the RfC is a request for comment on the lead, and is summarized clearly without prejudice. Lets move on.(olive (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Antelan, if you want to write a version which everyone will agree summarizes things fairly and does not poison the cesspit, you could post it here.  If people agree, it could probably replace the current one. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the one he did right here and politely requested comments on?Kww (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I laughed when I saw the wording--the evil scientists are raping wikipedia, while the kind and gentle woo-woos are simply working politely toward a fair and balanced article that abides by all the guidelines.  But it really doesn't matter, right?  No one's going to comment just on the basis of the RfC summary.Rracecarr (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, why have a summary at all? ;-) Or, why not just truncate it to the first sentence, which I think we all can agree on. It really says enough to adequately summarize what we'd like responders to look at. Antelan talk 03:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oddly enough, that first sentence you like is actually the only part that showed up on the RfC pages.  I don't mind changing the wording, I was merely trying to capture what both sides were saying - no added bias intended.  Dreadstar † 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) I figured that you didn't mean any harm, which is why I initially messaged you on your talk page to avoid an unnecessary discussion here. When you cleared my message without a reply, I figured this was the next logical place to take the discussion. Would you mind removing the extra sentences and leaving only the first? Thanks, Antelan talk 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I was rushing out the door to dinner when I archived my talk page, bringing it here for other opinions was fine..heck you could have just re-worded it yourself... Interestingly enough, my dinner date was with an English professor..and she didn't quite agree that 'pseudoscience' was at all in common use...yep, even my dinner conversations are tainted by my editing here...<sigh>  I removed the extra wording right after I posted my above comment...so I think it should be fine now!  Dreadstar † 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a more balanced RfC request? 

message: There has been an ongoing dispute about the neutrality and contents of the lead section of the film article What the Bleep Do We Know?!.
#Yes, this is agreeable.
One side of the dispute wishes to add a significant amount of detail to the lead on the criticism of the movie, which the opposition believes adds unnecessary bias against the movie.
#In fact, compared with the longstanding previous lead, the current version is no longer, and avoids direct quotations.
The opposition maintains that the lead section, per WP:LEAD should be a concise, neutral summary of the article, which the critical editors have called "fluff" or "equivocal".
#From this wording, you might easily think that the "pro" crowd wants to comply with WP:LEAD, while the "con" crowd (apparently?) does not want to do so. We're telling RfC responders "OK, the current lead is not neutral. Now, what do you think of the current lead?" This should be a judgment the responders ultimately make, not one used to influence their input.
#The "con" crowd appears to be saying that it opposes a neutral summary as being "fluff" or "equivocal." In reality, the "con" crowd believes that the current summary is a neutral summary. One previously suggested version of the lead was called "fluffy" and "equivocal," but this is a red herring since it is no longer a subject of discussion.
This summarizes a few off the problems with this RfC. The first sentence probably provides enough description to let people know what to look at, and the rest just poisons the well. Antelan talk 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, that first sentence you like is actually the only part that showed up on the RfC pages.  I don't mind changing the wording, I was merely trying to capture what both sides were saying - no added bias intended.  Dreadstar † 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) I figured that you didn't mean any harm, which is why I initially messaged you on your talk page to avoid an unnecessary discussion here. When you cleared my message without a reply, I figured this was the next logical place to take the discussion. Would you mind removing the extra sentences and leaving only the first? Thanks, Antelan talk 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I was rushing out the door to dinner when I archived my talk page, bringing it here for other opinions was fine..heck you could have just re-worded it yourself... Interestingly enough, my dinner date was with an English professor..and she didn't quite agree that 'pseudoscience' was at all in common use...yep, even my dinner conversations are tainted by my editing here...<sigh>  I removed the extra wording right after I posted my above comment...so I think it should be fine now!  Dreadstar † 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Line by line with the current RfC

message: We have assembled here a group of scientists, schooled in research design and statistics. We have competing hypotheses: that "pseudoscience" is obscure and that it's common. We have a corpus of data in Google News archives (better than Google itself, where I find that "what the bleep" is more apt to occur in contexts unrelated to the movie. Wouldn't it be a simple matter to test these hypotheses, perhaps looking at relative frequencies of words? TimidGuy (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absolutely not how articles are written, and is tedious. This article contains phrases such as "bowdlerization" and "guerilla marketing." It also contains words such as "interviewees", which has roughly as many google hits as "pseudoscience". Nobody should care. They are English words whose use is well-suited to this article, and are all appropriate here. This is a non-issue; perhaps less than that. Antelan talk 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are those words in the lead, Antelan? With the exception of a proposal that contained "interviewees", I don't see them. We're talking about the lead and appropriate wording per WP:LEAD, not the contents of the entire aritlce where details can be given.  Pseudoscience is a pejorative, not commonly used or fully understood by the general public, and used only in a small percentage of the total number of commentaries on the film.  