Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

Controversial scientists

The scientists interviewed for this film, by and large, are remarkable for the controversial nature of their theories. That is, what is remarkable about them is not that they are experts, but that they are at the center of controversy. They may be construed as experts, but not in the mainstream way presumed by the use of "expert". Antelan ^talk 06:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who lives in the 21st century knows you can get an "expert" to say absolutely posomicklutely anything. Some were fringe, perhaps, others were not. What about the guy crying about being mis-represented? He's one of the experts. Anyway, we don't have sources for controversial, but we do for expert- such as the American Chemical Society one which says the credentials were impressive. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking over sources discussing all of the contributors to this movie, I can find only one who is not considered controversial or non-mainstream... and he is the one who takes umbrage at the film's misuse of his statements. For some of the others, I have quotations that are as forceful as labeling them "on the fringes of mainstream science." Fringe researchers aren't usually the type of people you would label "experts" in the lead of an article, at least not in a way that makes it seem like they are experts in what most people consider science. Antelan ^talk 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sources? They are all experts, but not all controversial. So, what would you do? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sources that are listed in this article. But it's strange - these individuals are, by and large, on the fringes of science. There are sources to back this, but none have been referenced so far in this article. This is important, insofar as this article is making them look so run-of-the-mill. When Newsweek is calling you fringe, you know you're out there. Why, then, is this article obfuscating the fact that these folks are on the fringe? Antelan ^talk 07:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not obfucation: we are summarizing. While they are all experts of one sort or another, not all are fringe. That will come later. The lead as a whole gives the reader proper context. I'm putting in a compromise. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to ask you this, but do you know the definition of ersatz? To back your claim that these folks are experts, you cited an article from the American Chemical Society that calls them ersatz scientific experts. This completely supports my point. Antelan ^talk 07:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be moot with the changes, but I think it's easy enough to source "experts" if needed. Dreadstar † 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From their promotional site? That hardly seems like a reliable source for stating that outright. --Philosophus ^T 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that agree with that statement, check out the Sep 10, 2004 Chicago Sun Times review by Roger Ebert, or the article by Catrina Coyle in the Aug 19, 2004 Monterey County Weekly Newspaper. As for their promotional site, yes we can use that per WP:SELFPUB. Dreadstar † 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger Ebert does not approach being a reliable source for determining scientific expertise.Kww (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't claim he was. Dreadstar † 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar, WP:SELFPUB says this type of sourcing is valid if "it does not involve claims about third parties." This is explicitly about third parties ('experts'). Shouldn't an admin know this, or at least read over it, before posting it to this page as an attempted justification? Antelan ^talk 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all Antelan, I recommend you restrict your remarks to the editorial content of the article instead of making insulting, rude comments about other editors. Secondly, the site isn't referencing "third parties", it's referencing participants in the movie. It's not really "third parties" at all. I'm sure it can be argued the other way, but it's not nearly as clear cut as you seem to think it is. There are also other considerations to take into account as well, the documentary nature of the film, the obvious linkage to and from the 'expert's' webstites from the bleep website...etc. No, not clear-cut at all. Dreadstar † 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the articles on the "experts" themselves. If it were, we could certainly say that they claim to be experts, if there are self-sources to back that. But to conflate these individuals with the movie itself is incorrect. Is there a place where we could ask other administrators for clarification? Antelan ^talk 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Perhaps a compromise, instead of saying 'experts', perhaps we can substitute "Ph.D's and M.D's , etc"? But you know, 'experts' is sourced by the movie and number of it's articles, promotional sites, books, etc. Dreadstar † 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A degree does not an expert make. Antelan ^talk 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Haha. OK, what I will say is that what is well-sourced (not in this article, per its current slant, but in others) is the degree to which these "experts" differ from the mainstream. Some do so wildly, being labeled "fringe" by major publications. Others do so to a lesser degree. I will provide references after my flight. Antelan ^talk 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Have a safe flight! Dreadstar † 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing the participant's credentials

Anyone besides SA and me have an opinion? Lots of chatting in the above section about standards and guidelines, but I think the issue should probaby be settled by consensus. Dreadstar † 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary was that "Dr" was an appeal to authority. If that's true, SA will immediately go over to Quackwatch and change "Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director." Anyway, the edit was done because it was an appeal to authority to have the titles [1]. I see nothing in WP rules saying that this is necessary. It is customary to use such titles. I do seem to remember a rule about only using it the first time a person is mentioned, but I can't find it. The rule from biographies is irrelevant. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the same thing with "Stephen Barrett, M.D." in Quackwatch, and it should be changed in Stephen Barrett's own article as well. Dreadstar † 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an issue to be decided by consensus for this article alone. In my opinion the credentials certainly shouldn't be added in that manner in articles like this, or Quackwatch, but making the same argument for a biography, where the correct post-name credentials are useful information, seems very pointy. As for pre-name titles (again, outside of biographies), I think the issue isn't so clear: in lists, they seem rather annoying, but in the text itself, for the first mention of the name, they might be acceptable. --Philosophus ^T 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it may be best to use it the first time the name appears, then refer to that individual by their last name in other instances. But in a list where the whole name is used, along with a short summary of the history of the person, it seems right to include the pre or post titles, if for nothing besides being complete. Not sure why that would be annoying..seems like listing just the names alone would be annoying. It's possible that there may be room for variations in different types of articles, depending on the nature of the article and the relevance of the title to the subject of the article. But it would be nice to have a consistent standard across the board.

As for it being pointy to make the same argument for a biography..I'm not sure what you mean. It says,"Postnominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.", how is that pointy? Do you mean the guideline is pointy or am I totally misunderstanding your...um...point?  :) Dreadstar † 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the distinction made between different types of postnominal letters. --Philosophus ^T 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

However, note that the same part of the MOS also precludes use of Dr in almost all cases as well. --Philosophus ^T 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost sure I read somewhere that this is correct what Philosophus and others are saying. That we use the title the first time (I don't see any difference between whether it comes before or after the name), and then just the name thereafter. If the first mention is on a list, that should include the title. However, come to think of it, a list is probably a special case and should include the title to be complete.

Notice that this issue isn't one of annoyance or writing, but merely that SA doesn't like them to have titles because it makes them sound educated.

