→Moving forward: how's this |
|||
Line 551: | Line 551: | ||
:And I certainly do not appreciate attack-headers and have changed this section's name. I suggest you focus on the editorial content of the article and not on other editors. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
:And I certainly do not appreciate attack-headers and have changed this section's name. I suggest you focus on the editorial content of the article and not on other editors. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
::You are taking [[WP:OR]] to an extreme if you claim there is no consensus on this film. There is a consensus in the scientific community on each position that this film takes, and it doesn't come out on the side of this film. Do all those sources discuss the film? No, so we can't use them as sources about the film. But to claim that the sources that '''do''' discuss the film don't represent the consensus on those topics is stretching things to the breaking point. There is no controversy about this film. The film misrepresents science.[[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
::You are taking [[WP:OR]] to an extreme if you claim there is no consensus on this film. There is a consensus in the scientific community on each position that this film takes, and it doesn't come out on the side of this film. Do all those sources discuss the film? No, so we can't use them as sources about the film. But to claim that the sources that '''do''' discuss the film don't represent the consensus on those topics is stretching things to the breaking point. There is no controversy about this film. The film misrepresents science.[[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::No, I'm not taking OR to the extreme. Please provide evidence of the consensus you believe exists. We need solid sources to say there is consensus from the [[scientific community]] on this film. That there is controvesy is sourced. In much the same way, I don't think anyone is really advocating that the article say there is controversy in the scientific community about the film. So, this is a [[Beating a dead horse|dead horse]]. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I apologize if I have given offense, Dreadstar. The heading was meant to reflect ''my'' confusion. Regarding the [[scientific consensus]] - I've explained this before. [[Physics Today]] is the closest thing to a single journal that reflects the views of the entire physical sciences community, and the [[American Chemical Society]] is also very large. So we have sources that are as close as you can get to a single summary of the scientific consensus, and they say that the movie is [[pseudoscience]]. As Kww notes, ''there are no sources in the scientific community that show support for the film'', while there are sources that show the contrary. There is in fact ''no'' controversy in the scientific community about the film - it is agreed to be nonsense. The controversy arises since the film's producers claim that their ideas are supported by physics - which they are not, making the film pseudoscience. Now, promoting one particular pseudoscience is the entire reason for the movie's existence. That must be made very clear. If it weren't pseudoscience, then this talk page would not be anywhere near as long. [[User:Michaelbusch|Michaelbusch]] ([[User talk:Michaelbusch|talk]]) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
I apologize if I have given offense, Dreadstar. The heading was meant to reflect ''my'' confusion. Regarding the [[scientific consensus]] - I've explained this before. [[Physics Today]] is the closest thing to a single journal that reflects the views of the entire physical sciences community, and the [[American Chemical Society]] is also very large. So we have sources that are as close as you can get to a single summary of the scientific consensus, and they say that the movie is [[pseudoscience]]. As Kww notes, ''there are no sources in the scientific community that show support for the film'', while there are sources that show the contrary. There is in fact ''no'' controversy in the scientific community about the film - it is agreed to be nonsense. The controversy arises since the film's producers claim that their ideas are supported by physics - which they are not, making the film pseudoscience. Now, promoting one particular pseudoscience is the entire reason for the movie's existence. That must be made very clear. If it weren't pseudoscience, then this talk page would not be anywhere near as long. [[User:Michaelbusch|Michaelbusch]] ([[User talk:Michaelbusch|talk]]) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks for the apology, I accept and I understand what you meant. Well, close only counts in [[Horseshoes#Scoring|horseshoes and hand grenades]], so while the [http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-59/iss-11/p14.html Physics Today letter] may be the closest thing, it is clearly not a document that represents the consensus of the scientific community. It is a letter written to PT by two scientists who do not appear to be speaking on behalf of any group or be representatives of larger groups who have opinions on the movie. The American Chemical Society [http://pubs.acs.org/cen/reelscience/reviews/whatthe_bleep article] is a movie review that cannot be remotely mistaken for scientific consensus, if the article can can be considered "scientific" at all...it reads more like a tabloid review than anything I'd take as the official view of the scientific community. Wikipedia cannot make sweeping statements about the scientific community's view or consensus regarding this film. The film has received attributable criticism from a few members of the scientific community, that's all we can say in the lead. Further details can are presented in the body of the article. To do more is undue, unless we can come up with more sources. |
|||
:The rest of what you write is your opinion, and can't be included. If you have specific content and sources that you'd like to add to the article, you're more than welcome to present them here or in a sandbox for discussion. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:48, 18 December 2007
Talk Page Tags | |
---|---|
Controversial Article - Important!
Previous discussions: Archives
| |
Wikipedia's Five Pillars |
Further references needed
The section Promotion needs sources, if anyone can find the time to locate some! This info may already be in the existing links about the show. Dreadstar ☥ 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
TM Study
Hi, Dreadstar. Not sure why you removed the sentence citing OR. It's from the study itself. TimidGuy 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, I see. So what can be done? The source is wrong. TimidGuy 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I guess my argument would be that it's not a reliable source because it has errors, doesn't say where the information is from, etc. And it's misleading. TimidGuy 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Controversy section
The last paragraph in the Controversy section is written in a very unencyclopedic style, it reads more like a sensationalistic tabloid headline. Need to be re-written. – Dreadstar † 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone who can find positive comment from a scientist is welcome to add it. I couldn't.1Z 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The scientists' reactions impeccably sourced. The article used to contain a discussion of the actual issues...1Z 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- The section reads much better now that Kww has rewritten it. I withdraw my objection to the style; the current version is acceptable. – Dreadstar † 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch
I really don't think the Quackwatch reference violates NPOV. It's verifiable, much better than referring to them as "a bunch of frauds" inline, and germane to evaluating what membership in that organization means.Kww 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how Quackwatch is relevant to the movie. It might be something that can be included in the Institute of Noetic Sciences article without issue, but it doesn't relate to this article and shouldn't be included here. – Dreadstar † 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Any time you use a proper noun for the first time, it's good style to introduce it: "Beechan Cliff School, an elementary school in Somerset", "Charlie's, a cafe in Bellevue, Nebraska", "Wikipedia, an online encylopedia", etc. The only time that you don't do it is when the topic is so famous that it is assumed knowledge on the part of the reader. I wouldn't write "The United States of America, a federalist republic located in North America", or "Microsoft, a software company." The Institute of Noetic Sciences is clearly in the first category. I believe "Institute for Noetic Science, an organization listed by Quackwatch" is a legitimate summary, containing only verifiable information. "Institute for Noetic Sciences, an organization that studies the relationship between science and consciousness", "Institute for Noetic Sciences, a group of deluded fools", and "Institute for Noetic Sciences, a pack of charlatans and frauds" are all three biased. The latter two are obvious. The first, which you would normally consider neutral, I would object to on the basis that it presumes that they study things, which I do not believe they do. As for Martinphi's comment, it isn't my fault that they are frauds. I certainly wouldn't be expected to describe a Ponzi scheme as an "investment vehicle" under the auspices of NPOV, would I? Kww 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Quackwatch itself has been discredited in numerous instances, including many times in court. search for Tim Bolen and Quackwatch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.83.249 (talk) 00:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
- Tim Bolen? You think of Tim Bolen as a reliable source? It is to laugh.Kww 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Bangkok, listed by Amnesty International and other watchdog organizations as a city of sex slave trafficking and child abuse, and known in Thai as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon (IPA: [kruŋtʰeːp mahaːnakʰɔn], กรุงเทพมหานคร (help·info)) or Krung Thep (กรุงเทพฯ (help·info)) for short, is the capital of and largest city in Thailand. Bangkok is located at 13°45′N 100°31′ECoordinates: 13°45′N 100°31′E, on the banks of the Chao Phraya River, near the Gulf of Thailand. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- So propose an introductory line that you believe is NPOV. Right now, mine's the only horse in the race.Kww 20:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bangkok, listed by Amnesty International and other watchdog organizations as a city of sex slave trafficking and child abuse, and known in Thai as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon (IPA: [kruŋtʰeːp mahaːnakʰɔn], กรุงเทพมหานคร (help·info)) or Krung Thep (กรุงเทพฯ (help·info)) for short, is the capital of and largest city in Thailand. Bangkok is located at 13°45′N 100°31′ECoordinates: 13°45′N 100°31′E, on the banks of the Chao Phraya River, near the Gulf of Thailand. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to introduce. Please read up on policy. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, here's a good example: Bangkok Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the reference to the Institute of Noetic Sciences needs an 'introduction' in this article. The link and the context in which it is presented serves to frame it's inclusion, if a reader wants to know more, a simple click is all it takes. If indeed, Kww is correct, then an introductory statement such as he suggests above is so pejorative and biased that it would never pass WP:NPOV, and any statement long enough to include a reference to Quackwatch that would reduce concerns of WP:UNDUE would be too much detail for this article. It may be the only horse because there is no race. – Dreadstar † 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No context
These paragraphs of the Controversy section don't have enough context to be comprehensible. I'm removing them here till someone can provide enough context so the reader can understand.
Hagelin's meditation study, published in 1999 in the peer-reviewed journal Social Indicators Research, showed that the rate of violent crime in Washington, D.C., decreased by 23% during the period of the study.[1] According to the study, the murder rate constituted 3% of the violent crime rate. Critics have pointed out that the number of murders increased during the study.[2] Hagelin won the Ig Nobel Peace Prize for this study in 1994.
According to an article posted by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Emoto's work with water crystals has been criticized as unscientific, and has not been peer-reviewed. Skeptic James Randi has offered Emoto his Million Dollar Challenge to prove his claims to Randi's satisfaction, but Emoto has not accepted.[2] The September 2006 issue of Explore The Journal of Science and Healing reported a study by Dean Radin, Gail Hayssen, Masaru Emoto, and Takashige Kizu, in which water crystals were judged under double-blind conditions to have greater aesthetic appeal than a control group.[3]
- They sound perfectly comprehensible to me. What about them makes them confusing? ---Bennie Noakes 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add this introductory sentence to clarify: "Two of the studies cited in the film have fallen under criticism: the Hagelin Meditation Study, and Emoto's work with water crystals." ---Bennie Noakes 02:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I also think that wording would be fine for a new paragraph in the Controversy section. VisitorTalk 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
John Gorenfeld
I deleted these comments that were inserted in the article:
Move to delete this entry - Who is John Gorenfeld and why is he more credible than the people that made the film? Why is all of this stuff attacking Ramtha (which is not even mentioned in the film) relevant in this Wiki?