Discussion of wording in the lead is not a "distraction", it is significant because it sets the tone for the entire article. Dreadstar † 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. In my comments to Antelan above I did not say there were agendas. I hope there aren't. I operate in good -faith. So we don't have to move away from anything. I am an artist and I think about the world in terms of "creating" most of the time. I'm pretty sure from the blank looks on people's faces when I launch into some toothsome idea on art, that most people don't think about art all of the time. Most people don't think about science all of the time either. The fact is in my experience most people think about themselves most of the time, and how to get through their lives in the best way possible.If Bleep was notable at all, I would suggest its because it influenced people to think about their lives /themselves. For me to say the film was about its art direction, transitions from  animation to acting , colour, set design and so on, and a lot of people in my world -art- would  discuss the film in that way, would be to put a slant on the film that comes out of my opinion and the opinion of artists, but not the general public . And note artists don't have the same outlets in terms of publication scientists do so your likely to hear less from them. I believe the same is true in thinking that this film's notability came out of science. Science plays an important part in understanding the film , but this is a film and general public are seeing a film not a science lecture or a commentary on art direction. An Inconvenient Truth is not about  science. For most people it was about their lives, and the fear that we are witnessing and possibly aiding in the end of our planet.Science is the background support or not depending on the scientist, for theories on global warming. But it is in the background .Unless we can get to the point where we let go of our somewhat insular ways of viewing the movie and of the general public who saw it .... artist and scientist alike, progress on this article may be stalemated.(olive (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I come closer to having an "agenda" than others, so I will lay it out one more time. My primary objection is to phrasing that treats the movie's misrepresentation of science in order to support New Ageism as an opinion. It is a fact, and we have sufficiently reliable sources, backed  by so many other sources that we cannot quote in the article (due to OR considerations), that we don't need to treat that misrepresentation as an opinion. We can treat it as fact, and to do otherwise violates NPOV (and doesn't violate WP:SYNTH, either). I don't care if you call it "a popular movie that misrepresents science as supporting New Age philosophy", "a low budget blockbuster that uses pseudoscience to support New Age philosophy", "a masterpiece of guerilla marketing that misrepresents science to further its New Age philosophies", or any of a million variations. Just no treatment of the fact that it has bad science as some sort of opinion. If you will work around that, I can be very compromising. If you get the right phrasing in the lead sentence, it doesn't even have to show up again in the rest of the lead.Kww (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kww. This seems hopeful. Lets see what can be done(olive (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show your stuff 

message: I've tidied the writing in the third paragraph of the lead, which was looking a little heated -- diff. I've named the critics and made clear that they're physicists, otherwise why are we citing them. I removed the part that said: "The American Chemical Society's review called it a "pseudoscientific docudrama." This was published in a newsletter about movies that's financed by the Society, so it wasn't really the Society's review, and the article was written by someone with no higher degree in the sciences.  I added that the film presents ideas about the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness, because not all these ideas can be described as "quantum mysticism," which is what the previous lead did. Hope this is okay. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to have an NPOV edit (: ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted Kww's reversion of SV's lead. I feel like her version is in accord with NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I just put it back. What is the point of having all of these discussions and RFC's and commentaries if people just bypass the discussions and put things like that (which was a very POV edit, not NPOV BTW) into the article. The author should have been well aware of the discussions ... after all, he left a note on the very talk page where it was being discussed.Kww (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct move, regardless of your opinion of the edit. No point in engaging in a process if people will be bypassing it, so let's respect the process. SlimVirgin, would you mind placing your version on this page so it can be discussed among the other options? Thanks for your help. Antelan talk 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. Good point. (Though you have to admit that the current version is more the result of aggressive editing than consensus.) I just thought it was nice to have a highly respected and neutral editor give input. It's an opportunity to see what a good lead should be. TimidGuy (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I complained then, too, but by the time I noticed it, people had edited the edits of the edits of the edits, and I would have had to roll back a whole pile of them. I think all of us should treat this article as protected under the honor system.Kww (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <ec> I also applaud SlimVirgin's bold edit; it was a great move towards neutrality and was far more true to the sources.  I'm disappointed to see the kneejerk reaction to revert it, and per Olive, I find it fairly hypocritical to use the RfC and discussion as an excuse to revert, all the while allowing edits from other editors who seem to be aligned with those who reverted and objected to this one.  This has been happening since the article was last unprotected.  Dreadstar † 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated earlier, I've asked everyone, time and time again, not to edit that section while we have this RFC going. I hate being steamrolled. Why do we bother to talk on this page if editors from either side just drop in changes to the disputed section? I'm sorry that you all saw her version as a masterpiece ... it's not the worst so far, but it certainly isn't near the best. I commented on it above where it had already been copied to the discussion page for commentary This is the longest, most painful editing process I have ever been through. What will it take to get everyone to recognize that the movie actively makes false statements, and that needs to be presented, as fact, in the lead?Kww (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kww, lets be straight here. By far the most changes to lead  created after January 10th(RfC date) and were created by Science Apologis and Rracecar. Brimba's attempts to edit SA's edits were almost always reverted. We know there are two groups here working to create what each considers to be an appropriate lead. Members of one group made substantial changes after the RfC. I don't see honour in that. I am not sure what to say about editing the article right now .SlimVirgin entered edits as an neutral editor.There was an opening there to move ahead and it was squashed. Don't know what to think right now.