I honor Philosophus' edit here [2]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too, nicely done Philosophus. Dreadstar † 04:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly honorable. But it also needs a consensus discussion at that article, not here, so I've reverted it. The ref to the WTBDWK's talk page in the edit summary brought me here, by the way. Yet another film I want to see... life's too short. What the bleep am I doing editing WP anyway? Avb 18:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramtha in lead

I've just deleted what I feel is a problematic phrase in the lead: "that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics." It may put undue emphasis on Ramtha. (I just did a search on What the Bleep in Google News archives. It turned up 1,900 articles. Then added Ramtha to the search, and it turned up 96 results. So about 5 percent of the articles mention Ramtha.) And it may by misleading by implying that the featured individuals are associated with Ramtha and are parroting Ramtha philosophy, when it's likely that none of them knew about the directors' affiliation. Also, it's not clear which parts of the film repeat the beliefs of the Ramtha school. I'd like to see a source which details this. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We might just say New Age philosophy then since it is a bit broader. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just go back to the way I put it to begin with, which was NPOV? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, that wasn't NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC the fact that JZK was speaking "as Ramtha" is in the end credits of the movie itself 1Z (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of "pseudoscience" in lead

It seems that we're generally agreed on some basic premises:

• That New Age topics can be covered in Wikipedia without framing them as false or counter to mainstream
• That Bleep has a New Age theme
• That Bleep accurately presents some basic information about topics such as quantum mechanics and brain neurophysiology and chemistry
• That the movie misleads viewers in that it doesn't make clear where the science leaves off and the New Age speculation begins
• That the movie could potentially be harmful in suggesting to viewers that they won't need medication if they adopt the right mindset

Given that, I see a number of problems with the use of the word "pseudoscience" in the lead:

• Most readers are unfamiliar with the term, and hence it is meaningless to them. The term's obscurity may be illustrated, for example, by the fact that of the 1,900 articles on "What the Bleep" in Google News archives, only 9 use the word "pseudoscience"
• The term "pseudoscience" may also not be common in academic discussion of problematic hypotheses, theories, and research designs. For example, I don't recall Pennock ever using that term in his excellent book critiquing Intelligent Design
• The term distorts the representation of science in Wikipedia, by pushing science away from being a methodology toward being an ideology. Like the church labeling some ideas as heresies, so are some topics in Wikipedia labeled pseudoscience
• It would be better to simply and clearly explain what the problem is with a particular issue than merely give it a label that doesn't mean anything to a general reader

Therefore, in the lead I suggest the reader would be better served by simply making clear the basic problem in the movie rather than labeling it pseudoscience. Instead of the pseudoscience sentence, we could have something like this:

"The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas presented are scientific and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that may mislead viewers." TimidGuy (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So is it really true that using the word pseudoscience is rare in the sources? If so, are we not cherry picking the sources to use that word, instead of writing the problem out specifically? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would consider words like "tosh" and "balderdash" to be less restrained versions of that description, so, if we are cherry-picking, we are cherry-picking in the positive direction.Kww (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some problems with where you think we are generally agreed. New Age topics may not need to be portrayed as false, but they certainly must not be portrayed as true. Bleep's "accurate presentation" only serves as an precursor to a credible presentation of falsehoods ... which is what pseudoscience is all about. All pseudoscience starts out with a true foundation and makes false extrapolations. I will support dropping 'pseudoscience' if and only if you replace it with a phrase like "This movie misrepresents science", without any waffle language or vague attributions.Kww (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kww. It would be great if you could address the points that I made, and also why you would disagree with the suggested sentence that I wrote, which I believe better serves the reader than a general, vague judgmental statement. TimidGuy (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that your dislike of the word 'pseudoscience' is unjustified. It's an established term, with a specific, applicable meaning. If a reader is unfamiliar, there's a wikilink. If I was reworking your sentence, it would become The film misrepresents New Age extrapolations as science, which may mislead viewers. There really is no reason to not make a positive statement of fact.Kww (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kww, for considering a new version. Seems like your version could possibly work, but I don't see how we can get around having some sort of attribution. Would be curious what others think. TimidGuy (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The phrase would have to be attributed otherwise it would be WP:POV and/or WP:OR.(olive (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Good point. Since it could be sourced to the PT letter and ACS review, that might satisfy NOR. But without an attribution in the text, it does seem an NPOV issue. Here's an idea: since this is a very simple and clearly defined consideration, maybe I could post a query on NPOV Talk. I'd simply ask people there whether the sentence proposed by Kww is in accord with NPOV. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do so, please point out that there is no reliable source about the science that doesn't make a similar claim.Kww (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with your basic premises; I for one do not entirely agree.

New Age topics can be covered without framing them as false, but they should, not to say must, be framed as counter to mainstream if they make claims which are contradicted by scientific knowledge. WTBleep is not merely "speculative," it is downright nonsense in the view of the people who are best qualified to know. Contrary to stereotypes, many scientists have a healthy respect for speculation or extrapolation from known facts to faint possibilities, even fanciful or non-falsifiable possibilities (viz. SETI Project, quantum suicide). But the major portion of WTBleep comprises specific claims which scientists believe to be flatly untrue.

It's not for us to say that the physicists are right and the Ramthacists are wrong, but it is for us to say, explicitly and prominently, that their views are in sharp contradiction, resulting in outright condemnation from the former of the latter. Anything less would be a lie of omission. <eleland/talkedits> 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Its all about guidelines and policies in a encyclopedic format....attribute, verify... no POV, no OR... note "Weight" and "Fringe".(olive (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Excellent points, TimidGuy and Olive. We need to avoid violating WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE, I think TimidGuy's proposed wording strikes the right balance. Dreadstar † 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, Kww and Eleland. We need to avoid POV pushing, which would be obtained by the removal of he very clear, accurate, and precise term "pseudoscience." The film's extensions --abuses of -- certain facts of QM and cognition fall neatly into that category. Naturezak (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a term that's rarely used outside Wikipedia, as I've demonstrated. Of the 1,900 articles about What the Bleep in Google News archives, only 9 use the term. My view is that this doesn't communicate much to a general reader. Kww seems open to an alternative sentence, but wants to make a statement without attribution. Eleland, your comments would suggest that you feel the judgmental statement be attributed. TimidGuy (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"What the Bleep" is widely known as a pseudoscience movie, and for good reason. There is no point in pretending otherwise. Luis Dantas (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Who's pretending? We have consensus in these discussions regarding the problematic aspects of the movie. The question is how to characterize that. Your point that it's widely known as a "pseudoscience movie" is belied by the relative obscurity of that term, as I've demonstrated. I wonder if you read my statements above that open this thread. TimidGuy (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you demonstrated that not many movie reviewers use it. It gets 943,000 Google hits, which isn't particularly obscure.Kww (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the word isn't common. Most readers don't know the meaning. If it were more common, more of the articles in Google News (which aren't just by movie reviewers) would have used the term, I would think. Again, my basic point is that "pseudoscience" doesn't communicate much in this context to a general reader and that a more precisely worded sentence would better serve our purpose of wanting to alert readers to the problematic nature of the movie. Kww, above you proposed an alternate version to the current sentence in the lead. Are you still open to the idea of an alternate version?