Putting here in case they merit discussion. TimidGuy 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
According to his own web site (http://www.gorenfeld.net/), "John Gorenfeld is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in Salon..." The correct citation in Wikipedia should be "According to an article by freelance writer John Gorenfeld in Salon,..." VisitorTalk 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- The point of TimidGuy's comment is that that exact quote above was removed from the article, not that we are wondering who Gorenfeld is. It was inappropriate content for the article. I don't think we need to go into such great detail about Gorenfeld in this article, the reader can ascertain that information for themselves. The citation and current attribution is sufficient. Dreadstar † 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Ramtha
"Why is all of this stuff attacking Ramtha (which is not even mentioned in the film) relevant in this Wiki?" The allegations, if I understand them correctly, go something like this:
- Knight presents herself as a spiritual medium channeling a spiritual entity called Ramtha, but this is not how she is presented in the film. The filmmaker deliberately hid this information to make it seem that Knight was merely presenting a human opinion, making Ramtha's perspective palatable to a mass audience who would reject "channelled" material out of of hand if they were honestly told that was what was presented.
- Knight/Ramtha leads a cult.
- The filmmakers are devotees of this cult, and a major purpose of the film is propoganda or proselytizing for the cult, in an underhanded way.
I'm not commenting on these allegations, simply summarizing them. Please don't use this summary as an opportunity to debate them beyond whether or not they should be included in the article. VisitorTalk 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neat summary. I'd like to see it included in the article. I'd have had a better handle on the film watching it if I'd had this information up front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.65.158 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is already quite a lot of info about Ramtha in the article. The material above would seem to violate the policy of Neutral Point of View ("cult", "propaganda") and may not be appropriate in the article. TimidGuy 11:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Revisions to the lead
The lead should mention the names of the filmmakers, and the stars of the fiction section. I would also like to see the description of the movie expanded in the initial sentence: from "documentary interviews and a fictional narrative" to "documentary interviews, computer graphics animations of the topics discussed, and a fictional narrative dramatizing the key points." I believe this would better capture the unique genre-mixing character of the film. VisitorTalk 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would also like to see the article expanded, including the lead section. I don't think the article truly captures the spirit and content of the movie. I've had several readers comment that they read the article before they saw the movie, and were surprised by the fun, interesting, thought-provoking movie they saw. While I do see the need to make it clear that some, if not all of the concepts in the movie are not accepted, and indeed may be rejected by many scientists, I think we need to better represent the actual nature of the movie, which is to entertain and to provoke thought - IMHO...;)
- We do want to be careful not to add too much detail into the lead section, per WP:LEAD, it needs to be a concise, brief overview of the article. Details should be presented in the body of the article. Dreadstar † 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Revisions to "see also"
In the see also section, why is Einstein in the Media column rather than the Science column? It might be clearer to have three lists, rather than one three column list - which could make it seem that Michael Talbot documents the many-worlds interpretation of idealism, for instance - when there is no connection between items on the same row. VisitorTalk 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Pictures needed
It would be helpful to include at least one picture from the movie giving an example of:
- The fictionary narrative, e.g. the basketball court scene or wedding reception dance
- The documentary interviews
- The computer graphics visualizations
The poster picture doesn't really do a good job of representing the look of the movie. VisitorTalk 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Images of that nature would certainly be a nice addition. I would suggest to first read over Wikipedia:Fair use before adding, though. There are concerns over use of non-free and copyrighted images. Dreadstar † 18:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Books
The movie spawned several books, which are completely relevant to the movie. Besides, the article's title and subject is "What the Bleep Do We Know!?", not "What the Bleep Do We Know!? (movie)". Perhaps the article's lead should reflect this. I doubt there's sufficient material to spin out child articles on the books...but I'm open to the idea..! Any comments or suggestions? Dreadstar † 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The references cited for the books all clearly mention the connection between the books and the movie, so those entries meet WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Dreadstar † 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- If those books are linked to the movie, and not just to the kind of crap discussed in the movie, make the linkage clear in the article. As it stands, the paragraph looks like a New Age cheerleading section. I'll delete it again tomorrow if it hasn't been fixed.Kww 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The content is well sourced and is relevant to the movie. If you don't like the wording, and think it needs to have a clearer linkage, then by all means propose it. If you examine the references, you can see there is a very clear linkage to the movie, therefore you should assume good faith and try to improve the article instead of threatening an edit war. Dreadstar † 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- If those books are linked to the movie, and not just to the kind of crap discussed in the movie, make the linkage clear in the article. As it stands, the paragraph looks like a New Age cheerleading section. I'll delete it again tomorrow if it hasn't been fixed.Kww 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Upon further examination of the disputed entries, I find that the wording makes a very clear and strong connection between the movie and the books, e.g.:
- "The filmmakers worked with HCI Books to expand on the movie's themes in a book titled What the Bleep Do We Know!?"
- "The Little Book of Bleeps was created by the filmmakers after they observed movie patrons taking notepads to the theaters to capture the essence of the film. The book contains excerpts from the movie personally selected by filmmakers Arntz and Chasse"
If you can find a way to make it clearer than that, please propose new or additional wording.
WP:NPOV requires fair and unbiased commentary from all significant viewpoints. Just because you view positive comments about the movie and it's content as "new age cheerleading" and "crap", doesn't mean positive comments about the movie and its subject should be left out. This is the very same argument for the "criticism" comments about the movie. NPOV goes both ways. Dreadstar † 18:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- None of which connects to the paragraphs I deleted:
- New Page Books publicist Linda Rienecker, says it's a wider phenomenon. "A large part of the population is seeking spiritual connections, and they have the whole world to choose from now," she says. "They're beginning to realize that there is a universal force and it doesn't matter what you call it, it's how you connect to it." [4]
- None of which connects to the paragraphs I deleted:
- Author Barrie Dolnick says that "people don't want to learn how to do one thing. They'll take a little bit of Buddhism, a little bit of veganism, a little bit of astrology... They're coming into the marketplace hungry for direction, but they don't want some person who claims to have all the answers. They want suggestions, not formulas."[4]
- Bill Pfau, of Inner Traditions, stated that the "New Age community have become accepted into the mainstream." Pfau attributes this acceptance to the baby boom generation, which grew up alongside the New Age movement from the late 1960s onward.[4]
- Tie those to the movie, or delete them. The article doesn't connect them to the movie at all ... it just treats them as comments about New Ageism.Kww 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The editorial comments about the books are two steps removed from the movie. That is, they are not informative of the article topic and should be deleted. Furthermore, they are merely evaluative, rather than informative or descriptive, and do not pass muster for that reason anyway.Naturezak (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hagelin reference
You're right. Thanks for catching that. I just used the reference that was there already. I have been working on this article off and on and noticed Hagelin info said nothing about the science or publications, as info on most of the other individuals involved in the film did. Whatever personal opinions about the man are, he was or is a scientist. Thanks for remaining civil.(olive 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
I am stating that a scientist did in fact publish numerous studies in the fields mentioned. These are "contributions" in the field mentioned just because they add to the field -not whether these field's themselves benefited from the studies or not just added to. These statements are completely neutral. ..... This man also won the Kilby award considered to be one of the top 116 awards in the world, which also cooborates the fact that this scientist did in fact add something to fields he published in.Not arguing what, just that he did. The page SLAC cooborates that, as does the Kilby award page cited. There is big time POV here, a lack of civility on the part of one editor and frankly its not worth an edit war over. Just trying to create consistent material in this section of the article.(olive 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
- Hagelin may have written numerous articles claiming results in theoretical physics, but his recent work is not considered reputable by the scientific community. Do you know how many GTUs have been proposed? Out of curiosity, how did you get that 116 number? Michaelbusch 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then why has his most-cited paper been cited nearly 600 times? He has coauthored papers with top physicists. He's done research at two of the world's top particle accelerators (CERN and SLAC). While his research on the TM-Sidhi program is very controversial, his physics research is widely respected. The research done by him and his collaborators was featured in Discover magazine. The figure of 116 is from the Kilby site. [1] Doesn't matter to me whether the article include this info that was deleted, but I can't imagine anyone scanning that list of publications and not realizing that this is an accomplished scientist. TimidGuy 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- No one is specifying his recent work, past work nor is there any comment on the worth of the research. I am citing the work he did during his lifetime so far and these are the facts. This is a simple, general, neutral, one - line statement. Methinks your prejudice is showing. As I said its not worth an edit war over.(olive 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
The Kilby International Awards has been named by the International Congress of Distinguished Awards (ICDA) as one of the top 116 awards in the world following their study of 26,400 recorded prizes and awards around the world.