(olive (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would happily roll it back to the instant before the RFC's were filed.Kww (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll do it, but I would like to hear at least one more voice in favor.Kww (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. If you're going to do a proper RfC, roll back to the edit directly before the RfC and go from there. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Looks like it caught the article in the midst of Brimba undoing ScienceApologist's changes, so probably no one is happy now.Kww (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The glass half full person would say, "If no one is happy, there's a lot of room for compromise" : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an engineering background, so I always say "Look! Twice as much glass as you really needed!"Kww (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Very, very impressed Kww. Thankyou for "good-faith" move in the true spirit of Wikipedia.(not meant to be sappy!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And reverted.  Bad idea.  The way to fix progress is not to go back to a version that was more biased.  Guy (Help!) 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll probably get blocked if screw around with any more reverts today, so I guess I'll just have to say that I disagree. I reverted to a time stamp, without any regard to content, because I think that the article should be frozen from edits while the RFC is in place. Any attempt to do it based on contents is inherently biased towards one position in this debate or another. Kww (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just adding my voice to the choir: I agree with the rollback.  I shouldn't have edited.  Can't help pointing out though, in my defense, that the edits were content neutral. Rracecarr (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Science Apologist.Four editors have agreed to roll back the lead to a version just preceding the RfC. According to WP:CON, silence is considered agreement. So two editors want a roll back and the others don't. Thats a consensus. Worse though, is that one editor asked for an honour system to be put in place while the RfC is in progress, and that all editors refrain from editing. This needs to be honoured. Its only intelligent to think that we can't vote on a lead that is constantly changing even as we try to vote. SA you don't own this article. Please respect the other editors.(olive (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ScienceApologist, the reference to "rollback" in my edit summary was referencing Olive's comment above, "This rollback was as Kww indicated a concession in good faith", that's the rollback I was referring to, not any administrative function.  Dreadstar † 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the revert. While Rracecarr and Kww seem to have acknowledged that they want to assume good faith, JzG points out, rightly, that reverting to a biased version is not a worthy compromise. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Olive, Nealparr, Rracecar, Kww, and I assume Dreadstar, agree with the revert. Science apologist and Guy do not. Consensus is for the revert. I apologize to both of you for creating the misunderstanding. I used the wrong term, I should be saying revert not rollback.(olive (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the revert because it is the first, true instance of oppositional editors clearly working together and is a wonderful show of good faith and consensus.  I think others should take a lesson from this example - it's how Wikipedia works best.  Dreadstar † 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't consensus, this is intentional feet-dragging and reveling in the process. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation for my edit

message: This edit by Dreadstar wasn't good, and I am glad that ScienceApologist deleted it. The critics are so solid and representative of scientific consensus that we can treat their statements as fact. To minimise them as a group of anonymous critics understates the impact of the criticism.Kww (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, there is no consensus for the current lead that ScienceApologist has put back into place, as has been made very clear on this talk page.  Since there is no consensus for the changes to the lead that have taken place since this version was put into place by consensus, we'll need to work forward from that point. That consensus version is back in place, and we should discuss proposals.  Dreadstar † 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making rules up. We had this lead in place for almost a week. Taking it down now smacks of attempted ownership of the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Making rules up"? See WP:CON.  And I suggest you stop making accusations and instead focus on the ediorial content of the article.  Dreadstar † 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you stop acting unilaterally without discussion if you really take WP:CON seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My attempt to change the lead was no different than your or Philosophus' changes.  Characterizing a bold edit as a "unilateral" act that goes against WP:CON is a false comparison.  If you took WP:CON seriously, then we would now be on the last version that was put into place by consensus and not the current, disputed version.  Dreadstar † 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's review: I never made any claims for consensus, you did. It seems from this last comment that you now seem to think that WP:CON applies favorably to anything bold that you do and unfavorably to anything I or Philosophus does. I encourage you to drop the consensus rhetoric once and for all. There clearly is no consensus here, not for your version, not for Philosophus' version, not for anyone's version. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's backwards; I'm favorably comparing my edit with Philosophus' and your changes to the lead.  What I'm saying is that if my change is removed for lack of consensus, then the same should be done for the current lead, which was put into place without consensus.  And sorry, but you did indeed make "claims for consensus," first by your comment in this edit summary and second, by your refusal to support going back to the last consensus version. Dreadstar † 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to change lead 

message: In the vein of "the scientific criticism just isn't that complex", here is a version that we would end up with if we gave short change to everything that just isn't that complex:
What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 film. The film grossed over $10 million.