By the way, if you do a Google search on "What the Bleep," you get 2,540,000 results. If you add "pseudoscience" to the search, you get 4,400. That's less than two-tenths of one percent. If "pseudoscience" were a more common word, one would think that an article on Bleep would be the ideal occasion to use it. TimidGuy (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is convincing, in that "pseudoscience" is an uncommon word. "Say the movie misrepresents quantum mechanical theory" would be specific and tell the reader much more. Thus, "pseudoscience" is jargon here, and should probably be avoided. I was for it because I'm familiar with it, but in the interest of informing the general reader, we should probably be specific about the problem. Not to mention that if, in fact, pseudoscience is a polite word for "balderdash," it definitely not a word Wikipedia should contain in an unattributed sentence, except in the most egregious cases. The ArbCom set that threshold at Time cube, and Bleep does not meet that standard, nor even the standard of astrology [3], as there is no consensus we can site, as there is with astrology, and Bleep is more credible besides. So bleep can be talked about as pseusoscience, but in the interests of avoiding jargon, we should probably be more specific in the summary, and we should always attribute. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are so right. Pseudoscience is an uncommon word - and the fact that such an uncommon word should be associated with What the Bleep over 4,000 times indicates that there is a remarkable association between the two. Antelan ^talk 20:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, 'pseudoscience" is rarely used to characterize What the Bleep. I don't see how a frequency of less than two-tenths of one percent is "a remarkable association." Anyway, we don't want to quibble. It would be great if you could address the more general issue. As Martin says, we could be more specific about the problem. I'd really like to know what the objection is to that. Here's what the article currently says:

"Parts of the film have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience."

And here, for example, is an alternate version that's more specific:

"The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas accurately present quantum mechanics and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that may mislead viewers."

TimidGuy (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Too passive.Kww (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "too passive" means because Wikipedia is supposed to be dispassionate, and not aggressive. But if it means not informative enough, I agree. The sentence is added here because it's a notable criticism. The above doesn't really go into the criticism with enough detail, and I think the issue is that some parts of the film "misrepresent science" rather than "misleads viewers". Maybe a specific example from the sources would help, as in "...speculative, New Age extrapolations that may misrepresent science, for example... [insert example]... among others". I think that will better explain what the issue is.

I also agree with the others that "pseudoscience" adds nothing. While it is a real term that has a real meaning, the way it is actually used is as a pejorative meaning "nonsense" (if the reader is even familiar with the term). That's how it's used in the real world and that's how it's used at Wikipedia. While I'm not opposed to using the actual word here, it really would need to be used in conjunction with a better explanation of what we actually mean, like an example. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

By "too passive", I suppose I really mean "hesitant". We don't say "Mary. J. Blige is reported to be a rapper", or "War and Peace is considered to be a book", but TimidGuy always writes sentences that read that way ... Some scientists consider WTB to misrepresent ... instead of WTB misrepresents ....Kww (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Neilparr. good points. Maybe you could draft a sentence. And I think you're getting at the same point that I was, when I suggested at the beginning of this thread that the word pseudoscience is used in an odd way in Wikipedia -- as if science is an ideology and the word is used to label heresies. Kww, I believe that a judgmental statement should be attributed. The examples you give of a book and a rapper are factual statements. But saying "WTB misrepresents" is a judgmental statement, and I would think that WP:ASF would apply. TimidGuy (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That is my objection in a nutshell. You won't write it as a factual statement, when it is a factual statement. No reliable source about the science says that it accurately represents scientific fact, and the reliable sources that discuss the science go so far as to use words like "tosh" and "balderdash". It is not a judgement call anymore. It is a fact that the movie misrepresents science, and we should write the article that way. To quote WP:ASF, By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is no serious dispute. There is no serious controversy. It makes no sense to write the article in a manner that suggests there is.Kww (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely an undisputed fact that critics say it's misrepresents science, so there's no reason not to say...

The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas accurately present quantum mechanics and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that misrepresents science. A review by Physics Today, for example, summarized an illustration of the uncertainty principle portrayed in the movie as more or less correct, but criticized it for suggesting "quantum insights" or science supports "the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god."