The ICDA seeks out the most distinguished and unique awards programs in the world which recognize outstanding achievement in the arts, sciences, literature, medicine, the environment, and humanitarian concerns. www.kilby.org/
- Oops. Michaelbusch, I responded to your post as it read before you put in the word "recent." TimidGuy 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ramtha in lead
Not wanting to start an edit war, but if I recall correctly, there has been quite a bit of discussion regarding having this in the article, let alone the lead. It seems POV to put it in the lead -- since this is an article about the movie, not about the interests of the producers. It seems like POV to try to highlight this as a way of discrediting everything that the movie presents. Eager to hear your thoughts. TimidGuy 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, if it is to go someplace in the article, it should be sourced. By the way, sorry about the truncated edit summary when I removed it. I was going to make a point about POV. TimidGuy 19:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, TG, this was discussed not too long ago and consensus was reached at that time. Dreadstar † 19:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Water Messages
The movie includes photographs of water said to be responding to messages printed on the outside of the bottle. Does anyone have the specific references given in the movie for this? Is this considered factual, or is it part of the fictional aspect of the movie? Are these simply microphotographs of ice crystals? --Lbeaumont 01:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- This particular form of bollocks derives from the work of Masaru Emoto. Michaelbusch 03:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- How could anyone reliably determine where the fictional part of this movie ends and the "documentary" section ends? Essentially none of the movie is generally considered factual, and "water messages" is just one of the more egregious examplesKww 11:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Fiction vs non-fictiom
It is clear from all the writing on this movie that there are documentary style inteviews (non-fiction) that go along with a fictional narrative. Dreadstar † 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. If all the reviews make this distinction, seems POV to disallow it in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The obvious distinction the editors are trying to make by removing "fictional" is that the non-fictional segments discuss what they believe to be fiction, which is a completely different thing than the segments themselves being fictional. One cannot say the movie does not contain a non-fictional narrative, even if that narrative is considered to be false or untrue. It's a non-fictional view. Dreadstar † 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- If they discussed it in good faith, then "fictional" would be inappropriate for the "documentary" sections. If they are consciously lying (a very real possibility), then even the documentary sections can be labeled "fiction." Would you settle for "narrative" as an adjective for the section?Kww (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- If they're consciously lying, they're consciously lying. It's still non-fiction, as they aren't acting, and do assert the truth of what they are saying outside of the film. --Philosophus T 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If they discussed it in good faith, then "fictional" would be inappropriate for the "documentary" sections. If they are consciously lying (a very real possibility), then even the documentary sections can be labeled "fiction." Would you settle for "narrative" as an adjective for the section?Kww (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The obvious distinction the editors are trying to make by removing "fictional" is that the non-fictional segments discuss what they believe to be fiction, which is a completely different thing than the segments themselves being fictional. One cannot say the movie does not contain a non-fictional narrative, even if that narrative is considered to be false or untrue. It's a non-fictional view. Dreadstar † 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Pseudoscience in lead
MichaelBusch, I really think it's a matter of POV pushing to put pseudoscience in the lead. Here's a useful metric: go to Google News archives and search on "What the Bleep." You get 2,240 results. Then if you add "pseudoscience" to the search results, you get 13. Obviously, most of the media reports didn't say anything about pseudoscience. It seems overemphasized to put it in the lead. Eager for your thoughts -- and justification other than your POV. TimidGuy (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not quite measured by Google hits. We've had this discussion before: the scientific community has consensus that What the Bleep is pseudoscience and ArbCom has stated that Wikipedia must reflect the consensus. That is sufficient. This discussion had been over for a long time, but I took a break from editing a while back and it seems that some inappropriate material has crept back in. Also, given the film's connection with Transcendental Meditation (admittedly indirect) and your COI, I would advise caution in your own editing of this page. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you have sources for a "scientific consensus"- show us. You don't, however, because there aren't any. Please don't edit war your verion, but wait for consensus. We had a long haul coming to this version, and it isn't appropriate for a single editor to simply come in and edit war his changes. At the very least, you need sources for such a POV. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, there are enough cites of the scientific community to show the consensus, as noted below by Kww. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you have sources for a "scientific consensus"- show us. You don't, however, because there aren't any. Please don't edit war your verion, but wait for consensus. We had a long haul coming to this version, and it isn't appropriate for a single editor to simply come in and edit war his changes. At the very least, you need sources for such a POV. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say Google, I said Google News. This is an index of media reports. If the scientific community has commented on the movie and called it pseudoscience, it would be there. You need to give evidence for your claim of consensus. Also, "vocal critic" was a subjective evaluation and not really suitable for encyclopedia writing. And my sincere apologies for inadvertently reverting a very good change you made when you added the word "fictional" in that particular context. TimidGuy (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are no positive reviews of this movie from scientifically credible sources. Not one. What more evidence of consensus do you need? The problem with this article comes, as it has for a while, from a misapplication of NPOV. No reliable sources say positive things about it, so the NPOV is that it is claptrap. It's painful to see us give undue weight to this movie's positions by hedging the language enough that its farcical nature isn't obvious. It's true that reviews don't normally say "pseudoscience" (even though Physics Today Online and Simon Singh used that word) ... they use more direct terminology,such as "tosh", "ridiculous balderdash", and "deliberately misquotes science."Kww (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- We aren't hedging. We are being neutral. Don't just come into an article and start edit warring. It won't work. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've been editing this article for quite a while, and no, the article isn't neutral. It violates WP:UW by treating the opinion of spiritualists as being on par with that of quantum physicists on the topic of quantum physics. They aren't equivalent, and it isn't neutral to act as if they are. I have suggested better leads in the past, but they've been rejected for this compromise, faux-neutral version.Kww (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- We aren't hedging. We are being neutral. Don't just come into an article and start edit warring. It won't work. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, you also know that I have edited this article considerably. I also have tried to implement ArbCom precedent here. Note that the lead you are objecting to so much doesn't even say that the film is pseudoscience - it simply says that there the scientific community has criticized it and gives the reason. That is cited and verified and is very definitely notable. Where then is the dispute? Michaelbusch (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- A scientific consensus, or criticism by the scientific community must be sourced. Now, if you want to attribute criticism to particular scientists, that's fine. But if an institution of science, such as the NSF hasn't spoken a consensus, then you can't source it. And this doesn't meet the Time cube threshold for obvious pseudoscience. You need something like these: [2] [3]. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I just want to be clear what I was objecting to. I think the version of the lead before MichaelBusch's edit that says that the film has been criticized is fine. What I objected to was how he skewed the tone by putting "pseudoscience" in the lead and by using the subjective phrase "vocal critic." I think it's unfortunate when those with a strongly held point of view can take something that's already making the point and skew the language so that it hits the reader over the head. This isn't in accord with the requirement of NPOV to use a neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's the edit that I thought was problematic [4]. I thought the lead was fine before MichaelBusch, in his words, sought to "emphasize the controversy." TimidGuy (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The controversy associated with the film is its promotion of pseudoscience. Now, the article correctly has a good discussion of that controversy - that almost every scientist who has published a statement on the film has condemned it as pseudoscience or nonsense (this is the scientific consensus). That controversy - and what it is - should be mentioned in the lead. Saying that the film is controversial doesn't convey the same information. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It couldn't have been more clearly mentioned. It was a matter of tone. "Pseudoscience" is a loaded word. And as I demonstrated, it was only used 13 times in 2,240 articles about the movie. Whew, what a lot of heat for a small point. But I guess you just love that word.
I love science and feel passionately about it. Take Intelligent Design. I've read Pennock's book, which is one of the definitive critiques. A wonderful book. But I was shocked when I went to the Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design and saw that the same group was there skewing the tone, beating the reader over the head with their point of view, and prominently putting their cherished word "pseudoscience" in the lead. I just don't think it's a way to make an encyclopedia. And frankly, I think it makes the scientific point of view look bad. TimidGuy (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Removed pending consensus
I'm removing the disputed passage here, pending consensus on how it should read:
The film has received criticism from scientists as promoting pseudoscience. Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film, has been one of its most vocal critics.
——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here is the latest consensus on the lead paragraph, any substantial changes must find a new consensus. Dreadstar † 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think the new version is much better, erring only by being a bit too tame.
I'm going to restore the old consensus for a bit.To have a weak sentence is better than having no sentence at all, and to have no sentence in the lead which even hints that there is no basis for this movies claims is malfeasance.Kww (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC) - Please forgive me for being rather hostile here, but that doesn't look like consensus to me. The entire page, which isn't even an archive of this talk page, seems to be you pushing one point of view with a number of other editors disagreeing, save for one comment by TimidGuy, who has major COI problems. That isn't consensus. Did you mean to link to something else? I would argue that not noting the criticism in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE, especially since the controversial nature is notable enough to mention in the lead. --Philosophus T 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think the new version is much better, erring only by being a bit too tame.
- Yes, Philosophus, it is an archive of this talk page, for the original see this. My intent throughout was that the article not contain original research per the Wikipedia policy WP:OR, I don’t believe that qualifies as “pushing a pov” as you describe. Criticism was noted in the lead from the very start, later modified to: this. The previous consensus was completely valid, as I’ve described in detail below. Dreadstar † 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
New lead
I would be happy with this version, if and only if DA actually did criticize using the word pseudoscience. Otherwise, we need another attribution.
Some scientists such as Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film, have criticized it as promoting pseudoscience.
——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- How is my new version? It doesn't use the word 'pseudoscience', it just notes that many of the claims are disputed. --Philosophus T 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Publisher's Weekly
The Publisher's Weekly link given here is to a search on their website, not an article. Is there some specific article it is supposed to point to? I expect this is just a simple linking mistake, but the current reference isn't to an RS. --Philosophus T 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- "According to Publishers Weekly, the movie was one of the sleeper hits of 2004..." It's reference number 4 in the current version. --Philosophus T 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought someone might know. I found it, however: [5]. Once I can get the PP lifted, I'll add that in, and fix the quote to make it clearer. --Philosophus T 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The edit war involved more than just you two. If you can get an agreement from all the editors involved that the warring stops and all edits discussed before being implemented, I think I could agree to have the protection lifted. Right now, I don't see it. Dreadstar † 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's a difference between edit warring and discussing all edits before implementation. Hardly any of the editors here would think of agreeing to the latter, especially considering past experiences with such attempts failing miserably. Considering your involvement, I'm also rather confused by why you would be in a position to decide on the matter. Regardless, we can wait and discuss the edits. --Philosophus T 01:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't make insinuations here, I didn't say I was in a position to decide. I said I couldn't agree to lifing of the block, which is an entirely different matter. If I did agree, I'd petition the blocking admin along with you to have it lifted - something I can't agree with yet. We can't have the previous edit warring continued. Does that clear up your confusion? Dreadstar † 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misinterpreted you there. I also agree that having another war like the one started today would be unfortunate. --Philosophus T 01:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let me also refer you to the Protection policy section on unprotection, which talks about consensus for an article being unprotected: "However, unless consensus has been reached, pages should not be unprotected soon after protection without prior consultation with the administrator who first protected the page. This is particularly important in the case of controversial pages, where the conflict may start up again and the protecting administrator may be in touch with the disputants." If we have consensus, it helps get that protection lifed in a more timely fashion. Dreadstar † 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't make insinuations here, I didn't say I was in a position to decide. I said I couldn't agree to lifing of the block, which is an entirely different matter. If I did agree, I'd petition the blocking admin along with you to have it lifted - something I can't agree with yet. We can't have the previous edit warring continued. Does that clear up your confusion? Dreadstar † 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's a difference between edit warring and discussing all edits before implementation. Hardly any of the editors here would think of agreeing to the latter, especially considering past experiences with such attempts failing miserably. Considering your involvement, I'm also rather confused by why you would be in a position to decide on the matter. Regardless, we can wait and discuss the edits. --Philosophus T 01:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The edit war involved more than just you two. If you can get an agreement from all the editors involved that the warring stops and all edits discussed before being implemented, I think I could agree to have the protection lifted. Right now, I don't see it. Dreadstar † 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like we have consensus for version before MichaelBusch sought to "emphasize the controversy" in the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- There may have been consensus among the editors that were here at the time. I was gone, and didn't notice the changes that were made; I think Michael had the same problem. Even then, the link given to support the consensus didn't seem to point toward any clear consensus, as there were a number of disagreements, and only two of the editors there seemed to give support to the proposed version, though there may have been more support that I haven't seen. Disregarding that, however, what is your opinion of the current version of the lead?--Philosophus T 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like we have consensus for version before MichaelBusch sought to "emphasize the controversy" in the lead. TimidGuy (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- <outdent> First, let's clarify the history of the consensus version that was in place until a short time ago, the article had been prviously full of original research, and and edit war ensued to keep that OR in place. The article was protected until a consensus of 7/for 1/against and 2/abstain was reached. That's our starting point and we need to find a new consensus for any substantial changes from that version.
- With that in mind, I can agree with the current lead section. How does everyone else feel? Dreadstar † 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- So if this were a straw poll, we'd have 3 who are OK with Philosophus' version of the lead. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify my position, I think that there could be a better version eventually, but the new version is currently reasonable and an improvement on the old one. I've also been working on the article on User:Philosophus/Sandbox. --Philosophus T 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- That previous straw poll is rather confusing to me. The statement for the poll on the 20th was that there was OR in the article that needed to be removed. Most of the supports, made between the 20th and the 21st, seem to be addressing that part of the statement. Then, on the 22nd, after the straw poll was essentially finished, the statement was amended to give support to a particular list of changes. Surely I'm mistaken here? --Philosophus T 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The poll was not amended on the 22nd. The list of items identified as OR was clearly laid out in the bleep sandbox, it is this particular list of changes that the straw poll was based on from the very beginning of the poll - a link to which was provided in the original Straw Poll Statement. Dreadstar † 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Philosophus, for inviting my opinion about the current version. I think it's fine. I was simply objecting to the way MichaelBusch sought to emphasize the controversy by skewing the tone. If I could have my way, I would make the tiniest change to your nicely worded version: instead of "many of the" I'd simply use "many." TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The poll was not amended on the 22nd. The list of items identified as OR was clearly laid out in the bleep sandbox, it is this particular list of changes that the straw poll was based on from the very beginning of the poll - a link to which was provided in the original Straw Poll Statement. Dreadstar † 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- So if this were a straw poll, we'd have 3 who are OK with Philosophus' version of the lead. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I object to using the word "controversy'
I'm about to go to bed, but my last comment for the night is that the real problem with the article is that we discuss the "controversy." There is no controversy about this movie ... essentially every novel claim it makes is false, and there is no dispute within the scientific community about that. To discuss the "controversy" provides the false impression that scientists actually discuss the issues raised by this movie, and that there is some merit to the movie's claims. We have reliable sources that say the claims raised in the movie about quantum mechanics are false, and we have no reliable sources that say the claims are true. That is important, and that should be the lead. Not "criticisms" by "some scientists", or accusations of "pseudoscience", just "false".Kww (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- While no doubt a lot of the movie is false, there are some scientists who discuss this- no doubt some would define them as non-scientists due to the fact that they discuss it, but that is neither here nor there. Also, we can't just do Synthesis and call something false, even if all our sources say so. Anyway, "controversy" isn't just between scientists. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- About quantum mechanics, "controversy" is only among scientists. If I sat down with the guy that runs the bowling alley and we got into a rousing discussion of the effect of observers on the pins and balls, that wouldn't be "controversy", it would just be "nonsense." Kww (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That the movie is bollocks of the highest order no scientist would dispute. That the movie was filmed and marketed seriously is also beyond dispute. Here is the disconnect and the cause of controversy. Since I don't want to dig through the text above:
- TimidGuy - there was not a clear consensus for the change to the lead a few months ago, as was noted, and I was on break when it was changed.
- Re. some of Martin's previous statements: with full knowledge of its connotation, I use the word pseudoscience to refer to a broad category of things that the scientific community uniformly/almost entirely rejects, purport to have some scientific basis when they do not, and are in some sense marketed on that basis. Thus What the Bleep is pseudoscience. ID is in a grey area between pseudoscience and work that is not, depending on what justification is attempted. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't believe you think Intelligent Design can be a grey area- I think it's pseudoscience, and makes this movie look like science along side of it. And as noted above, with proper attribution I don't mind having the word in the article or the lead. But not if it isn't properly attributed. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- ID is pseudoscience when it attempts a false justification of itself based on science. When it doesn't, it is simply a religious/philosophical viewpoint that is not pseudoscience because science is not relevant to the idea. Regarding the article: please explain what you would consider proper attribution. At the moment, we have the Physics Today article, we have a couple more cases where scientists have used the word 'pseudoscience', and then we have a very large number of scientists who debunked the film without using that specific word but used other words with the same or worse meaning. These are cited in the controversy section. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here. Or we could just choose the most reliable publication that calls it pseudoscience and attribute to that. I thought ID was a euphemism for Creationism invented to get it into science classes. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- ID is a combination of creationism, bad mathematics, and willful blindness. Back to the discussion of the lead, it is far too soft. I would like something more along the line of "Bleep misrepresents quantum mechanics and other sciences, with critics describing it as pseudoscience or balderdash". When all reliable sources say the same thing, it is perfectly fine, even under NPOV, to report their statements as facts. There is no reason to soften it with language like "some scientists ..."Kww (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Here. Or we could just choose the most reliable publication that calls it pseudoscience and attribute to that. I thought ID was a euphemism for Creationism invented to get it into science classes. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Related to Kww's suggestion and my earlier questioning of Michaelbusch's edits is this section on Fairness of Tone from WP:NPOV: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views impartially."
- My argument was not related to content but to the way some editors with a strongly held point of view tend to skew tone. In my opinion, it detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia as well as violates policy. TimidGuy (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- What you keep skipping over is "bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views". The view that the movie presents anything worthwhile about science is an extreme minority view. It should not be held up as worthy. Can you find one reliable source that indicates that the positions this movie takes about scientific issues are credible?Kww (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- My argument was not related to content but to the way some editors with a strongly held point of view tend to skew tone. In my opinion, it detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia as well as violates policy. TimidGuy (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- We are writing an encyclopedia. Have you ever heard an encyclopedia which took such a mean, nasty, confrontational, emotional and invective tone? No, you haven't, because they don't. They state things in a neutral-sounding way. Saying pseudoscience, with attribution, is the very most that can be done. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know that we are writing an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't represent fringe views as facts. That is really the crux of this disagreement. The article presents the views of the movie under the guidance of all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation when it should be presenting it as an extreme minority view. Nothing in that sentence was mean or nasty, and it did not manufacture anything that did not exist. The words it uses were quotes from reliable sources about the movie, that are not contradicted by any other reliable source. Trying to be nice about the movie is inappropriate.Kww (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- We are writing an encyclopedia. Have you ever heard an encyclopedia which took such a mean, nasty, confrontational, emotional and invective tone? No, you haven't, because they don't. They state things in a neutral-sounding way. Saying pseudoscience, with attribution, is the very most that can be done. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing things. This isn't an article about, say, quantum mechanics, with the movie representing a position as opposed to other positions. Your argument about minority views would be exactly right in a different context. But this is an article about the movie itself. You must characterize the movie in a neutral way, while also presenting well sourced information contradicting specific claims made in the movie. Speaking of quantum mechanics, seems like we're really in a vacuum bubble here. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
<outdent> There is no reason to treat it with kid gloves: that kind of invective "balderdash," is just unencyclopedia. You need to really read NPOV: you don't present extremem minority views in a biased way: rather, you don't present them at all. And please don't cite an essay to try and circumvent policy, especially when the essay doesn't even say what you argue. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can live without the specific word "balderdash". What I really want is for the lead to present a statement about the movie, as supported by reliable sources, not some watered down "criticized by some scientists for ..." lead. The thing I believe we need to stay scrupulously neutral about is motive. The movie does "misrepresent" science. That is indisputable. Whether that misrepresentation is because the creators genuinely believe their material or whether they were motivated by financial gain is unclear, and I don't want to touch it.
- How about ""Bleep misrepresents quantum mechanics and other sciences, with critics describing it as pseudoscience", with citations to sources for "misrepresents" and "pseudoscience"?Kww (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like we're getting closer. I'm not entirely sure exactly what it misrepresents, but I think the major thing is not QM, as QM effects have been recently observed on the level of atoms and larger, I think, but rather that there is very little scientific data which would justify the strong implication of a relationship between consciousness and QM. That, I think, would be where the pseudoscience comes in. I'm not sure what other sciences it mis-represents, given that the placebo effect is well known (I'm working from my memory of the movie). But I don't have time to look at the sources right now, what with Thanksgiving coming up. Perhaps we can take this a little slow, if that would be OK. The page is protected anyway. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
QM effects can be amplified as much as you care to amplify them.
A QM-consciousness link is taken seriously by some notable scientists. This isn't a black-and-white issue. the problems are mostly in the details 1Z (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Peterdjones, that is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is the wording of the lead to reflect the controversy surrounding the movie - I admit to having partially derailed it. Now: Martinphi, you suggested citing the 'most reliable publication that calls it pseudoscience' for including a sentence such as what I put into the lead. That publication would be Physics Today, which has a readership of about 100000 and is probably the closest thing to a single journal for the physics/physical sciences community. Would you accept something like the following?
- 'The film has been criticized for mis-representing quantum mechanics, and is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community', with a cite of Physics Today
- The film most definitely mis-represents QM - see the reviews and particularly the Physics Today piece for examples - and 'generally considered' allows for a small number of supporters of the film. Peter, please don't start again - your 'some notable scientists' aren't numerous and many of them wouldn't support What the Bleep, even if they were advocating quantum mind or something similar. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say they would. 1Z 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Claims of consensus need to be sourced to a direct statement that consensus exists, not to an example meant to illustrate the consensus. If the "Physics Today" piece says no physicist could take it seriously, that's one thing, if it just says it's junk that's another. Which does it say? <eleland/talkedits> 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is a reliable source for a much more positive and direct statement, such as "Bleep is pseudoscience." One of the nice things about not trying to hard to be nice.Kww (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Um............. what does the word "Letters" mean at the top of the page? [6] Seems that was a letter to the editor in the Nov 2006 issue [7]. A very good letter, but still.... ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The term 'pseudoscience' is used unambiguously in a highly critical review in the Chemical & Engineering News, the journal of the American Chemical Society. — BillC talk 12:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I really like the Physics Today letter (but we do have to consider whether it meets WP:RS). It makes a nice distinction that has been lost in the article -- and that gets lost in the zeal to hamhandedly apply the label pseudoscience. The Physics Today letter acknowledges that there is content in the movie that presents quantum mechanics, but that the problem arises that the viewer doesn't know where the quantum mechanics ends and the unscientific, speculative, new age interpretation begins. Their letter highlights what I love about quantum mechanics: the counterintuitive mystery of it: "For the most part, in our teaching of quantum mechanics we tacitly deny the mysteries physics has encountered." I wish we could somehow capture the same spirit in this article without beating the reader over the head with the errors and the label pseudoscience. I reread the article, and other than the controversy section, the writing is excellent. Let's see if we can find good sources and make clear that it represents the mysteries of quantum mechanics to a degree but crosses over into dangerous territory. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Right- I don't have a problem with the use of the word pseudoscience if properly attributed. But putting in a little nuance, rather than, as you say, the ham handedness of calling the entire movie pseudoscience (which it is not), would be much better. And rather easy to write, especially if we decide to use that letter as a source (which is OK with me if we don't merely use it as an excuse to bash the entire movie as pseudoscience). ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, a 'Letter' in Physics Today denotes a short article that is still subjected to the normal review process. 'letters to the editor' are termed 'correspondence' and published in another part of the journal. Nature follows a similar format. With regards to terming the entire movie pseudoscience or not: don't make the mistake of confusing an attempt to explain quantum mechanics for anything but trying to promote the movie's central thesis. We can't dispute the purpose of the movie: the examples of QM in the movie are there only to promote some mystical or new-age or whatever agenda. That is one of the main points of the Physics Today piece - echoed more blatantly and with fair less tact in the Am. Chem. Soc. article. I won't dissect the flaws in the QM explainations in the movie - that isn't this thread - but their very presence and usage is why the term pseudoscience even applies. Michaelbusch (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think the letter -which you have explained as a good source- says that the basic explanations are not so bad. We don't call a movie pseudoscience, we call parts pseudoscience- it would be hard to make everything in a whole movie pseudoscience. The "movie" isn't, but parts are. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Of all things, that disgusting review in Chem and Engineering News needs attribution. First it says, " “What the Bleep” alternates between interviews with ersatz scientific experts " then says "Despite their sometimes impressive pedigrees (many have Ph.D.s or M.D.s of some sort), most are affiliated with new-age institutions such as the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the Maharishi University of Management"
- So in other words, it doesn't matter what the credentials are -probably much higher than the writer's- who seems to have "a doctorate in Engineering and Public Policy" if I got the right person. If the writer doesn't like what they say, then they're ersatz. This is just why we have attribution. I can't believe that review: doesn't matter how much you've studied, no, it only matters if you're on the wrong side of the tracks. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Chem and Engineering review is one among thousands. Not sure why it's somehow definitive. It says nothing about the quantum mechanics being distorted -- rather that the problem is the extrapolation. And it incorrectly states the hypothesis of the experiment done in 1993 and published in 1999. I agree with Martinphi regarding the POV application of "pseudoscience" to dismiss the whole move. I think the issue here is whether this Wikipedia article should give undue weight to one particular point of view. I don't think it's appropriate to identify an agenda, dispute the agenda, and unduly emphasize that in this article and in the lead. You'd need to go through Google New archives and get a sense for what the general sentiment was and gauge the emphasis here accordingly. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- It was not one of thousands of reviews from a reliable source. There were dozens of such reviews at best, and not all of them are readily available on-line years later. For evaluating whether or not the film is pseudoscience and misrepresentation, entertainment editors and religion sections are not reliable sources, much as I wouldn't apply a review from Physics Today to a Die Hard film.
- And, to Martin Phi, affiliations are important in evaluating sources, and always will be. There's a reason that you can't use Michael Behe as a reliable sources on evolution, despite his degrees, and the same applies to people from the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the Maharishi University of Management. Once a person has officially affiliated themselves with a fringe organization, their opinions become suspect.Kww (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Chem and Engineering review is one among thousands. Not sure why it's somehow definitive. It says nothing about the quantum mechanics being distorted -- rather that the problem is the extrapolation. And it incorrectly states the hypothesis of the experiment done in 1993 and published in 1999. I agree with Martinphi regarding the POV application of "pseudoscience" to dismiss the whole move. I think the issue here is whether this Wikipedia article should give undue weight to one particular point of view. I don't think it's appropriate to identify an agenda, dispute the agenda, and unduly emphasize that in this article and in the lead. You'd need to go through Google New archives and get a sense for what the general sentiment was and gauge the emphasis here accordingly. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kww, I don't understand why you say there were dozens of reviews. If you search in Google New archives, it returns 2,240, a majority in major newspapers. It seems odd to say that a review by an entertainment editor, say, in the New York Times[8], is somehow irrelevant to this article and not acceptable as a source. This movie exists in popular culture -- it's not an article in an academic journal. There are many facets to the movie and a range of response. In my opinion, it's a violation of {[WP:UNDUE]] to overemphasize one particular view in this article and in the lead. Also, there's no guideline that says once a review is no longer available for free online, it is therefore no longer an acceptable source in Wikipedia. (And by the way, I like the balance in the New York Times review.) TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Then I'll try again. To evaluate whether WTB is entertaining, there are thousands of reviews. To evaluate its production values, there are thousands of reviews. I'll even buy that the NYT reviewer is capable of evaluating that most viewers would find parts of the movie "plausible." But to evaluate its science, there are only dozens. If you want to avoid undue weight, I could accept "WTB is a well-produced, entertaining piece of pseudoscience that misrepresents quantum mechanics."Kww (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I got a good laugh out of that. I feel like you're pushing the envelope in this thread and that you'll never achieve consensus. It's odd, because we agree on so many things. I agree with many of the criticisms. It's really the application of guidelines that we're disagreeing on, the issue of undue weight in particular. I don't really see any chance for agreement. TimidGuy (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Then I'll try again. To evaluate whether WTB is entertaining, there are thousands of reviews. To evaluate its production values, there are thousands of reviews. I'll even buy that the NYT reviewer is capable of evaluating that most viewers would find parts of the movie "plausible." But to evaluate its science, there are only dozens. If you want to avoid undue weight, I could accept "WTB is a well-produced, entertaining piece of pseudoscience that misrepresents quantum mechanics."Kww (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kww, I don't understand why you say there were dozens of reviews. If you search in Google New archives, it returns 2,240, a majority in major newspapers. It seems odd to say that a review by an entertainment editor, say, in the New York Times[8], is somehow irrelevant to this article and not acceptable as a source. This movie exists in popular culture -- it's not an article in an academic journal. There are many facets to the movie and a range of response. In my opinion, it's a violation of {[WP:UNDUE]] to overemphasize one particular view in this article and in the lead. Also, there's no guideline that says once a review is no longer available for free online, it is therefore no longer an acceptable source in Wikipedia. (And by the way, I like the balance in the New York Times review.) TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- There could be agreement if everyone wanted agreement. So the thing is to get over ones' biases and feelings, be willing to admit the possibility one may be wrong, and try to work for an agreement and a consensus. There's *always* a possibility for agreement, it's what the people *want* that counts. mike4ty4 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Be nice to each other. We can go with Philosophus' version, or we can attribute the claim of pseudoscience. But we can't say the whole movie is pseudoscience. That's not going to happen, Kww, it is out of the question (even the Physics Today article doesn't support it), so why not argue about possible versions? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, did it sound like I wasn't being nice? I was sincere. I thought his particular phrasing was clever and funny -- "an entertaining piece of pseudoscience." TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- You set an impossibly high standard to meet, Martinphi. All pseudoscience contains some true things. It's the nature of the beast. A foundation of reality, mixed with one or two distortions, falsehoods, or wild extrapolations, and a false result. What parts of WTB would you exclude from the label of pseudoscience? The pseudohistory?Kww (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think such standards have even been defined. mike4ty4 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A letter to the editor is not a reliable source, whether it's in Physics Today or Readers Digest. Dreadstar † 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is PT peer reviewed or what? And just for the record: Experiment demonstrates quantum entanglement between atoms a meter apart
Look, the thing here is that even though the film may be complete, utter tripe, that does not mean Wikipedia can say that. All Wikipedia can do is journalistically report 3rd-party material. Otherwise it would not be an encyclopedia. And any reasonable reader could see from the arguments presented that nearly all the claims in the film are either false or useless (ie. truth value undeterminable). However I have no objection to calling this a "controversy", as the term controversy simply means a wide-scale, often prolonged, dispute between a significant amount of people, not who those people are or what the subject of the argument is, just the fact that such an argument is or has been going on. mike4ty4 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right, that's about it. Also, we don't necessarily even use the wording of the sources. If they call it tripe, we might report that that they call it untrue. Encyclopedic language. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly you aren't suggesting that "pseudoscience" falls out of the range of encyclopedic language.Kww 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus
It appears from some of the comments above that there is some question about the validity of the previous consensus. Just because certain editors weren't here for the poll, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a valid and clear consensus established, including at least one Administrator with excellent knowledge of WP:NOR policy.
According to Wikipedia:Consensus, “In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected”. At the time both an RfC and a request for comments on the WP:NOR talk page were posted, so plenty of community exposure of the issue was made. Several editors responded to both requests for comment.
The previous consensus is valid and a new consensus will have to be made for any significant changes to the consensus version. This is a very highly contentious article, so policy and guideline need to be strictly followed, including consensus.
And the bottom line here is that the article was full of Original Research and was an egregious violation of that policy. The poll which resulted in consensus was an attempt to keep the OR out of the article, had that failed we would have taken it right up the chain. OR is OR, period. And turning this into an attack article on the movie is completely indefensible. Dreadstar † 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The essence of this is that we need to find consensus on any new version, perhaps the draft proposal by Philosophus will fit the bill. It's definitely looking like a good prospect! Dreadstar † 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- That version looks quite good. The problem is that whatever the affiliations, they are definitely experts in science, and spiritual expertise requires no qualifications. They have the degrees, and even a POV pushing expert is still an expert.
- "The film features interviews with scientists and experts in spirituality, interspersed with the fictional story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her situation. The scientific accuracy of many of the claims made in the movie has been disputed."
- "The film features interviews with scientists and experts in spirituality, interspersed with the fictional story of a deaf photographer as she struggles with her situation. The scientific accuracy of many of the claims made in the movie has been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience.
——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I read Philsophus's version. I think the lead is fine, and in general the draft is good. I hope he'll have a go at rewriting the controversy section, because it doesn't seem on par with the rest of the article. I feel like the Physics Today letter (if it meets WP:RS) could be better summarized. Right now I don't think the summary conveys the sense of the letter. Also the controversy section seems weak and difficult to read because editors simply found damning quotes and essentially listed them. Also, I feel like the Australian Broadcasting article is a weak source. I believe it's misleading and inaccurate, such as this statement: "The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." As i understand it, the "thereness" at the subatomic level is very different from the macroscopic level, because the wave nature of the particle is so much more evident. Famous experiments like the double-slit experiment on photon interference suggests that our macroscopic understanding of something being "there" is very different from the subatomic reality. TimidGuy 12:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the section could be better, but we were somewhat hamstrung by a fairly rigid reading of OR policy by a number of editors. We couldn't quote the thousands of sources that say that these are subatomic level phenomena, we could only quote articles directly dealing with WTB that said that the phenomena it talked about occur only at the subatomic level. I've pleaded with the editors that did that to come to bat for other OR issues on other articles, but they only seemed to be interested in making sure that this article couldn't refer to peer-reviewed science in discussing the movie.Kww 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I read Philsophus's version. I think the lead is fine, and in general the draft is good. I hope he'll have a go at rewriting the controversy section, because it doesn't seem on par with the rest of the article. I feel like the Physics Today letter (if it meets WP:RS) could be better summarized. Right now I don't think the summary conveys the sense of the letter. Also the controversy section seems weak and difficult to read because editors simply found damning quotes and essentially listed them. Also, I feel like the Australian Broadcasting article is a weak source. I believe it's misleading and inaccurate, such as this statement: "The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." As i understand it, the "thereness" at the subatomic level is very different from the macroscopic level, because the wave nature of the particle is so much more evident. Famous experiments like the double-slit experiment on photon interference suggests that our macroscopic understanding of something being "there" is very different from the subatomic reality. TimidGuy 12:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The ABC are right, the subatomic particles making up the rock will be localised within the rock.1Z 13:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- But isn't it conflating the quantum scale with the macroscopic scale -- which is what this movie is being criticized for? TimidGuy 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Impasse resolution proposal
I would like to go for RFC or some similar thing on what I see as the source of the impasse: does maintaining a NPOV require us to present the scientific perspective on this film in some kind of "balance" with the spiritualistic perspective, or, since the movie presented itself as scientific, is it permissible to treat the scientific consensus as "true", and the spiritualistic perspective as a fringe position? I really don't want to go through that kind of process sentence by sentence, but I would like to get the overall position ironed out by multiple people. I may get grumpy at the result, but I didn't hack away at the result the last time, as much as I hated the way the article turned out.Kww (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's not Spiritualism, it's New age. But anyway, that is a quandary. I think if you wanted to go and make an article "scientific criticism of WTBDWK," you would be alright. But an article about the movie itself- in that context, you have to consider the viewpoint of all the fans, and you are looking at a piece of New Age entertainment, which makes no bones at all about being fringe science which is way out beyond what the mainstream says- at least that is my take. So I'm not really so sure that it misrepresents as much as you say. In the context of a New age movie, the scientific mainstream is one notable perspective, but far from the only one, or even the main notable perspective. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think we all understand NPOV and understand that the mainstream scientific viewpoint can't dominate over everything else in the article. However, the major point of contention seems to be the portrayal of the scientific viewpoint itself. --Philosophus T 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Article protected
I did have the article protected for a day, but the talk here indicates users are not ready to cease edit warring, so I've extended it to 20 December, full protection as the involved users are not new. Work your issues here on the talk page first. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- What if the dispute got resolved before then? Also, just as an FYI, I wouldn't edit war over it, I decided to immediately go to the discussion instead of demanding edit privileges. Too bad none of the other people want to do it that way. It's totally up to the freewill of the individuals to choose to become ready at their sole discretion. mike4ty4 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hope this article isn't destined to remain protected forever. Thane Eichenauer (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Funding
"Lacking the funding and resources of the typical Hollywood film,"
Except that in the extras, they said it cost FIVE MILLION dollars to make! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.192 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- A figure that solidly backs up the quoted statement. In 2004:
- Compared to that, five million is 'chump change'....;) Dreadstar † 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
TM Involvement
I picked up at least two hints of TM involvement. Firstly one of the "experts" comes from Maharishi "University" (or whatever it's called), and then the claim that a bunch of meditators in Washington DC lowered the crime rate, which seems to be quoted by TMers all over the place. In the UK, it's "Liverpool" which still has a big crime problem.
I thought the whole thing reeked of some kind of recruitment film, although to be fair, it doesn't seem to be recruiting for any one organisation. Confusing perception and observation with reality is a gross error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.220.192 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- In order to include that in the article, the statement would need a reliable source that meets WP:V and WP:NOR requirements for inclusion. Dreadstar † 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Moving forward
Not much progress on a new version. I have troubles with the second paragraph in the lead of Philosophus' proposed version. The second sentence in the second paragraph of the lead section seems to be a bit run-on, and doesn't present a truly brief, concise summary of the movie's notable controversies that reflects its importance to the topic per WP:LEAD. I think the prior, consensus version is a better fit:
- The film has received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film.
This concise, accurate summary is then followed by the necessary and relevant details provided in the body of the article, including the statement made by some that the movie is 'pseudoscience'. To be quite honest, I've never heard of anyone referring to a movie as pseduoscience before.
Thoughts, everyone? Dreadstar † 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had rather forgotten about this issue, as the protection was so long. It appears that it centers around "pseudoscience": one group of editors thinks the article can't be neutral when the word is included, and another group of editors thinks the article can't be neutral without the word being included. This is really annoying, as there isn't much room for compromise. I'm of the opinion that the previous version, which has been called "consensus" by a strange straw poll that was confusing at best, isn't acceptable, and needs to change. We have a reliable source, quite notable in the scientific community, that refers to the film as pseudoscience. There are quite a few other sources given that don't use that particular word but say essentially the same thing. If you want to trade anecdotal evidence, I've heard quite a number of people refer to it as pseudoscience, and a number of other people, including experts in similar fields, refer to many of the scientists presented as crackpots. --Philosophus T 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right . What we may have here is a little syntax problem. This is a movie not a science. The movie could present a pseudoscientific viewpoint or information that might be labeled as pseudoscience, but is not itself a pseudoscience. (olive (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
- Excellent point, Olive. Which is detail that needs to explained in the body of the article not "hinted" at in the lead, where hinting is directly addressed, "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article". This is in addition to the WP:UNDUE it provides when included in the lead. Dreadstar † 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you seem to persist in commenting on a minor point in my comment rather than the proposed changes. Also, do note that WP:LEAD is a style guideline, not policy, and wouldn't be that important even if the proposed lead (not my comment!) violated it. ---Philosophus T 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Guidelines are generally accepted standards that all editors should follow unless there is good reason not to. Even though WP:LEAD isn't set in stone, I think it would be important if it were violated...what is the 'rare exception' or commonsense reason you see for violating it here? Dreadstar † 09:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you seem to persist in commenting on a minor point in my comment rather than the proposed changes. Also, do note that WP:LEAD is a style guideline, not policy, and wouldn't be that important even if the proposed lead (not my comment!) violated it. ---Philosophus T 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent point, Olive. Which is detail that needs to explained in the body of the article not "hinted" at in the lead, where hinting is directly addressed, "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article". This is in addition to the WP:UNDUE it provides when included in the lead. Dreadstar † 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right . What we may have here is a little syntax problem. This is a movie not a science. The movie could present a pseudoscientific viewpoint or information that might be labeled as pseudoscience, but is not itself a pseudoscience. (olive (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
- <ec> Philosophus, apologies if this wasn't made clear, but not a single editor has expressed a view that the article can't be neutral when the word "pseudoscience" is included, there has been absolutely no one, afaict, questioning the need to include it since it is indeed mentioned in serveral reliable sources on the movie. If you look at the article as it was in its consensus version, it mentions the word 'pseudoscience' at least twice. The question is whether or not it belongs in the lead section, some editors believe that the word in the lead provides undue weight to that statement and that view, and as Olive points out, paints the entire movie with the overbroad brush of "pseudoscience. Undue for certain.
- As for prior consensus, there is a lot more to that entire, long discussion than what you refer to as a confusing "strange straw poll". That consensus is valid, and not only that, but the content that was being disputed was clearly and undeniably orginal research. There is no doubt about that, even some of the disputing editors admitted that some of it was OR, but thought it should be included anyway. So, we need to find a new consensus for any substantial changes to the article.
- And, I don't think the anecdotal evidence offered was a fair trade...;) I'd truly like to know what other mainstream movies have been called pseudoscience...well, I can well imagine there are folks out there who have referred to Superman, the movie as psuedoscience, but the undue there would really bite the Kryptonite bullet...;) Dreadstar † 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- You see, this is what such long protections do: I've forgotten some details. Yes, the problem is whether to include it in the lead section, and that does seem to be where some editors insist upon it and some insist against it. I'm one of the editors who insists upon it, and believes that it isn't undue. Both you and olive also seem to be commenting on one minor slip in my comment, which isn't present in my draft of "aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience." This doesn't paint the entire movie with the label, and is strongly sourced. As for the validity of the consensus, I still question it, but we probably should just ignore that dispute because it doesn't really have much bearing on anything now. I'm not sure how the superman comment is relevant: when I said anecdotally that I had heard a number of people refer to the film as pseudoscience, I meant that they referred to it as primarily being a vehicle for the promoting and expressing pseudoscientific views. But again, anecdotal evidence doesn't really matter here, and we have a number of sources, including one directly using the term in Physics Today, that supports it, and not including it would essentially exclude the scientific viewpoint from the lead entirely, which would be an undue weight problem as well, especially when considering such decisions as WP:ARB/PS. --Philosophus T 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- And, I don't think the anecdotal evidence offered was a fair trade...;) I'd truly like to know what other mainstream movies have been called pseudoscience...well, I can well imagine there are folks out there who have referred to Superman, the movie as psuedoscience, but the undue there would really bite the Kryptonite bullet...;) Dreadstar † 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're right your version does not specifically say the entire movie is pseudoscience, however since the statement is in the lead, it provides undue weight to that view; the phrasing of the sentence is both vague and yet still manages to provide too much detail, contrary to what is stated in WP:LEAD. It's even possible that a statement containing wording such as "certain aspects of this movie are pseudoscience", leads by implication that the movie is pseudoscientific. This sentence is run-on and provides too much detail for the lead in this article:
- "The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality, though the accuracy of many of the claims made have been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience."
- You're right your version does not specifically say the entire movie is pseudoscience, however since the statement is in the lead, it provides undue weight to that view; the phrasing of the sentence is both vague and yet still manages to provide too much detail, contrary to what is stated in WP:LEAD. It's even possible that a statement containing wording such as "certain aspects of this movie are pseudoscience", leads by implication that the movie is pseudoscientific. This sentence is run-on and provides too much detail for the lead in this article:
- That detail is perfectly acceptable in the article, but it needs to be more concisely stated in the lead section. Your statement that not including the word 'pseudoscience' would "exclude the scientific viewpoint from the lead entirely.." is incorrect, the consensus statement covers that very well, "The film has received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film.". Further, there is really no overarching "scientific viewpoint" on the movie, a small group of scientists commented about the film, so to state or even imply there is some kind of "scientific viewpoint" or "scientific consensus" on this movie would sorely violate WP:NPOV.
- I've read through Wikipedia:ARB/PS, but applying that to a movie like Bleep? Nah...heck, you might just as well apply what is found in the ParaCom decision. Applying ARB/PS to the individual articles on the specific "sciences" mentioned in the movie is fine, and then the links to those articles in Bleep provide an adequate framework without violating WP:NOR. There's no argument that the use of the word is 'strongly' sourced, that's why it's included...the question is one of UNDUE, and detail that would be needed in the lead to avoid hinting or teasing or brushing with too broad a stroke.
- Ach, the Superman comment is humour, but even so is relevant in that both Bleep and Superman are movies. Trading anecdotal evidence can be fun, I guess...but you're right, just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.
- If anyone would like to question the validity of the consensus, then I invite them to take it up the chain. I would be more than happy to participate, and I'm sure every editor that participated in that consensus would too, although I think it would be better to just try and find consensus for any proposed changes instead of wasting time pursuing that avenue. Dreadstar † 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Philosophus. Apologies. I wasn't in any way trying to focus on some small point or to be trite. I was commenting on the language which seemed to me could be causing confusion in understanding between major editors on this article which I am not. I apologize for any "muddying of waters" that may have occurred. (olive (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
- As I implied in my comment on the TM talk page, I'm far more understanding of other viewpoints when fully awake. --Philosophus T 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Philosophus. Apologies. I wasn't in any way trying to focus on some small point or to be trite. I was commenting on the language which seemed to me could be causing confusion in understanding between major editors on this article which I am not. I apologize for any "muddying of waters" that may have occurred. (olive (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
- I should add that this sentence also muddies the water a bit, because it is mixing what the movie is (description), with the criticism of it, this gives it a POV slant. They need to separated:
- "The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality, though the accuracy of many of the claims made have been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience."
- Dreadstar † 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'm going to make an attempt at entirely rewrite the lead. One of the problems with trying to gradually evolve a section into something acceptable to everyone is that it often ends up with other problems and a general feeling of awkwardness, and that has become an issue with the lead. Also, Dreadstar, now that I'm awake I should also note that, while you probably didn't intend to insult anyone, a run-on sentence is the product of a specific and basic grammatical error, not simply a long sentence. --Philosophus T 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dreadstar † 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, absolutely no insult intended, heck I do it all the time. There are two clauses there, which I alluded to earlier:
- Clause 1: "The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality;
- Clause 2; "The accuracy of many of the claims made have been disputed, with some scientists such as David Albert saying that aspects of the movie cross the line into pseudoscience."
- Two subjects and two predicates; run-on. Dreadstar † 06:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- And a conjunction, so as to prevent it from being a run-on. I've read some perfectly correct sentences with at least a dozen subjects and predicates each. I understand what you are complaining about, and think it might very well be valid from a content and POV perspective, but it isn't a grammatical problem. --Philosophus T 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, absolutely no insult intended, heck I do it all the time. There are two clauses there, which I alluded to earlier:
- Now that I look at the lead from a more general perspective, I am even more upset with it than before. It only really covers the content of the film and the criticism, and thus isn't an accessible overview of the article. It also contains an unsourced mention of CGI that isn't elaborated on in the article. The plot and content is given far too much weight, and things like the production, reception, and so on aren't given any weight at all. Most other film leads aren't like this; for comparison, look at the lead to Superman (1978 film). --Philosophus T 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Contestation and dispute will do that to a lead. If this article weren't so contentious, I'm sure it would have a wonderful, flowing, descriptive lead section that accurately and concisely summarizes the wonderful article that follows it. I would love to see something better, but most of what I've seen from the "other side" has been overwhelmed with attack material. Getting consensus on anything in the article has been like pulling teeth, and I'm afraid that usually results in some bloody gums and pain. Gotta love lead suggestions that say things like "Bleep is pure balderdash, according to scientists who were in the movie and lied to.." ...lol... I would love to see a better article all the way around...but it's tough to pull off under such contentiuos circumstances...I hope you can come up with something GREAT! I really do. Dreadstar † 07:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weighing in again ... the lead must not contain a waffling statement like "some scientists, like David Albert, classify it as pseudoscience". To do so gives undue weight to the unsupported fringe position that the movie contains anything of scientific merit. The lead needs to contain a positive direct statement that corresponds to the reliable sources. I can't get too excited over whether the lead says "is pseudoscience" or "contains pseudoscience", but it needs to state it directly.Kww (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Some added thoughts:seems that Pseudoscience is one of those words used to generalize a large body of ibformation and as such might be more about opinion than anything... although an educated opinion in many cases.There is after all no research on pseudoscience itself . rather this is a way of classifying "poor"science. If the word is used in the lead it must be used with a citation otherwise it is the opinion of the editors or editors who add it. Using a citation probably a statement from an individual scientist immediately make a general statement more specific and perhaps unfit in a lead. Would a statement like, "Scientific claims presented in the movie are controversial." be more neutral. Not attached. Just some thoughts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just to point it out one more time ... the claims aren't controversial, they are wrong. No reliable source believes them to be accurate.Kww (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps or... the fact that the movie presents them as legitimate and the reliable sources you are familiar with do not, indicates a controversy.... "The movie's presentation of scientific viewpoints is considered to be controversial". Any better?(olive (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
- No. "The movie's presentation of scientific viewpoints is considered to be incorrect" is OK. Remember, NPOV doesn't require us to give credence to the material. No reliable source with regard to the science asserts that the science is correct. Thus, we don't need waffle language, and saying that it is "controversial" implies that the movie's views are credible with some legitimate minority of scientists.Kww (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps or... the fact that the movie presents them as legitimate and the reliable sources you are familiar with do not, indicates a controversy.... "The movie's presentation of scientific viewpoints is considered to be controversial". Any better?(olive (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
- No, "controversial" indicates that the information in the movie is considered to be credible by some viewers, and not by others . Some of those viewers may be scientists. Is there a consensus that indicates that only scientists have a right to judge this movie and what it presents. Are there are other non- scientific sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards. I don't see controversial as waffling but rather a term that leads into more specific explanations contained in the body of the article.Is it neutral to include only the opinions of scientists and not other viewers in this section of the article if there are reliable sources.(olive (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
- Exactly, Olive. If it weren't controversial, we wouldn't even be discussing all this. Plus, "controversial" as it is applied to the movie itself, is sourced. I initially removed the word, but then found sources. So yeah, controversial is in. Many editors consider the word "pseudoscience" to be pejorative, so we must be very careful in its use. This statement does not waffle, it is specific and accurate: "The film has received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film." Dreadstar † 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, some of the people in the movie are scientists, and since they (and I presume their usual allies) support the ideas in the movie, I'd say that there actually is some "controversy in science" about the movie. The entire issue over the movie is a tempest in a teapot, because of the limited voices from the scientific community that actually commented on the movie. Dreadstar † 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Only the opinions of scientists need be taken into account about the science, and, per WP:FRINGE, people that take extreme positions can have their views discounted. If New Agers say that the movie presents valid science, that simply doesn't matter, because their views are not qualified.Kww (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and those fringe sciences can be addressed in their own individual articles. For this article, which is on this movie, all significant views on the movie must be represented fairly and, as much as possible, without bias, from published reliable sources. The scientific view is limited by the very small number of the scientific community who commented on the film, the lack of peer-reviewed articles on the film, and etc. Too much focus on the anti-Bleep, "scientific perspective" is undue. And just what is 'extreme' considering the baseline provided by the platform the movie presents? I say the common person's view of the science in the case of this movie needs to be presented, not just the opinions of scientists. This is not a scientific article. It's an article about a movie. Dreadstar † 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Only the opinions of scientists need be taken into account about the science, and, per WP:FRINGE, people that take extreme positions can have their views discounted. If New Agers say that the movie presents valid science, that simply doesn't matter, because their views are not qualified.Kww (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently, some of the people in the movie are scientists, and since they (and I presume their usual allies) support the ideas in the movie, I'd say that there actually is some "controversy in science" about the movie. The entire issue over the movie is a tempest in a teapot, because of the limited voices from the scientific community that actually commented on the movie. Dreadstar † 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, Olive. If it weren't controversial, we wouldn't even be discussing all this. Plus, "controversial" as it is applied to the movie itself, is sourced. I initially removed the word, but then found sources. So yeah, controversial is in. Many editors consider the word "pseudoscience" to be pejorative, so we must be very careful in its use. This statement does not waffle, it is specific and accurate: "The film has received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film." Dreadstar † 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- All I am saying is the the fact that this movie misrepresents science should not be represented as a false controversy. I don't want to bash it, insult it, or deride it in this forum. Among those qualified to have an opinion, there is no controversy about the science in this movie. A simple statement to that effect, in the lead, is appropriate. To state that "The movie's presentation of scientific viewpoints is considered to be incorrect" or that "The movie misrepresents science" is quite reasonable and appropriate. "People, including so-and-so, have criticised its presentation of scientific issues" makes it sound like there are other people who disagree and should be considered on the topic. There aren't. The view of the "common man" on science is not, and never has been, of any particular importance.Kww (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like we may be closer than I thought. How does this sentence for the lead section sound to you:
- " "The scientific concepts presented in the film have received criticism from several scientists, including Dr. David Albert, who was featured in the film."
- Dreadstar † 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like we may be closer than I thought. How does this sentence for the lead section sound to you:
- No, "controversial" indicates that the information in the movie is considered to be credible by some viewers, and not by others . Some of those viewers may be scientists. Is there a consensus that indicates that only scientists have a right to judge this movie and what it presents. Are there are other non- scientific sources that are reliable by Wikipedia standards. I don't see controversial as waffling but rather a term that leads into more specific explanations contained in the body of the article.Is it neutral to include only the opinions of scientists and not other viewers in this section of the article if there are reliable sources.(olive (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
Points-of-view statements
Dreadstar, I think you mis-understand some of the subtleties of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and perhaps Wikipedia:Undue weight. If I read the above correctly, you say roughly 'the scientific community has not said very much about What the Bleep, while fringe groups have, therefore we should not give the scientific community's views as much prominence in the article'. Taken to an extreme, that's equivalent to saying that the more verbose you are, then the more Wikipedia should have about you. This is not correct, and even your version is off the mark.
WP:FRINGE states clearly 'An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is' - which automatically makes most of the fringe sources non-notable and not suitable for inclusion. It also implies that notable debunking of the film - such as that by Physics Today and the American Chemical Society - should be given great prominence. Additionally, WP:FRINGE states that Wikipedia must not give a fringe idea additional prominence than it deserves. Emphasizing the fringe sources at the expense of the debunking does that, and should therefore be avoided.
Now, WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy, and therefore subject to exception. But the policy WP:NPOV states that Wikipedia must maintain a neutral position, and de-emphasizing two high-profile debunkings in favor of more numerous fringe sources is not NPOV - it is a subtle form of POV pushing. While NPOV does state, under Wikipedia:Undue weight, 'Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views', you must understand that the scientific consensus is not a minority view. It is a summation of the general views of the scientific community, which is a most important source. So NPOV isn't a rationale for side-lining debunking - it requires that the debunking be emphasized.
Finally, we have WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, an ArbCom case of last year. In this case, it was decided that Wikipedia must be in accordance with the scientific consensus. A lot of the material in What the Bleep - including pretty much everything the film was made to promote - has been deemed nonsense by the scientific community at large, hence the debunkings must be made clear. The movie was made to promote a particular flavor of pseudoscience. That is inescapable. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I said at all. The only thing I've said that's even close to that relates to the word "controversial", mainly about the film, but I did express the idea that perhaps there was some limited controversy in the scientific community (since I believe some of those supporting the movie are part of that same community - although that wasn't a major concern of mine, and I could be entirely wrong about that). And no, I'm not suggesting the outer fringes of the scientific community outweigh the views of the mainstream scientific majority when talking about the scientific commentary that exists on this movie in reliable sources.
- I haven't seen anyone present evidence that the scientific community has come to a consensus on the movie - the scientific community is pretty big. All I said was that due to the fact that this is a movie, then sources that are related to the movie are what we go by. The vast majority of sources are non-scientific, and talk about the movie, the reviews, and the articles and books by non-scientists, books on what the audience thought of the movie, etc. The scientific view by the scientific community is sorely lacking, please provide some links that show that the scientific community "at large" had deemed anything at all about this movie. Some few scientists made comments about the movie, which is a very tiny percentage of the scientific community. So, yes, please provide some links that show us the scientific consensus and the summation of the general views of the scientific community on this movie, I'd truly enjoy reading the information, and adding to the article.
- No one is 'de-emphasizing' anything. The content in both physics today and the American Chemical Society are given their due prominence, they have their very own section. And each of the individual "fringe sciences" talked about in the movie has their own Wikipedia articles - those articles are the scientific articles where the bulk of the scientific community's views are presented...per WP:FRINGE. This article is about the movie, not about those fringe sciences, so adding content that does not mention the movie is original research.
- And I certainly do not appreciate attack-headers and have changed this section's name. I suggest you focus on the editorial content of the article and not on other editors. Dreadstar † 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are taking WP:OR to an extreme if you claim there is no consensus on this film. There is a consensus in the scientific community on each position that this film takes, and it doesn't come out on the side of this film. Do all those sources discuss the film? No, so we can't use them as sources about the film. But to claim that the sources that do discuss the film don't represent the consensus on those topics is stretching things to the breaking point. There is no controversy about this film. The film misrepresents science.Kww (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not taking OR to the extreme. Please provide evidence of the consensus you believe exists. We need solid sources to say there is consensus from the scientific community on this film. That there is controvesy is sourced. In much the same way, I don't think anyone is really advocating that the article say there is controversy in the scientific community about the film. So, this is a dead horse. Dreadstar † 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are taking WP:OR to an extreme if you claim there is no consensus on this film. There is a consensus in the scientific community on each position that this film takes, and it doesn't come out on the side of this film. Do all those sources discuss the film? No, so we can't use them as sources about the film. But to claim that the sources that do discuss the film don't represent the consensus on those topics is stretching things to the breaking point. There is no controversy about this film. The film misrepresents science.Kww (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I have given offense, Dreadstar. The heading was meant to reflect my confusion. Regarding the scientific consensus - I've explained this before. Physics Today is the closest thing to a single journal that reflects the views of the entire physical sciences community, and the American Chemical Society is also very large. So we have sources that are as close as you can get to a single summary of the scientific consensus, and they say that the movie is pseudoscience. As Kww notes, there are no sources in the scientific community that show support for the film, while there are sources that show the contrary. There is in fact no controversy in the scientific community about the film - it is agreed to be nonsense. The controversy arises since the film's producers claim that their ideas are supported by physics - which they are not, making the film pseudoscience. Now, promoting one particular pseudoscience is the entire reason for the movie's existence. That must be made very clear. If it weren't pseudoscience, then this talk page would not be anywhere near as long. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology, I accept and I understand what you meant. Well, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, so while the Physics Today letter may be the closest thing, it is clearly not a document that represents the consensus of the scientific community. It is a letter written to PT by two scientists who do not appear to be speaking on behalf of any group or be representatives of larger groups who have opinions on the movie. The American Chemical Society article is a movie review that cannot be remotely mistaken for scientific consensus, if the article can can be considered "scientific" at all...it reads more like a tabloid review than anything I'd take as the official view of the scientific community. Wikipedia cannot make sweeping statements about the scientific community's view or consensus regarding this film. The film has received attributable criticism from a few members of the scientific community, that's all we can say in the lead. Further details can are presented in the body of the article. To do more is undue, unless we can come up with more sources.
- The rest of what you write is your opinion, and can't be included. If you have specific content and sources that you'd like to add to the article, you're more than welcome to present them here or in a sandbox for discussion. Dreadstar † 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Hagelin, J.S., Rainforth, M.V., Orme-Johnson, D.W. Cavanaugh, K. L. , Alexander, C.N., Shatkin, S.F., Davies, J.L, Hughes, A.O, and Ross, E. 1999. Effects of group practice of the Transcendental Meditation program on preventing violent crime in Washington D.C.: Results of the National Demonstration Project, June-July, 1993. Social Indicators Research, 47(2): 153-201.
- ^ a b "What the Bleep are they on about!?". Retrieved 2007-07-24. Australian Broadcasting company
- ^ "Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation" Explore The Journal of Science and Healing September 2006