Topics are discussed in the film. Marlee Matlin acts in the film. Some scientists do, too.
Some groups didn't like the film. Perhaps this will be illustrative for why I don't think that Dreadstar's proposed lead is acceptable. Antelan talk 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute! But a red herring.(olive (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not a red herring. An illustrative example of why overly short summaries, while technically accurate in a sense, are not useful. Antelan talk 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that is not a summary and to try and compare something so far-feched with what is being proposed is indeed a red-herring, strawman argument.  Dreadstar † 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's a misunderstanding of both terms. If I were proposing this as an actual lead, this would be a red herring (a distraction). If I were suggesting that this was actually your proposal for a lead, this would be a straw man. This is neither. It is an illustration of why your versions don't work. Antelan talk 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I believe you did it in good faith, I still find the example you presented to be misrepresentative of what I've proposed.  From that perspective, it does indeed appear to be creating a position that is easy to refute, while attributing it to me..basic strawman.  As for red herring, because it's misrepresentative, it is information provided which is not necessary to solve the given problem...  Dreadstar † 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See illustration on Wiktionary: That which illustrates; a comparison or example intended to make clear or apprehensible, or to remove obscurity. This example is not misrepresentative of my point. It does not claim that this is your position. This simply illustrates my point. Now, let's stop dealing with your qualms about the way I have chosen to present this point, and focus on the point at hand, shall we? (Note: the proportionality is roughly 5:1 here, making it an imperfect parallel.)Antelan talk 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodnesss, gracious...and just what is it that you've illustrated?  Purportedly what my lead proposal reflects: a "too short summary."  Which misrepresents what I'm proposing.  Dreadstar † 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Science isn't that complex

message: In this diff, I present my version beside Dreadstar's version. I think mine is preferable (of course) as it is more detailed and less equivocal, but I'd like feedback. Antelan talk 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:LEAD, the lead section does not need too much detail, it is supposed to be a concise summary of the article.  The details, such as the different organization names and other specifics of that nature, belong in the body of the article and not the lead.  Does a letter about the movie that is published in Physics Today really mean that Physics Today needs to be specifically mentioned in the lead? As for "equivocal", I'm not sure what that means..are you referring to calling some of the participants "fringe scientists? What exactly do you mean?  Dreadstar † 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They look about the same to me, but we're beyond that now anyway. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly did we "move beyond this"? Why have people started directly editing the article when we are still pretty far from any consensus as to wording? I'm about to go to bed, will look at this in the morning, and hope I don't wake up to a 300-revert long edit trail. It's really hard to work on an article when everyone feels free to just hack away, knowing full well that there are other editors interested in the article that take extremely different views. Ignoring the views of others is where edit wars start. At least NeilParr and Olive try to discuss their changes before the make them.Kww (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For the record, my WP:BOLD edit to the lead was based on existing concerns raised on the talk page and is considered by me to be my "best effort" at resolving the disputes. I felt it was a good lead, followed Wikipedia guidelines that call for a neutral summary of the current version of the article, and felt that it reflected consensus because I made changes based on everyone's concern at the time. I went ahead and made the change because I don't think I'll be able to come up with a better one, and left a disclaimer that anyone can revert if they disagree. I thought it (and some of the variations) make a good lead but would be more than happy to be proved wrong by a better one. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Which version?