I think that kind of explains it in a nutshell (summary style). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks, Neil. TimidGuy (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad, but I would prefer to change the "and which..." line to "and which are conjecture, New Age mysticism, or refuted by scientific evidence." Keeping with this "extrapolation" language is still too deferential towards the woo-woo craziness. <eleland/talkedits> 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a few random thoughts. Seems like we're making progress. Hope others give feedback on Neil's sentence. Kww, I do think there is controversy. If there weren't, then no one would be writing critical articles, such as the one in Physics Today. Straightforward, noncontroversial facts, like the two examples you gave, don't generally receive comment. Eleland, thanks for your input. I think New Age mysticism may be redundant. Also, I'm curious what in the movie was refuted by scientific evidence? Are there sources? Certainly the conjectures can be criticized as being unscientific and a misleading extrapolation of science, but that's not to say that science has refuted them. Note that the main sources we've been using, the Physics Today letter and ACS comment, both focus explicitly on "extrapolation," but you may have a point. TimidGuy (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea proposed in the movie that observation (quantum mechanics) is somehow related to human consciousness is incorrect. Also, the bullshit about water-crystals being affected by words, human minds being able to manipulate zero point energy, and a whole slew of other pseudoscience are fairly prominent in the movie and easy to debunk given any introductory textbook on physics, chemistry, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is that those are unsupported conclusions or speculations drawn by the film makers (pseudoscience), not ideas that have been refuted by scientific evidence (unscientific). I doubt science has either 1) done studies to see if water crystals are affected by human words, or 2) taken any study that has attempted to see if words have effect on water crystals seriously. Refute means to "disprove" a claim. Pseudoscientific claims go unrefuted all the time. While the notion of a 35,000 year old Atlantean god possessing a woman is completely and incontrovertibly not supported by science, it's hard to say it's refuted by scientific evidence as well. I've yet to see a serious scientific paper gather evidence on the existence of Atlantean gods. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Neal, you don't really seem to have that much familiarity with scientific literature, so we really need to take what you have and haven't "seen" refuted with an appropriate grain of salt. Secondly, refutation does not have to be direct. There are plain contradictions to science that are refuted in, for example, textbooks on the subjects this film purports to be about. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be wearing my t-shirt that says "scientifically illiterate" today or something, but you did say these things are refuted by introductory textbooks on physics, chemistry, etc., so hopefully you can suspend your doubt that I've read those at least. I'd be happy to agree with you if you can show me one textbook that takes the time to refute crazy New Age ideas, or better yet show me one "serious scientific paper [that] gather[s] evidence on the existence of Atlantean gods", because that's what I said I haven't seen, what you seem to think needs to be taken with a grain of salt. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read The Cosmic Code by Pagels? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does a published critic use The Cosmic Code to refute speculations made in the movie? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Answering my question with a question is silly. After all, when someone makes a plain statement of fact and that fact is contradicted plainly in a reliable source we can simply report this inconsistency. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, to answer your question with an answer, it's not exactly an unbiased book of facts you're talking about. The article on Heinz Pagels points out that "Pagels was an outspoken critic of those he believed misrepresented the discoveries and ideas of science to promote mysticism and pseudoscience". The keywords there are "he believed". What you consider to be a fact-based refutation is actually an argument from the bias of his belief that people were misrepresenting science. It's not as plain as you make it out to be. "Refuted" means disproven, not argued against. It's also horribly outdated and not widely circulated. It doesn't even have a Wikipedia article about it: The Cosmic Code. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, could you maybe address the proposed sentences for the lead that would replace the current summary sentence regarding the criticism? I feel like Neal's version above effectively summarizes the issues. User eleland liked it but suggested minor changes in wording. If you feel like the sentences are inadequate, perhaps suggest an alternative. This discussion of "refuted" is a minor quibble about eleland's proposed wording. Are you insisting we use his wording, or do you feel that Neal's version works? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Neal's wording which tries to pussyfoot around the idiocy contained in the movie. WP:SPADE is applicable. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So true! I can't believe how much resistence there is to calling this a pseudoscience movie when it is so unashamedly and inequivocally one. Luis Dantas (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the discussion. No one is resisting using the term pseudoscience to characterize the movie. The question raised is whether the use of the term in the lead is the clearest way to describe the problems with the movie. The word is relatively obscure, as I've tried to show, and may not really say anything to a general reader. We've discussed alternative wordings that would be more specific in saying what the problems are. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel-words in lead

The lead contained the sentence: 'Parts of the film have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience'. This is nothing but weasel words added to the statement 'The film has been criticized as pseudoscience'. The criticisms don't say 'the film has valid material in it, but a few areas exceed scientific accuracy'. They are very blunt in their description. We cannot water them down. So I have removed the weasel words. They don't change the meaning of the sentence, but introduce mis-comprehensions. I'd hoped this would be obvious. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

MichaelBusch, we've been recently discussing that very wording and your edit absolutely does change the meaning of the sentence...it is still disputed that the film has been criticiced as pseudoscience, only some aspects of the film. Your return to edit warring is unacceptable. Since you're concerned about "weasel words", which is the least of our concerns here, we should just go back to the consensus version of the lead that was in place before your last round of edit warring began. Dreadstar † 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This was the last consensus version of the lead. We were negotiating changes to it before ScienceApologist started this RfC. I'll leave Busch's edit in place to see if any other editors have comments. Dreadstar † 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead should make clear that this movie was produced, not by scientists, but by devotees of a woman who claims to 'channel' an ancient Atlantean god. As long as it does that, the specific wording we use to characterize criticisms of the movie become relatively unimportant. Dlabtot (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what we were negotiating. It's the unilateral changes that concern me, and I do think we need to be specific about what is being criticized in the movie and by whom. Dreadstar † 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When the thrust of an entire film is directed towards espousing a pseudoscience, as is the case with this film, I find it hard to disagree with Michaelbush. Perhaps better wording could be found, such as, "The content of the film has been criticized as pseudoscience'," or perhaps more true to the sources, "The film has been criticized as proffering pseudoscience," depending on your preferences. Antelan ^talk 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Antelan, that's what I was looking at, content that was true to the sources. I know it's a minor distinction, but characterizing a movie as "pseudoscience" is very strange..especially one that offers fictional and speculative New Age material. And apparently, some of the "documentary" portions of the film are not characterized as pseudoscience. Painting with an overbroad brush is just as bad as using one that is too narrow. Dreadstar † 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording we were looking at is:

The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas accurately present quantum mechanics and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that misrepresents science. A review by Physics Today, for example, summarized an illustration of the uncertainty principle portrayed in the movie as more or less correct, but criticized it for suggesting "quantum insights", or science, supports "the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god." Reel Science, a division of the American Chemical Society aimed at "encourag[ing] critical thinking about the way science is presented in film," expressed their concern that, "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought."

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I'm having trouble why people are so passionate about this. It doesn't really matter whether the lead tells the reader that the movie is pseudoscientific bullshit, as long as it provides sufficient facts for the reader to draw that inescapable conclusion for themselves. However, I think the way towards a resolution of the conflict is clear: instead of "The film has been criticized as proffering pseudoscience" - why not cite those who have offered that criticism: "Physicist John Doe, Cosmologist Jane Smith and Physics Today have criticized the film as pseudoscience." - assuming of course, that those sources actually did use the word pseudoscience. Dlabtot (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding, "The film has been criticized for not being clear which ideas accurately present quantum mechanics and which are speculative, New Age extrapolations that misrepresents science..." Based on the criticisms I've seen, I think that should read more like, "The film has been criticized for inaccurately presenting quantum mechanics, and for proffering New Age extrapolations that misrepresent science." Antelan ^talk 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, unless this in some way contradicts the sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure as long as you cite to a reliable source that actually criticizes the movie for "inaccurately presenting quantum mechanics" Dlabtot (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence back to the previous version. Michaelbusch's points don't make sense to me. These aren't weasel words, and there's a clear semantic difference. Also, both the Physics Today and the ACS articles are more nuanced than MB suggests. The PT article criticizes the movie for not being clear where the physics ends and the extrapolation begins. The context of the ACS article is also the extrapolation. Facets of quantum mechanics are accurately presented, from what I understand. There's as yet no consensus for Michaelbusch's version, and there's been a considerable amount of opposition. TimidGuy (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dlabtot, yes, there are many sources that could be used to back "inaccurately presenting quantum mechanics". We just have to pick the best one. Antelan ^talk 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no shortage of people correctly identifying the fatuity of this film's arguments, a few here:

• http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html - a New Age "quantum mechanics" propaganda film
• http://www.moviehabit.com/reviews/wha_fx04.shtml - The Watchtower for New Age Mysticism; Claims to the contrary aside, there is very little science in Bleep. It’s interesting to note that none of its subjects are introduced. They are presented as authorities, but we don’t know who they are. Only after the credits begin to roll are the names of these experts revealed. A little post-movie search on their authority and reputation revealed many “experts” whose work has been called into serious question by scientists and skeptics.
• http://www.hackwriters.co.uk/whatdoweknow.htm - a propaganda film put out by a cult headed by a bovine blonde woman named JZ Knight, who’s claimed for decades that she channels the spirit of a 35,000 year old warrior from Atlantis
• http://www.simonsingh.net/Newsletter_18.html - two hours of (badly filmed) pseudoscientific propaganda
• http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2004/whatthebleepdoweknow.php - "What the Bleep Do We Know?" tries to convince you that a vague understanding of quantum physics can somehow help you find inner power, but if you detect an aroma of culty wackiness from its talking-head "experts," that's no accident.; this movie's unmade connections between gee-whiz science clichés and new-age spiritual hokum will only leave you thinking, why the bleep should I care?
• http://www.movie-gazette.com/cinereviews/1281 - Creepy, distasteful cinematic propaganda, fronted and funded by a bunch of cults
• http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=83 - not even wrong; certainly the stupidest thing I can remember seeing in a movie theater, and that’s saying quite a lot

The problem is that the film is so far short of credible that no respectable scientific publication would cover it, except as an April 1 joke. Your best bet is probably to find some resource for teachers discussing how to point out the gaping holes int he film's arguments to any student stupid or credulous enough to believe a word it says. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The problematic nature of the movie hasn't really been in dispute. The origin of this discussion was how to make that point more clear to the reader. Please see the originating thread above regarding the use of the word "pseudoscience" in the lead. Also, I don't think that Michaelbusch's preferred sentence in any way addresses the issue. TimidGuy (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy - you are not accepting the statements in the Physics Today and other articles. That is not the concern. The concern is that the articles aren't 'nuanced' in the way you claim - read them again. They are very clear that the film is complete nonsense, that the little bits of accurate physics are used only to justify pseudoscience, etc. Now, we may not be able to make statements like that in this article, but we cannot mis-represent the sources to say anything other than what they do. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're saying we should not mis-represent those sources, while making every attempt to do so. You just said that some parts of the film are not pseudoscience, yet you wish to say that "the film is pseudoscience." That is a contradiction, and just the kind of mis-representation we don't do.

The way you want it, we would be telling the reader point blank that the whole film is pseudoscience, and the reader would thus see everything in the film as pseudoscience. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to mis-represent the sources. A one-sentence summation of them is 'the film is pseudoscience'. Your two-sentence version is fine for the moment (although I have removed 'crossing the line into' for clarity). Re. the whole film versus pieces of it being pseudoscience: here I request an analysis. The film exists to push a form of quantum mysticism, which is pseudoscience. It may contain an accurate description of some aspects of quantum mechanics, but the accurate parts are there only to give a false appearance of support to the pseudoscience. Similarly, intelligent design as promulgated by Behe contains some accurate descriptions of single-point mutations, but those are only there as part of the pseudoscience. So: if the conclusions, agenda, etc., of a work are pseudoscience, but it contains copies of valid work within it, that are erroneously interpreted and applied, is the entire work pseudoscience or not? I would say that it is. Michaelbusch (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why we had a conversation about whether "pseudoscience" was an ultimately meaningless word [4]. "The film is pseudoscience", period, doesn't convey the actual problem critics have with the film. Is it pseudoscience because it takes real science and applies it to spirituality, something not covered by science? Or is it pseudoscience because it passes nonscientific ideas off as scientific? Or is it pseudoscience because the science is wrong? Or is it pseudoscience because the greater scientific community doesn't accept it? These are all different uses of the word pseudoscience, if the reader is even familiar with the term (it's a film for the masses, not for actual scientists). That's why we were looking at other wording that actually explained the issue instead of over-simplifying it at the expense of reader comprehension. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

bleep pseudoscience sources

...(ec) apparently User:JzG was adding sources on this question at the same time as I wrote this, so there is plenty to work with...

Regarding the secondary question posed in the RfC, of how to address the pseudoscience issues in the article about this film, several people mentioned that what is needed are verifiable sources with qualified third parties making those statements.

I did a bit of research and found sources. I don't have time to work on integrating these into the article, so instead I'll list them here to make them available for use by any interested editors. These are just URLs, I'm not formatting the citations, but they appear to me to be reliable sources that can be used within policy:

• Discarded Science: Ideas That Seemed Good at the Time... By John Grant - see page 110 etc Google books link (search term inside book: "what the bleep")

• Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness By Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner - see page 4 & 165 Google books link (search term inside book: "what the bleep")

• Bleep review on website of the Institute of Physics includes many quotes from scientists about the film, at URL: http://www.einsteinyear.org/bleep/

One example of a quote from this webpage:

Raj Persaud, Gresham Professor for Public Understanding of Pyschiatry and Consultant Psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital, said: "I thought that the film made a lot of statements about quantum physics, but also on neurobiology, the brain and the mind. Most of these statements are gross distortions of recent scientific findings. For example, there was a claim that the latest brain scanning research suggests the brain could not distinguish between reality, memory or imagination and this is simply not true."

• Bleep review on Skeptical Inquirer website. The review was written by a scientist, Eric Scerri, lecturer in the Department of Chemistry at UCLA, where he also teaches philosophy of science. See URL: http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html

Example quote from this review:

I want to focus a little on the science, because this is where I believe the film is at its most disingenuous. Each of the physicists interviewed trots out a sound bite or two about how quantum mechanics supposedly shows that objects can be in two places at once, that matter is mostly empty space, or that all parts of the universe are deeply interconnected. The existence of a reality that's independent from the human mind as usually understood by scientists, or indeed by any rational person, is repeatedly assaulted to the point of being mocked

That's all I have time for right now. I hope this is helpful for editors working towards NPOV in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Jack-A-Roe, your contributions to the article have been very helpful. Drop by again when you have the time. Dreadstar † 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above, there are the Physics Today and American Chemical Society pieces that have been discussed ad nauseum. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The way forward: attribution.

The solution is, I think, to focus on attribution. We can say with complete accuracy that James Randi describes it as "a fantasy docudrama" and "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults". We can say with complete accuracy that Movie Gazette describes it as "Creepy, distasteful cinematic propaganda, fronted and funded by a bunch of cults". we can do that, with citations. We can also say that various individuals describe it as wonderful and empowering, and we can attribute that. And then the reader can decide whether they would rather believe James Randi, Raj Persaud and a bunch of physicists, or the (IMO) fruit and nut cake of people promoting the film. With that in mind, I have rewritten the disputed paragraph in the lead to say who describes it as such. I think I have included the main thrusts of criticism: pseudoscience, propaganda and cult involvement. If people think that needs more sources to reinforce its relevance, feel free to add them, but I'd say that ACS and James Randi in particular are pretty good sources for this kind of critique. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't feel like the lead is the place to start a catalog of quotes. Also, since there are tens of thousands of reviews, I'm not sure that simply adding a variety of quoted opinions is useful to the reader. Isn't a Wikipedia article supposed to summarize the sources? Personally I think we would better serve the needs of the reader by finding sources that specifically identify errors. In my mind that would be more useful to a reader than a list of general, pejorative opinions. If you feel that it's necessary to list such opinions, it seems like the body of the article would be the appropriate place to do it. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, the place to have an overview of its reception by non-believers. Given that the true believers are disputing even the well-supported use of "pseudoscience", this is probably the only way to proceed at this point. Note that these are not randomly selected: the American Chemical Society, Physics Today, James Randi and the BBC are all respected sources. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You mischaracterize the discussion regarding the use of the word "pseudoscience." Also, I thought Nealparr's latest post in the "weasel" thread above regarding the term was excellent. TimidGuy (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely unacceptable lead. Read through WP:LEAD. Dreadstar † 16:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dreastar. This lead also violates WP:Weight(the section added by Jzg is half of the entire lead)and in so doing in this instance violates WP:NPOV.(olive (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Hey, I'm all for a summary style lead, but my reading of the debate above is that the true believers do not like the fact that this is denounced as pseudoscience and cultish propaganda. If we can say that it is dismissed as such without the need to use direct quotes, perhaps placing the direct quotes further down instead, then I will be happy. What is important is that the lead correctly notes the fact that the science in this film is used entirely to obscure the twaddle that's being presented, with no logical connection between the few valid scientific arguments and the conclusions drawn therefrom. Provided we can say that, quotes are not necessary. As to WP:WEIGHT, that demands that we note the fact that this film is abject nonsense of absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever. Anything else is a gross failure of WP:NPOV. As a piece of entertainment we can certainly note that it has its admirers, but as a supposed "documentary" it falls short in a number of important ways, first among which is the fact that it has only the most tenuous connection with reality, and second is that most of the supposed experts are in fact known kooks. Great entertainment, crap science, should be the executive summary. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets put it another way.Whatever is noted must be attributed, and not opinion, and in proportion to the overall weight of the lead in terms of meaning and size . This lead violates weight in terms of actual amount of space taken for the material, quoted or not,although quoted is probably worse, and in doing so slants the point of view.(olive (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

"True believers"?? Please do not characterize any of the editors in this discussion in that manner, there's quite enough incivility on this page already. The lead is terrible, period - no matter what individual beliefs or opinions are. Dreadstar † 17:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I said that the word "pseudoscience" is perhaps ultimately devoid of meaning. As such we explored other options in wording. This "true believer" crap can also check itself at the door along with SA's accusations of POV pushing. I am personally agnostic and don't believe in much of anything. I certainly don't believe in the premises covered by this movie. One of the things I do believe in is that scientists can't go around whining that people are misusing their work, or bemoan the fact that the common person doesn't know what pseudoscience means, when they are too lazy and elitist to make their work accessible to the common person. It is entirely their fault that they don't explain themselves clearly and that they don't make movies that are cool with a lot of animations. What I don't do is take that belief of mine and go around calling editors "lazy whining scientists". It doesn't get your point across to me to use pejoratives in explaining what might be a valid point. All it does is make me skip over your post as a rant and whatever you said that's constructive gets lost. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the argument is that, in the lead, the term may not mean much to a general reader. I've demonstrated that the term is relatively obscure. I'll note again that I've been reading about science for 25 years, including Pennock's excellent critique of Intelligent Design, and I don't recall ever encountering the term outside of Wikipedia. I think I'm starting to understand why the science discussion in Wikipedia is so different from what I read: it may be that those that read the skeptic publications, which I don't, have their own special hortatory style and language. TimidGuy (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, pseudoscience is a common English word, any assertions to the contrary aside, there is certainly no consensus here that a general reader will not understand the term. The ACS review does in fact refer to the movie as pseudoscientific, so using the term is clearly not original research, it's the presentation of a significant viewpoint that can be cited to a reliable source. And the general consensus of the scientific community that this movie, allegedly about science, is actually a pseudoscientific sham, is so highly significant to understanding this movie that it certainly should appear in the lead. I propose moving the quote farm or a modified form of it, to the 'Reception' section, and replacing it in the lead with something like: The film as been criticized as pseudoscientific, and one prominent scientist appearing in the film accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview in order to misrepresent his views. ...with cites to ACS and Salon, which I can't figure out how to put on this talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to Nealparr for perfectly illustrating why I put the quotes in in the first place. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm running out of steam on this one. And the abuse is a bit much. Dlabtot, thanks for your more cordial tone, and for suggesting that the quotefarm be moved to a more appropriate location. Note that I didn't just make assertions about the relative obscurity of the term in my earlier arguments (nor simply cite my own experience), I tried to back up my point with data. Fewer than two-tenths of one percent of the pages indexed by Google use the word "pseudoscience" in relationship to the movie. And in Google News archives, fewer than one half of one percent of the articles on Bleep use the term. One would think that if it were the most appropriate term to characterize the problems in the movie, which most of these articles discussed, it would be more common (and, therefore, familiar to a general reader). Also, as Nealparr astutely pointed out in the weasel thread above, the term has many different uses. How would the reader know which one applies? Regarding your proposed sentence, I would suggest using the version that Martin inserted last night, which I think has some consensus. Even Michaelbusch liked it. And maybe insert an appositive to stipulate the meaning of the term. TimidGuy (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing the non-consensus changes <from the lead> made by JzG, and continuing the ongoing previous discussion on the lead section's wording..some of which was repeated here. Dreadstar † 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather more likely to support a suggestion by someone who has a history of promoting the mainstream than form one who has a history of promoting fringe views. This is one of the things I weigh up when comparing proposed versions: how well does it reflect the dominant world-view. But thanks all the same. As to consensus - consensus is much wider than a nose count of interested parties on a talk page. It's pretty clear that the lead needs to reflect the fact that any pretence to being a documentary is bogus, and that the use of science is a smokescreen to cover claptrap. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG, I suggest you confine your remarks to the editoral content of the article instead of continuing to comment on the contributors...I'd also recommend assuming good faith as well. Dreadstar † 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, you may consider it data, but I don't find google hits to be relevant to the discussion of whether a common, generally understood word, that was used in the lead of a prominent review of the movie, is appropriate. Again, with all the respect due, I find the arguments against using this word to be absolutely without merit. I don't call them specious because that would imply that they had a false appearance of validity. Considering the clear consensus on SA's RfC, maybe it's time to close that one, and open one asking: Will a general reader understand the meaning of the word pseudoscientific, when used in the phrase, "The movie has been criticized as pseudoscientific"? Although frankly I find the question to be silly.

As for this - which are the sources that acknowledge parts of the film to accurately represent quantum mechanical concepts? This excessively verbose sentence seems to be an attempt to lend some credence to the movie that I have not seen reflected in the secondary sources we are citing.

Dreadstar, I certainly don't agree with your suggestion, for the reason I have just stated Dlabtot (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to move the quotefarm to the criticism section, but it does not belong in the lead. I don't see any disagreement between us - since my other suggestion was to continue the discussion around appropriate wording for the lead. Dreadstar † 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps my earlier statement about removing the content wasn't clear, I meant to remove it from the lead..I've put a remark there to show that. Is that what you were objecting to?Dreadstar † 21:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And replace with what? What about the current revision? I think it should end with "pseudoscientific docudrama" - that really says it all, summing up in a simple phrase the reception from the scientific community. I don't believe using a LttE as a source is appropriate, and the phrase about Randi is simply unnecessary. Dlabtot (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think until the ongoing discussion reaches consensus, I'm fine with the first part of the current "criticism" portion of the lead, specifically "The film is controversial. While it is represented as a documentary, it has been criticized as "pseudoscientific docudrama"", and I agree with you that the material that follows that is not appropriate. Dreadstar † 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction in view of WP:WTA concerns: "The film is controversial and has been criticized as "pseudoscientific docudrama"<ref>". Dreadstar † 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, most of the quotes and detail are now lower down, leaving a summary in the lead to indicate the mainstream reception based on ACS, Physics Today and Randi, which I think are representative and suitably authoritative. There is little chance for pseudoscience to be misinterpreted in context, since it actually fits the definitions at pseudoscience and is in any case a direct quote; to call it "pseudoscientific docudrama" is very descriptive. Docudrama, not documentary (an entirely fair criticism, many are much more outspoken about it), and pseudoscientific in the sense of pretending to science; as a phrase I believe this is completely unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why Randi? He's not a physicist. If the idea is to clearly convey that physicists believe it misrepresents their work, then the line before it does that well enough. If the goal is to present any view, might as well line up the New Age talking heads to insert their opinions as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I think Albert's accusation that the film deliberately misrepresented him is so notable: He is an real physicist who actually appears in the movie. His viewpoint is not only highly notable, it is indeed 'an extraordinary claim supported by an extraordinary source'. Dlabtot (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes more sense in the lead than Randi does. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll try my version then and we'll see how that goes over. Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Dlabtot (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. I already put that part in. Is it more or less what you would have put in? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure that's fine. Dlabtot (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem with the substitution, just to point out though that Randi is significant as probably the leading debunker of twaddle like this, which is why I chose him. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He is still in the article, farther down. But Albert's comments are much more significant (and damning). Dlabtot (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe...good change in lead. I was literally making the same change when your change appeared. The words removed did not accurately summarize the source.(olive (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

:Since it was my wording allow me to say that it did accurately summarize the source.

Albert said, "...it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness... I'm unwittingly made to sound as if (maybe) I endorse its thesis."

My wording said, "...selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics are linked with consciousness."

What was inaccurate about that? I'm not opposed to the change, just curious. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Oops, I think you were talking about something else : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Need for reliable sources to cover New Age reception

Sure some folks won't appreciate me pointing this out, but what the hell. It's been mentioned that this film is a pseudoscientific propaganda film for the New Age spiritual movement, and I completely agree with that assessment. But reading through the article, especially the "Reception" section, there is zero information about the impact of the film on the New Age community. Has it been successful in recruiting more New Agers? Do they view it as cannocal film? Is it influential among those groups? What does Deepak Chopra, one of the prominent New Age speakers, think of the film? Over half of the reception section talks about the reception by the scientific community, and reads as a general condemnation, but the film wasn't made for scientists and isn't just about science. It's also about spiritual ideas. Obviously someone out there liked the film; it grossed over $10 million. The reception section doesn't mention anything about how it was received by the New Agers who are presumably the base market for the film. Do they condemn it as well, or do they embrace it? If so, to what degree? This will probably be seen as low on the priorities scale, but I wanted to point it out to editors who might want this to be a GA or FA at some point. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Great question. The science-minded among us have provided science-related sources. I'm not particularly familiar with New Age sources. Is anyone here? Antelan ^talk 08:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Different articles, of course, but I'm certain there are magazine articles about the topic that are reliable. Not sure if others disagree on this, but as far as I'm concerned reliable third-party opinion about the reception among New Agers can even come from inside the New Age community as long as they aren't from the Ramtha camp or associated with the film. There's a number of New Age periodicals and probably a boatload of websites. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that reviews / reception of the movie could even come from within the Ramtha camp, so long as it was sourced and given a fairly small place. Antelan ^talk 09:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to single-source it, but I think this source is exactly what I believe is missing from the article, and to a lesser extent maybe interviews like this one. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, those fail WP:SELFPUB. It has to be published in an independent WP:RS Dlabtot (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction, only the second link fails WP:SELFPUB, the beliefnet one could be used as a source. Dlabtot (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure it was welcomed with open arms, especially by the commercial organisations exploiting their gullibility and involved in the making and promotion fo the film. Oh, was that a bit cynical? ;-) Guy (Help!) 11:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to develop this section more, but it's hard finding non-partisan sources. I'll write it if others can help point out some sources to use that aren't directly from the film makers. Thanks in advance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave this a try today. I had previously posted on this page a list of science sources debunking the claims, so I figured I'd give it a go and research supportive comments even though it seems to me that the film's science claims are mostly incorrect. But for NPOV, if there are sources supporting the film's claims, they should be reported too, so I looked for some.

I was surprised how difficult it was to find any supportive sources other than either people connected to the film's producers/promoters, or people who spoke in the film and are using their appearances to promote themselves. I thought there would be some new age teachers or writers referring to the film positively, but my search was not very successful. I put in around a hour on it, and here's what I came up with.

I used google, google scholar, and google books, and searched the title of the movie, plus also adding the word "science" or "scientist", and I also searched adding names of some new age teachers like Chopra and Weil. I found several categories of pages: film reviews, websites selling new age stuff, some books that mentioned the film, and some newspaper stories about the film. I eliminated all the stuff that was debunking the film and looked at the rest of it.

Of the thirty or so movie reviews I found, some were outright negative, some were positive about the film as entertainment, but questioned the science, and only three were generally positive and not questioning the science. Here are the links to those reviews:

• Seattle Post-Intellilgencer
• Hollywood Report Card
• Spliced Wire

Here's an example of a website of people who do life coaching so its promotional, but they are involved with the Institute of Noetic Science, a respected new age non-profit, so maybe this is of interest:

• OUR POWER IS IN OUR ABILITY TO DECIDE - CAN YOU ?

Here's another New York Times article that turned up in the search. It's not supportive of the science claims but has more info about the success of the film, and it includes quotes about the film by the person who financed it:

• Making a Killing in Human Potential

Here are a few Google Books links to books that mention the film in a non-negative way. If the correct page does not come up with the link, search inside the book for "What the Bleep" and the page will load:

• Reading Popular Physics: Disciplinary Skirmishes and Textual Strategies (a general comment)

• Group Dreaming: Dreams to the Tenth Power (quotes one of the physicists interviewed in the film, but also seems to include related comments by the book's author)

• Be Your Best! a Roadmap to Living a Healthy, Balanced and Fulfilling Life

That's all I could find; maybe someone else can find more. Meanwhile, maybe some of those will be useful. Personally, I find the sources disputing the claims in the film to be more compelling (the ones I listed at #bleep pseudoscience sources); I am not a believer in the fringe science ideas presented in the film. But that's my POV, and the article needs NPOV. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

@Little olive oil: I'm sorry if I didn't explain what I'm looking for more clearly, and it wasn't meant to be incivil. By "talking heads" I meant authorities in New Age spirituality who talk about how the film was received by them. I'm not soliciting sources for alternative views of science. This isn't about the science. It's about the audience the film was intended for and whether they embraced it. I'm looking for sources that talk about how the film was received by the New Age spiritual community. A comparative example is that there are many sources that say the Passion of the Christ movie was well received by the Christian community and is considered an important film by them. Was Bleep well received by its target audience? Nothing to do with science on this one. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really get, myself... neither 'New Age' nor 'talking heads' are pejorative terms nor in any way incivil. Dlabtot (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey!No apology necessary.I really dislike "pigeon holing" people, so just changed to be more neutral .... not a big deal .... no one should waste time on it. As an aside, in theater/performing circles where this probably came from, a talking head is a person whose abilities stop at the neck, and do not reside in the rest of the body , heart value , etc.Usually refers to stiffness, inflexibility in terms of viewpoints, acting. So if not a negative terms definitely not positive. But again not an issue, and no offense taken by me at least.(olive (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

More sourcing

• I just re-read the Grauniad review; "I despise What the Bleep Do We Know!?, because it distorts science to fit its own agenda, it is full of half-truths and misleading analogies, and some of its so-called scientific claims are downright lies. Worse still, having achieved cult status in America, this film has already duped millions into mistaking pure claptrap for something of cosmic importance." (Simon Singh) Fantastic! Couldn't have put it better myself. So all we need now is sources linking this to the precise pieces of the film which are complete bollocks and we're done. We already have sources for the basketball analogy being bogus, so let's lok around for the others. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great lead! "What the Bleep Do We Know!?... distorts science to fit its own agenda... is full of half-truths and misleading analogies, and some of its so-called scientific claims are downright lies." Straight from a reliable source, too. Beats things like "some parts cross the line into pseudoscience" six ways from Sunday.Kww (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important when discussing articles that have provoked controversy (although for the life of me I still don't really understand why this article is considered controversial) that we do not get stuck a rut of arguing old disputes that have already been settled. The article does not say "some parts cross the line into pseudoscience". No reasonable person could possibly read this article, or the lead to this article, and come to the conclusion that any of the ideas in this movie have any scientific validity. How many blows do you intend to rain on this dead horse? What will it take for you to accept the reality that you have won this battle and (I suppose) move on to another one? Dlabtot (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dlabtot. This feels like a hit "over the back of the head with a two by four" The article and the lead must have some balance per WP:NPOV..."representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias ... This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles." Is it the job of the editors to present a completely damning view in the lead thus influencing the reader even before the article is read, or to present a balanced lead and balanced article, no matter how much one dislikes the movie? I think the answer per Wikipedia standards is clear.(olive (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

I lost track of how much the lead has improved. Went back and looked it over, and I'm happy.Kww (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Great!(olive (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Dlabtot, it's controversial because it mixes science and nonsense and pretends the former supports the latter. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the movie mixes science and nonsense and pretends the former supports the latter. At least, that's what the article says about the movie - I haven't seen it. What is the controversy? Dlabtot (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Subject: Native American's "perceptual blindness" to European ships

On the subject of the Native American's "perceptual blindness" to European ships. It is also important to note that the idea was introduced by Candice Pert with her confirming it as a belief that she held as true. I would like to argue for an extension for that particular section explaining that Candice said that the story of the Native American's "perceptual blindness" is actually a story that she believe it to be true and not something she is confirming as fact. Simply by stating it as an unreliable source in the Wiki, I believe, would suggest that the film was treating the idea as fact and not a belief held by an expert. I shall include here Candice Pert's exact words on the matter:

“Well, the way our brain is wired up, we only see what we believe is possible. We match patterns that already exist within ourselves through conditioning. So, a wonderful story, which I believe is true, is that when the Native American Indians on the Carribean islands saw Columbus’ ships approaching, they couldn’t see them at all, because it was so unlike anything they’d ever seen before. They couldn’t see it.”

As you can see, she confirms it as a story, which she believes is true; rather than a statement of fact. Tom2351 (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Good point. I would support rewriting those two sentences so that they more accurately reflect the presentation in the movie. It could be something like, "In the film during a discussion of the influence of experience on perception, Candice Pert notes a story, which says she believes is true, of . . . " TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to even mention 'perceptual blindness' in the article. However, if something could be cited to a secondary source it could be included. Otherwise it's just our original research, no matter what wording we come up with. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A reference got deleted somewhere along the line. http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/20/questioning_perceptual_blindness.html discusses WTB and the perceptual blindness issue directly and in detail. It was included in the Oct. 19th, 2007 version of this article. It is also mentioned in the ABC article, even though they just point out the unlikelihood of Candice Pert knowing anything at all about this issue.Kww (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)