This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives |
---|
References to use
- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- King, Mike (2008). "What the Bleep and Indigo". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 162–165. ISBN 0786439882.
Critics
There is not a positive review of the film? Obviously the film especulates about philosophical ideas abduced from quantum mechanics, but considering it "pseudocience" is exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.128.89 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, "pseudoscience" is a fairly polite and restrained description of the contents of this film.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you know of a positive review, by all means add it to increase the WP:NPOV. —EncMstr (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The criticism part of the article went on and on. Absolutely a POV problem. I cut it down a bit. Also, some of the sources were a bit suspect, to say the least, so I cut just the least scientific sections of this section. 108.202.113.201 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Changes to lede section
Dreadstar claims that it is WP:OR to use the definition of quantum mysticism this way: [1].
I strongly disagree. I welcome his analysis here.
71.174.134.165 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Parked Content:
Original:
...and a narrative that describes the spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness.
Proposed:
... and a narrative to describe a purported spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness (quantum mysticism)
To add the content you are suggesting you would need sources that explicitly support these statements, and you need to summarize the sources and not selectively extract content to make a point which creates a POV. Do we have a source that references What the Bleep and specifically says consciousness in What The Bleep is quantum mysticism. Do we have a source that refs What the Bleep and specifically says there is a spiritiual connection that is purported. I hope that explains the concerns with your edits. (olive (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
- I had not noticed this edit with a misleading edit summary, and think we should go back. The anonymous editor is quite right: the current version of the lead implies that there is a spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness, and this film describes it. This film cannot "describe" such a connection, because it doesn't exist.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Let's source what we have to add whatever that may be rather than depend on our opinions.(olive (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
- I'm busy tonight but will check in later.(olive (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
- What would you have as a source, Littleolive? The change was made long after the one we so painstakingly pounded out as a compromise. The question is the correct verb, which isn't something you are going to find a source for. "Posits" is fairly neutral on the topic of whether the film is right or wrong: it could be taking that position correctly or incorrectly, and "posits" would still describe it. "Describe" is not neutral, as it presumes the existence of the connection.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- (ec) First, the wording anon propooses juxtaposes "consciousness" with "quantum mysticism" in parentheses as if the the two are the same when they are not, and which is not per sources (OR). Second, anon doesn't have consensus for the change they propose. I do agree that 'posits' should be restored, it was indeed put there by hard-fought consensus, but I don't see 'posit' in any version proposed by anon. The wording of the lead should be as it is here - although I don't believe we need the references repeated in the lede per WP:LEAD, the refs in the body of the article are sufficient. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- As for this, that content has nothing to do with the subject of this article and is purely POV, cherry-picked content that does nothing but add bias, and I believe is a violation of WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 23:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
I've restored the older "posits a relationship" wording. Hopefully that will address the primary concern of the anonymous editor. "Quantum mysticism" does appear in the lead, but it's not such an obvious or important term that it absolutely has to appear in the lead sentence.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Next time do your homework before you support an anon's inappropriate edit. Dreadstar ☥ 01:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Since the words at the end of the lead are about the spiritual connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness, I moved them up. That is part and parcel of quantum mysticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.90.74 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- There's no consensus for your edit, and I believe you're a sock of a banned editor. Dreadstar ☥ 03:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a sockpuppet, but feel free to file a case on WP:SPI where your allegations will be shown to be false. I can prove my identity and I was never User:VanishedUser314159 nor User:ScienceApologist. As for your contention that the edit lacks consensus, the edit seems to be legitimate as a content description of the film. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)