message: * Replace current lead with version:  A (first choice), B (second choice). Dreadstar † 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Succinctly is right. Don't you think there is already too much in the current lead or do you believe it is succinct as it is? Anthon01 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Did you read my suggested lead paragraph below?Rracecarr (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did see that without realizing that it was you. I like the fact that it is covering the science part more succinctly. THe question is could you have made the scientific criticism more general?  Anthon01 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Version opinion polling

message: * Version A (with statements like ... connections between new age, spiritual concepts and established scientific theories) really tells you nothing about why the commentary is noteworthy or even interesting. I'd see that and think, "Sure, some scientists don't like New Age stuff, moving on now..." Version B (with statements like speculate that quantum mechanics may be linked with consciousness) gives you much more precise and interesting picture. Neither of these are more desirable than the current lead, which does an even better job of neatly summarizing the article. Antelan talk 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Version A&B Discussion

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)
replies: text: Just to make clear, I don't have a dog in this hunt so to speak. I appreciate that you quoted much of what I suggested above, however, I think that what is really holding back an acceptance of a reasonable consensus on this issue of a simple, concise, neutral and accurate lead appears to me to be a certain lack of respect toward any version one side or the other seems to think minimizes their particular point of view. Give the facts and let those who want to delve deeper into the subject the choice of making up their own minds. The lead isn't the place for "defense" of any POV, period.Awotter (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No disrespect intended. Your opening was about the right length, and presented the things that needed to be presented, in roughly the right order. It just had serious POV problems that needed correction before I would find it acceptable.Kww (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Awotter: I think you version is the excellent, perhaps the best I've read so far. In particular, your version sounds NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Anthon01, I appreciate that. The level of discourse is pretty intense in here, I thought helping rewrite the Alger Hiss lead was tough. I think folks will come up with something balanced.Awotter (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version, Version, Everyone's got a version ... here's Kww's 

message: Let's try to get to the point.  As I see it, the bone of contention that is halting forward progress is this:  
Some editors (ScienceApologist, Kww, Antelan, JzG, Rracecarr, Naturezak, Flying Jazz, etc--call them group I) believe that there are ample references to support a statement such as "Bleep makes up false things and presents them as science," and that any qualification of such a statement does a disservice to the reader by giving the impression that there is more doubt as to the quality of the science than there actually is.  
Other editors (Olive, TimidGuy, Dreadstar, Nealparr, etc--group II) are in favor of a phrasing such as "Some scientists have criticized Bleep for what they say are made up false things presented as science."  They believe that such a statement is the only kind that can truly be backed up by references, and that readers should be able to form their own opinion of the validity of the ideas in the movie after reading the comments of certain scientists and others, duly collected and reported without any synthesizing by editors.
Did I get this right?  If so, let's try to write this one sentence--I have a feeling things will flow easily from there.  Is any kind of compromise possible?  Group II (and Group I for that matter), would you be amenable to a phrasing such as "mainstream scientists agree...", or "the unequivocal consensus of the scientific community is..."?  These are not quite a direct statement that Bleep is wrong, but still, to my mind, leave little doubt as to the veracity of the science.Rracecarr (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have it basically right. The one problem to be dealt with is that our situation on the sources is that we have a handful of sources that noticed the movie. Those sources can be verified as being accurate and reliable, and we can easily turn up hundreds of sources that back them on the science, but not hundreds dealing with the movie. Thus, we cannot apply the word consensus to the movie, just the science.Kww (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I edited the article to reflect my idea of a compromise. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His contribution may be seen here.Kww (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good edit.  Support. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, the constant excision from the article of mainstream critique is a pressing problem.  The quotes from ACS and others offset the claim to be a documentary.  It is not a documentary, it is a propaganda film by some rather questionable new-age cultists, and the article in failing to reflect that mainstream perspective is failing WP:NPOV pretty badly - it is reasonable to quote those people because they are normally very moderate voices, and it takes a special kind of fautity to provoke them to invective.  Needless to say it's another science v. pseudoscience fight, and as always we are hapmered by the fact that in the main science simply points and laughs at this kind of twaddle because it is so self-evidently bogus, but as always we must strive to reflect the fact that anybody seriously involved with what the film portrays as its subject, including quantum mechanics, has either ignored the film as fatuous or has derided it in whatever venue comes to hand.  Guy (Help!) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, that's an opinion to express in the RfC. Everyone editing the intro to insert their opinion goes absolutely nowhere. You're an admin right? Shouldn't you be helping to see the RfC process work? --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Really, the half article are scientists pointing out that the movie is not very likely to represent science properly. And I see nothing in the article that conveys a message that the movie is factual. Where exactly is there a NPOV? I see it reflect a mainstream opinion. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have an idea to help WP:NPOV in this article, but I don't think you'd like it very much. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to post it. I'm open to suggestions. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It involves a compulsory vacation for fringe and pseudoscience POV-pushers. That would improve a lot of articles. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia supports compulsory vacation for POV-pushers. The thing about that is that you have to develop consensus that an editor is pushing a non-neutral point of view. So at some point you have to build consensus whatever way you go. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the problem is the exact opposite. I see articles being written from a non-scientific rational skeptic way too often. This is not why rules against pseudoscience/fringe POV was made. Making the article "rational skeptic" POV is not NPOV. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: With the exception of Benjamin's edit, I'm ignoring the article itself right now because there seems to be an edit war going on there. I will say that Benjamin changing "The film presents many ideas which are not supported by science" to "The film presents many concepts which are considered unlikely according to mainstream science" does not seem to be a compromise to me. I just began posting on this talk page today so I can't talk too much about groups of editors here, but I suspect that many of the editors characterized as falling in Group I ("Bleep makes up false things and presents them as science") may actually be in a different group with me (Group zero?) and would say there is an important distinction between "False things" and "unscientific things." Many false statements still fall within the realm of science, but when ideas are presented as science that are not science, then whether they are true or false is indeterminate because, with a scientific standpoint, the ideas fall in the realm of Not even wrong. Back to the hairstylist analogy, if a film about hairstyling depicted hairstylists discussing surgical techniques, would the introduction to an NPOV article focus on whether the surgical techniques were correct or not? I don't think so. It would focus on the fact that surgery does not fall within the realm of hairstyling during this century. The three references cited by the current version of the introduction indicate that this film depicted people who seemed to be scientists discussing ideas about topics that do not fall within the realm of science. "Not supported by science" already looks like an NPOV compromise to me between group zero and group 2. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I proposed What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a 2004 independent film that misrepresents science as supporting New Age beliefs as an introductory sentence. Even if, by some stretch if the imagination, their beliefs are true, they are not supported by science, and to state that they are is a misrepresentation. I think it passes NPOV, and gets the major point across.Kww (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well..if we were having an anti-pseudoscience rally then your introductory sentence would win. But if a fairly uninvolved editor like SlimVirgin thinks the current introduction requires a lighter touch, imagine what she would think of that opening sentence! C'mon...do you really think the opening sentence in an encyclopedia should be so confrontational? Flying Jazz (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While I think that it is crucial that this information is conveyed in the lead, I don't think that that specific wording works in the intro sentence. The fact that it misrepresents science is lead-worthy, but the intro sentence will probably be fine if we note that it is controversial, and then expand on the controversy below. So I agree with the sentiment, just not with this exact wording. Antelan talk 00:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I struggled with was an alternate for the first sentence that didn't give excessive credence to the movie. "... a controversial movie that explores the link between science and New Age beliefs"? Nope, because there isn't a link to explore. All alternatives that I could come up with failed for similar reasons.Kww (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Posits? Antelan talk 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an even fancier word than "pseudoscience", but accurate. Another worry is that if we don't state the lack of support in the first sentence, it's going to get lost in a morass of "criticized by some" language again.Kww (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what's important for the first sentence is the goal attempted by the filmmaker. How about "...is a 2004 film that attempts to relate science and spirituality using documentary interviews and a fictional narrative "? Flying Jazz (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know their intent? Perhaps it "succeeded in bilking people for millions of dollars by confusing them about quantum physics." I suggest that we stay many miles away from "intent."Kww (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh...Some previous editor wrote copy and I am making an effort to edit it. The current version says "combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative to posit a connection between science and spirituality" and the verb "attempt" seems more Wikipediaish to me than "posit" for an article about a film. I reasonably suspect that was their intent because the references left by a previous editor direct me to an official webpage that declares the film is a "blend of Quantum Physics, spirituality, neurology and evolutionary thought," so I suspect that even critics of the film would say that the filmmakers attempted to relate science to spirituality. However, "attempts to blend" might work better than "attempts to relate" and is more verifiable. I've already said you won the anti-pseudoscience competition. Say? Care to collaborate in editing an article for Wikipedia? Flying Jazz (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am cooperative. I simply don't believe that we have access to the filmmakers "goal" or "intent", so that can't be the focus of the lead sentence. We just don't know what it is. We can only describe what they actually did, and we need to keep that in mind.Kww (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the discussion was in regards to the filmmaker's stated intent, not about some attempt to read their minds or divine what lies behind the scenes.  Wikipedia needs to report what they have said thier intent was.  Dreadstar † 03:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of reporting is where it is important to use language that attributes the statement, because the veracity of the statement cannot be cross-checked.Kww (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "... that suggests a connection between science and New Age beliefs." I'm not partial to any of this, just lobbing verbs out there. Antelan talk 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I prefer posits. Kww (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe it is meant to be entertainment. At least Brian Josephson mentioned that in passing somewhere. However, I do feel that the "science" in the movie is really "fringe science" and IMO any science, true or not, any method, qualifies as science. It is just not mainstream science. That is why I feel this qualification is important. Even astrology, can be considered science in that it is knowledge; but it is not mainstream, hard science, or true. I guess I just hate the word "science" used as if it was a singular concept. Well, it can be actually useful for primitive societies. :) Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to this article, what are you suggesting? Antelan talk 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, messed up my edit. I am awaiting more discussion, but mentioning both that it is accused of "misrepresenting" or "using science in a problematic fashion" in addition to saying that the movie "presents claims mainstream science find unlikely" should cover all bases. The act of mixing science and spirituality has implications that science has huge problems dealing with. For example the quantum-consciousness link is something that has been discussed a lot in science throughout ages, and is known for being an "unanswerable question". The debunking depends on what interpretation you subscribe to. So, absolute claims are problematic, but it is fair to call it very unlikely. :) Perhaps I am rambling, but this would probably satisfy those who object to skeptical POV. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just arrived here today, and I agree strongly with your "c" and "d." As for "a" and "b," I disagree just as strongly. If knowledgeable opinionated people can create Wikipedia articles about important political matters then they should be able to do so about a silly little movie! Flying Jazz (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Boiling it down

message: I'm lost and the talk page is a mess. Can someone more familiar with the RfC reformat it below so we can look at it from the perspective of finishing it up? --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is good now?  Dreadstar † 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC clean up

message: With all the talk about the rejection of the film by mainstream science, it may have been overlooked that mainstream spirituality doesn't really accept the ideas either. Contrary to the film maker's assertion that the concepts in the film "can be found in Taoism, Buddhism, Yoga, the Alice Bailey material, Kabballah, Theosophy, Unitarianism, Christian Science, and dozens of other religions, spiritual disciplines and paths", it's really only found in New Age circles. An excellent critical review of the film from the mainstream spirituality side can be found in "Taking the Quantum Leap... Too Far?" an article in What is Enlightenment? Magazine.
Great quote:
...even the founding fathers of quantum physics/mechanics—Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Sir Arthur Eddington, et al.—who were all self-proclaimed mystics, strongly rejected the notion that mysticism and physics were describing the same realm. The attempt to unify them is, in the words of Planck, “founded on a misunderstanding, or, more precisely, on a confusion of the images of religion with scientific statements. Needless to say, the result makes no sense at all.” Eddington was even more explicit: “We should suspect an intention to reduce God to a system of differential equations. That fiasco at any rate must be avoided. However much the ramifications of physics may be extended by further scientific discovery, they cannot from their very nature [impinge upon] the background in which they have their being.”
And there's the crux of the confusion. Quantum physics deals with the abstract, symbolic analysis of the physical world—space, time, matter, and energy—even down to the subtlest level, the quantum vacuum. Mysticism deals with the direct apprehension of the transcendent Source of all those things. The former is a mathematical system involving intensive intellectual study, and the latter is a spiritual discipline involving the transcendence of the intellectual mind altogether. It's apparently only a very loose interpretation of physics, and a looser interpretation of mysticism, that allows for their surprising convergence—and opens the door to the even wilder idea that by drinking some of this quantum mystical brew, you'll be able to create your own reality. 
Not sure if anyone is interested in adding something along these lines when the article becomes unlocked, but I personally feel it is an important point of view. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This perhaps is more relevant to the quantum mysticism article. But I notice the movie is more along Consciousness causes collapse‎ which is an inconclusive philosophical discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were about the mathematics of CCC, it'd be a boring film. The reason viewers latched onto it is because of the New Age ideas presented in the film: we create our own reality, everyone is One, and so on. It is a movie about quantum mysticism, not quantum physics. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Resource on spiritual views

message: Rracecarr, Science is not an absolute set of beliefs.  You can get close to scientific fact in things like "the world is round," but we are not nearly there yet with much related to QM.
Antelan:  Want to write from the mainstream?  Then let's set the numbers of people who liked the movie against the numbers who disliked it.  You don't want mainstream.  You want scientific mainstream, and WP is not SPOV. But if you want to go with that concept, let's see if we can even fit a criticism into the lead, maybe a short sentence, to go with the short paragraph of criticism way down the page. 
Let me ad to that: Usually, "mainstream" around here means a tiny cohort of skeptics.  In this case, we have a mainstream, and a scientific mainstream.  The mainstream liked the movie.  The scientific mainstream didn't.  There is no problem with writing the scientific mainstream's opinion of Bleep.  However, the article is about Bleep, not the science of Bleep, so giving undue weight to scientific arguments is just not correct.    Also, I don't think we've discussed the scientific concepts in the movie nearly enough to warrant that much criticism.  But setting all this aside, at the very least we should not just make an absolute statement about the movie being "pseudoscience."  In addition to being totally wrong according to the mainstream sources, and totally unfair, it is against WP:ATT. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this - I'll speak for myself, and you can misrepresent my views in your head instead of in writing. Antelan talk 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Antelan-that is uncivil and uncalled for. Please cease.  — Rlevse • Talk •  03:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone directly misattributes views to me on a public talk page, I will correct them. Antelan talk 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then correct them, but do it civilly.  — Rlevse • Talk •  03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier to remain so if there was more balance. Here, you have let someone get away with writing a polemic directed at me by name, but you have censured me for correcting his incorrect claims about me. Antelan talk 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see it that way, but all the continual never-ending wikidrama and incivility on science/pseudoscience-paranormal articles needs to stop, so I'll warn everyone to stay civil, this applies to both sides.  — Rlevse • Talk •  03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Benjaminbruheim & Dreadstar make it seem like this documentary presents fringe science (punished by oh so closeminded materialistic editors) when its actually dealing with absolutely unscientific spiritual theories, side by side with unrelated scientific tidbits, this is not a matter of opinion, that is why they make no assertions on it. so its not a matter of scientific mainstream vs scientific minorities, the interpretations of black hole properties as singularities are a matter of currents of science, where there is a mainstream and many other interpretations, wether you can make appear a ham by thinking real hard about it or get a clinically depressed adult leave its medication and be fine by praying are not. they also talk about the coppenhaggen interpretation being too materialistic, but the coppenhaggen interpretation is in itself a very spiritual one, and an actually materialistic approach can be devised by reading marxist interpretations, such as in omelianovsky's philosophical problems of quantum mechanics. the ideas presented, if in good will are not better than misunderstanding of complicated matters into simple and exciting but erroneous mystic conclusions, and if in ill will, a concoction of falacies and truths to beddazzle the unninformed into believing unfounded myths. its not even pseudoscience but scientification of esoteric postures thowards reality. its is nothing alike to newton and electromagnetc properties, its more like a victorian fortuneteller using newton's electromagnetic descriptions to sum up how a glass ball conducts the future into visual 'vortexes'. the reason you wont find any respected scientists agreeing with the movie nor a lot actually talking about it is because it is not science, it is not proposing anything, it is not reviewing scientific data, it is not even based on scientific principles (if you have any doubt about what constitutes science please review the Scientific_method) and this is not OR either, this is what dawkings was reffering to in a very abbreviated manner, and what all other scientific reviews read Yupi666 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New header, above section

message: I gather there is some debate here. But what on earth is it about? I think that although the film is pretty flaky (the last half in particular), it does serve to highlight some modern physics in a relatively digestable form. It is definitely better than the Dancing Wu Li Masters.--Filll (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh.  The debate is about whether we should, basically, bash it or not. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's about as neutral as I can get. I'm avoiding this article today, because I'm near explosion point.Kww (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you put it well, and I think you get to the nub of things.  
1. There isn't really any such thing: we always attribute, certainly in cases such as this.
2. It's about a movie.  It's pop culture.  What did you think? ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If it's a movie about pop culture, then it looks like we've misidentified it as a movie that posits a connection between science and spirituality. If science isn't part of it, what is? Antelan talk 01:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What User:Martinphi said was that the article is about a movie, a piece of pop culture. He didn't say or in any way imply that the movie is about pop culture. No doubt you simply misunderstood his comment. Dlabtot (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. If the movie isn't about pop culture, but instead is about science, then its scientific claims are fair game for evaluation on a scientific basis. We don't get to make this evaluation, but the reliable sources that we have certainly do. Antelan talk 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is something in that.  But the problem is that we never really discuss the movie's speculations.  But we have lots of criticism.  So, we need to beef up one or cut down the other.  But I don't care, I just don't want it biased from the start, in the form of absolute statements without ATT. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think there is something to that, as well. I have always argued for attribution (not necessarily in the form of quotation) for statements likely to be challenged in this article. Antelan talk 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate