Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

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)

It won't be. Dreadstar † 22:33, 16 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:

the average cost to market a film domestically in 2004 was $34 million, roughly half the $64 million average price tag to make one, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Blockbusters cost even more to market: as much as $60 million domestically and $125 million worldwide.

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)

<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)

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."

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)

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)

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)

My experience as an English teacher is zero, so I may be wrong, so apologies if I am. I've pinged a couple of English professors to get an opinion, mainly for my own peace of mind...;) Maybe it's just long sentence. Dreadstar † 07:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update just for informational purposes; got a reply from a senior English expert that it is a run on sentence and should be broken up. I pinged several professors and senior English teachers, I'll update if any contrary comments come in. Dreadstar † 09:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LoL...I've gotten a lot of responses on this sentence, seems there are a number of problems with it. Seems that consensus is leaning toward it not actually being run-on. Lots of suggestions on fixing it, but I think Philosophus is going for a re-write anyway. I love the English language... :) Dreadstar † 08:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Seems like it was the extrapolations of the scientific concepts that were criticized. Why can't we make that distinction in this article? I've only seen parts of the movie, but my impression is that it accurately describes certain aspects of quantum mechanics and brain physiology and chemistry. The Physics Today letter says, "Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins." Both the ACS and Physics today reviews explicitly say that it's the extrapolations that are the problem. If we use these as sources, seems like we should accurately represent them. TimidGuy (talk) 12:58, 18 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)

Do I really need to go back and provide you with pointers to all the references you ripped out? I granted that they were OR-violating because they didn't specifically reference the film. All I am saying is that if we could only find a handful of scientists that noticed this thing and bothered to write about it does not mean that the hundreds of sources that agree with them about quantum mechanics don't exist. This film was not important enough for most scientists to take notice of. Your rigidness about OR is distorting NPOV by preventing that consensus from being in the lead. This movie was created to produce the illusion of a scientific foundation for New Ageism. There is no such foundation, and there is no controversy about that. The argument is only dead because you steadfastly refuse to listen to it. It is perfectly and absolutely legitimate to lead this article with a factual statement such as "This movie misrepresents science." There is no need to be mealy-mouthed about it, because there are no reliable sources that contradict the statement. If you think there is one, please provide me with a reliable source that supports the science in this film.Kww (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Dreadstar † 20:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so I don't waste my time, let's presume that I can show that on every single point where the science was criticized, that criticism represents the scientific consensus on the topic. Would you then agree that it was legitimate to say "The movie misrepresents science" without any waffle language?Kww (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but if the movie mis-represented science on every point it made which was supposed to be scientific, AND if the movie were about "science" rather than ...whatever... then we could say that. So you'd need a statement from some organization which genuinly represents science in general. And one could say that anyway if one qualified: "Mis-represents on such and sucha a point." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:40, 19 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)

Michael, some of your statements may be supported, but 1. We have no source for a scientific consensus, 2. those sources are nothing like the statements on something like Astrology, where you can indeed cite a scientific consensus 3. The sources do not say the movie is pseudoscience, but only parts of it, 4. I think that some of the scientists in the movie were showing support for the film- not all of them. But one of the attack sources says that the credentials were impressive. 5. You don't know of and can't source any agreement in the scientific community, because most there probably don't bother with the film. 6. Do the producers actually claim the movie is supported by physics? 7. The movie is promoting spirituality as well as both science and pseudoscience 8. the length of the talk page is not an indicator of pseudoscience and 9. Wikipedia does not debunk. Let me repeat that: Wikipedia does not debunk.

So what this means is that POV is being pushed. There is nothing wrong with an attributed statement that some mainstream sources say the movie edges over from science into pseudoscience. That is the limit of the sources, and it is the limit of what Wikipedia can do. Further, it represents the truth as society as a whole has understood it- the mainstream in mainstream encyclopedia. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

While this film can be discussed as the pop culture piece that it is, the ultra-minority viewpoint that the film espouses needn't be presented as science in Wikipedia. From WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. If you can demonstrate that the film's viewpoint is not held by such a tiny minority, then this statement doesn't apply. Antelan ^talk 04:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's right on the mark and something I've been alluding to all along. This article is on the movie, and focuses on the pop-culture, production, synopsis, reviews and basically just movie rather than "science" or "pseudoscience". The individual "science" articles, such as water crystal work, are the place to discuss the "science" in detail, not here. This is a movie article. Dreadstar † 17:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not, currently, about pop culture. It heavily emphasizes science. This is fine, but given this approach, the fringe theories must be subjected to WP policies on fringe vs mainstream science. Antelan ^talk 01:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article heavily emphasizes science? No way. It summarizes what is contained in the movie but does not go into detail about the 'science' presented - it contains a brief synopsis of the movie.If you want to see what an article looks like that "heavily emphasizes science", take a look at Quantum mechanics or DNA, this is not an article that heavily emphasizes science - well, with the possible exception of the other viewpoints section. There's more than sufficient focus on criticism and pseudoscience to satisfy WP:FRINGE - maybe a little too much emphasis on the criticism and not enough on the movie itself. Dreadstar † 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramtha school aricle

This article mentions Bleep, everyone involved here may want to review it. Dreadstar † 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the edits, please

I'm under constant threat of block for editing this article to match reality, so please stop putting changes into this article that I strongly disagree with. "A number of scientists believe "... how ridiculous.Kww (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to all editors if my edits are a concern and if they add any "fuel to the fire".They are simple copy edits for syntax and weasel wording.(olive (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Oops...read changes in article after writing above comment. Lots of other edits. I thought article was blocked for content disputes.Syntax changes didn't change fundamental meaning or content and were simply added to make reading and judgment easier. Don't intend to get into this dispute... enough players already so onward all, and I will happily butt out.(olive (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Well, that's why the article was protected, eh? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We were still discussing Philosophis' version, but he was bold and added it anyway. Lots of activity since then, and I see many of those edits are controversial, so why don't we go back to the version that was protected (let's add in the sentence that was removed on the criticism), then come to a consensus on proposed changes. Unless we just need to have the article protected until consensus is found. Dreadstar † 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon review, although there have been several changes, perhaps we can move forward without going back or protecting. This version is much better than any of the previous ones since the protection was lifted, and actually seems to address all major concerns. Just please do not start edit warring again - further major changes should probably be discussed before implementing. Dreadstar † 06:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the most current version. Here is the diff comparing the most current version with your favored version. Antelan ^talk 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Antelan, that looks good too. The diff I posted was the most current version when I posted it...;) Dreadstar † 09:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Antelan ^talk 09:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's gotten closer. I would prefer to replace Parts of the film that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience, and David Albert, one of the scientists featured in the movie, says that his views were intentionally misrepresented. with Parts of the film that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics have been criticized as crossingcross the line into pseudoscience, and David Albert, one of the scientists featured in the movie, says that his views were intentionally misrepresented.Kww (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Really seems like both versions greatly skew this article toward conveying the sense the the featured individuals are parroting the Ramtha school when in fact they likely know nothing about it. TimidGuy (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that, TimidGuy. I think we may need to tone down the posited connection between the production of the film and RSE. Mention of the producer's connection to RSE may be fine in the body, but in lead it's a bit undue-y... Dreadstar † 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not undue at all.Kww (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a problem of UNDUE, it's misleading. See my comment above. TimidGuy (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Great point, TG, I concur. Dreadstar † 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Disputed sentence in lead

I reverted the following: "The scientific community believes much of the movie crosses the line from spirituality and philosophy into pseudoscience." It just makes no sense. Who can say what the "scientific community" says? This sort of generalization violates guidelines. The word "much" is subjective. Philsophus did a great job at rewriting the lead judiciously. It was neutral. Please don't start distorting the article again. TimidGuy (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the many, many, many times that I said that the proposed "neutral" lead was gave undue weight to the beliefs presented in the movie? Or are Michaelbusch and myself simply not included in measuring consensus?Kww (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed the discussions. I guess from my perspective, you and Michaelbusch had a month to try to get consensus for your point of view. And no one agreed with you. And now that the article is unprotected you revert to imposing your view via edit warring rather than trying to get consensus. TimidGuy (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article at all, and have objected to people that did. I view the events in the opposite perspective. There is no consensus for your point of view, and you have made no effort to persuade me that the article is being written in a neutral fashion. Language like "some scientists believe" is unacceptable.Kww (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that an encyclopedia should be precise. As Martinphii has argued eloquently, how could one ever know what the "scientific community" thinks? There used to be a guideline that advised against such ad populum arguments. It's weak. TimidGuy (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been in favor of using "scientific consensus" in the lead. I just want to be able to clearly and precisely state that the movie makes false statements, without having to weaken the statement by making vague attributions to "a number of scientists."Kww (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy, I have lost all patience with discussing this article because you and others refuse to accept the sources demonstrating the scientific consensus. If you do not take the over-view sources (from Physics Today and the American Chemical Society) and the lack of any sources supporting the film to be sufficient to reflect the consensus, then you will never accept existence of consensus at all. When any attempt to convince you would take several hundred KBy of debating, it is a waste of my time. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sources do not even come close to showing scientific consensus, something that I've already addressed. Your citation in no way supports the content you've provided it for. Put the citation tag back until you find an appropriate source. Dreadstar † 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I said before that there are cases such as Flat earth, Astrology, and other beliefs where a scientific consensus can be sourced. This is not one of those cases. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. A review from one scientific magazine does not "scientific consensus" make. Nor should a single review from a magazine be considered to represent the "scientific community". Lara❤Love 00:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: In the absence of any contra-indication from reputable scientific sources, it's perfectly acceptable to highlight the negative reviews of What the Bleep from Physics Today and the ACS. We can't call them "the scientific community", but it would be OK to just say "scientists", or better yet say "the American Chemical Society and Physics Today, the membership journal of The American Institute of Physics..." Attributing the claims actually strengthens them, and if the claims are not contradicted by anybody notable in the scientific community, it's perfectly well in line with WP:NPOV. <eleland/talkedits> 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Including the information is fine as long as it is appropriately attributed. To base "consensus" of the "scientific community" from a single movie review in a magazine is not. Lara❤Love 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Eleland and Lara Love, but especially Eleland. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

There has been no evidence whatsoever provided to support the assertion that there is scientific consensus for this movie. This assertion violates WP:NOR and WP:V. And the edit warring that has been utilized to keep it in place is completely unacceptable. I have tagged the assertion with a citation request, please provide sources that back this assertion in relation to this movie. Dreadstar † 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The critics of the movie represent the scientific community on all points. You never answered my question above ... if I can find references to show that the critics are in line with the scientific community on all of their objections, can the "some scientists believe" language be removed? Or are you going to call that OR again?Kww (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Critics...represent the scientific community" and "critics are in line with the scientific community". I'm not sure how that expands into scientific consensus by the scientific community. Dreadstar † 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is scientific consensus on the issues raised by critics, then there is scientific consensus against the movie. It brushes up against a WP:SYNTH violation, but the opposite technique generates an absurd result. Using the logic now governing the article, if something of little importance makes a series of completely false statements, we couldn't state that, because we could only find a handful of reliable sources that had bothered to notice it.Kww (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All that means is there is possible consensus from the critics, not scientific consensus. Even for that, we'd need a source. Dreadstar † 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read again, slowly: "If there is scientific consensus on the issues raised by critics, then there is scientific consensus against the movie". That would that the points the critics are raising are supported by scientists that have never seen the movie, i.e., that elusive "scientific consensus."Kww (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is SYNTHESIS. We can source "pseudoscience," we cannot source a scientific consensus. Nor is the whole movie pseudoscience. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely the absurd result I referenced above. The phrases "the movie misrepresents science" or "the movie contains pseudoscience" are well sourced, and do not say that every statement made in the movie is false. The only justification for a waffling phrase like "according to several scientists" is if there is some reason to believe that those "several scientists" are speaking outside of the scientific consensus on the topic that constitute their criticism. We don't have reason to suspect that.Kww (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What problem have you got with "Parts of the film that repeat the beliefs of the school about various scientific topics have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience,"??? You've gotten your way here. It says pseudoscience. No, we can't say "balderdash" like you wanted to in the beginning, but I would think this is a very nice compromise indeed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And now there's edit warring over the fact tag. How inappropriate. Dreadstar † 19:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientific community and scientific consensus

I think that the discussion here is too focused on sources and attribution. Does the scientific community have an opinion on this movie? No. The movie isn't important enough to have any statements made by relevant societies and institutions. However, is there scientific consensus on ideas presented in the movie? Absolutely. A lot of the quantum physics leaps into consciousness and the neuroscience "power of intention" baloney is considered pseudoscience by sources who are unconcerned with the movie. Pointing out to the reader that these ideas are pseudoscientific is easy: we just need to find reliable sources that sufficiently debunk the nonsense that this particular group believes in. That's all we need to do. We don't need to make grand sweeping statements about the "movie in general" or the opinions of a nebulous community: we can just plainly state where the movie has made pseudoscientific comments. It turns out that some of the explanations of quantum mechanics aren't so terrible to begin with, and some of the explanations in the movie are actually scientifically accurate. It's just that the conclusions that are drawn are totally opposed to scientific understanding of basic ideas such as the role of observation, randomness, and the power of the mind. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, there seems to be a tendency to say things like "physicist John Doe says that the observer in quantum mechanics need not be a consciousness." This kind of direct attribution in the text is unnecessary when dealing with topics upon which there is a scientific consensus. As far as the pseudoscience that individual scientists have pointed out exists in the movie, there is consensus. We source the statements with references to individual scientists making the statements, but we do NOT have to attribute it directly to them in the text when their statements adequately reflect textbook knowledge, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about using sources which do not mention the movie- which means we trust ourselves as editors to know Quantum Mechanics well enough to know that what the movie said is the same as what the textbook is talking about. So basically, what you are saying is that we should ignore all rules -specifically the OR policy which states:

However, care should be taken to not "go beyond" what is expressed in the sources, nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

You feel we should take sources which do not mention the movie to debunk the movie- in other words, use them out of context. Is that correct? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that when someone says something like (for example) "the conscious mind affects the outcome of a quantum mechanics experiment" that is directly contradicted by scientific consensus. It is perfectly fine to say this in the article and cite a textbook that makes such a statement. The problem here is that people are using attribution to limit the plain description of scientific facts. It's like having an article on creation science that doesn't plainly describe how creation science plainly contradicts basic science facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. That's a clear violation of WP:NOR. The source needs to be talking about the subject of the article, which is the movie, "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and represent those sources accurately.". Dreadstar †

There's nothing original about it. The fact that the movie says one thing and standard texts say another is a perfectly legitimate subject for the article. Since the movie deals with subjects other than the movie itself, it is perfectly legitimate to bring in sources that discuss those subjects independent of the movie. This is something that is non-negotiable in describing fringe ideas. If you don't like it, I suggest you get ready because I will make sure that the statements made in the movie that are contrary to scientific facts are plainly described as being contradicted by scientific facts whether or not the sources which we cite the scientific facts from mention the movie. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've just described is the very definition of original research. "The fact that the movie says one thing and standard texts say another is a perfectly legitimate subject for the article. Since the movie deals with subjects other than the movie itself, it is perfectly legitimate to bring in sources that discuss those subjects independent of the movie.". No, the source must be in relation to the movie, not something the movie mentions. If there's an article on that something the movie mentions, that's the place for those sources. Dreadstar † 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is you who are confused. Let's say Paris Hilton made a movie supporting the flat earth that was notable because Paris Hilton made the movie. Now let's further say that no scientist bothered to debunk the movie itself because flat earth nonsense is well understood to be pseudoscience and there are plenty of sources which show clearly that the Earth is not flat. According to you, none of those sources would be elligible for use in sourcing plain statements of fact that Paris Hilton's hypothetical movie was scientifically inaccurate. This flies in the face of WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. We have a situation here where clear statements are made in this movie which are clearly in contradiction to scientific fact. There is no requirement to reference a critique of the movie to show this to be the case. You think differently, start an RfC. I don't have time for arguing this mundane point. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are many who would disagree with you. It's a little early for an RfC, but let me assure you that I am well aware of the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process, so you can stop repeating your exhortation. Not having time is no excuse for not engaging in a discussion to find Wikipedia:Consensus. Dreadstar † 07:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are many who would disagree with you. The point is that when there is a fact, it is a fact regardless of what article it finds itself in. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm sure there are...no question. But we'll see how other's opinions go and see what the consensus is. I'm glad to see that you do have the time to engage in discussion on this issue! Dreadstar † 08:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Titles

An appeal to authority?, no, those are their proper titles. Dreadstar † 06:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rarely are the Dr appellations used in such a listing. This tactic is often employed by, for example, creationists who are trying to lend false credibility to their own pseudoscience. Such pandering is unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the policy or guideline that states this? Dreadstar † 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NAMES#Academic titles. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Now that makes sense. Dreadstar † 06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. SA, I was just about to congratulate you. Then I saw that you defeneded you edit with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Find something better. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, makes sense for biographies, where we can add the content that is supposed to replace the title, "Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead." So, we may be ok using the titles for each of them in this article...and it is a sourced part of the movie....perhaps there's another section of guideline that clarifies this. Dreadstar † 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding the titles back would be nothing short of POV pushing. If you don't think that this guideline applies then I encourage you to start an RfC. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if there is legitimate reason to put the titles back, then that's certainly not pov-pushing. You haven't quite proven your point on this issue, then you start throwing around accusations of pov-pushing? Bad form. Dreadstar † 07:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

C'mon. I have read the talkpage and it is clear that there are ulterior agendas at work here. Be that as it may, I haven't seen anybody give any reasons to put the titles back in. Since we have evidence from the WP:MoS that this is not done biographically, why do it here? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing how to handle the titles, if you want to contribute positively to this discussion then do so, but please stop with the accusations and insinuations. Dreadstar † 07:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're discussing how to handle the titles. It looks like no one has any reason to keep them on. So off they come! ScienceApologist (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, you've already unilaterally removed them and your sarcasm and mockery aren't really positive contributions. I'm sure there will be more opinions and statements on this issue by a larger number of editors tomorrow (or later today, depending on your time zone...I'm just off to bed shortly). Dreadstar † 07:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article is in a better state then when I started. Usually when Martin doesn't like a series of edits I can tell I'm on to something good. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not bring your feud with others to this article, your comment is just totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Dreadstar † 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a "spirit". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

wow. That is a truly sad view. Dreadstar † 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it so hard, nothing has a spirit. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

lol..oh, I see, you're talkin' supernatural and I'm talkin' team spirit, that special attitude characterizing something, esp a lively or brisk quality. That kinda spirit...heh... Dreadstar † 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be reverted back to the version before SA started his main attack on it, [1]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The very same guideline cited by ScienceApologist says that it's appropriate to use postnominal letters. So instead of saying Dr. Candace Pert, we can say Candace Pert, Ph.D. TimidGuy (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the guideline again. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you do that too, because the guideline directly applies to biographies. Putting relevant academic titles within articles about other subjects is fine. Even if that guideline truly apples to non-biographical articles, you've applied only the first part of that guideline, but basically ignored the second - although adding such recommended detail to this article wouldn't be the best course of action, . I've posted it above, but I'll repeat it here: "Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.". Dreadstar † 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We cannot verify how these people obtained their academic credentials in this article, therefore we shouldn't say what these credentials are. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't? That was sorta the point, and is why we need to provide their academic titles. Can't just leave them with plain names or less than we actually can verify - and I suspect we can verify quite a bit...leaving out their credentials per the movie sources would violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Dreadstar † 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The academic titles are essentially the moviemaker's way of soapboxing and the there is no requirement that we include titles. As I said, this is exactly the same thing that creationists do in their attempts to promote their own version of pseudoscience: they trumpet the academic titles of their hosts. This serves to mask the pseudoscience present inside -- it's a bald appeal to authority. Since Wikipedia has a standard in place of not including academic titles, we should just stick to it. If the reader wants to know more about the people in the movie, let them click on the links. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so you've stated. I disagree with you, and the 'standard' is clearly for biographies. So it will probably be up to consensus, or whatever steps we need to take according to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Dreadstar † 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and not all of them have links...but I think per the movie's sources, we need to include them in this article as well. Dreadstar † 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we verify their credentials independent of the movie? Because I am skeptical of more than a few of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides what's sourced already, I'm not sure...especially when taking NOR into consideration. I don't see a problem with giving the titles as they are presented in the movie and by other reliable sources about the movie. Going outside the movie sources for "proof of credentials" to support the movie's sources statements is a very narrow NOR line to try and tread. Especially in such a contentious article. Things would go a lot smoother if we focused on the movie instead of the external disputes or analysis about the 'science' and participants.

Taking your view of 'just clicking on the links" for more information on the individuals to the next logical level, just click on the links to the individual "fringe sciences" for that detail - that way the article would quite simply avoid NOR violations altogether. There's no real need to go into the details of the 'sciences' in this article, it's a general article about a movie. I really don't see why we have to attack it so aggressively. Dreadstar † 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to tie together two very different issues. So far, the only justification I see for including the academic titles in our article is that the movie producers included them in their promotional literature. So what? We aren't in the business of promoting their film. So what other justification is there? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're all that different. And what I'm suggesting is in no way a promotion their film, we are in the business of giving information on the subject of our articles (in this case, the movie), and the participant's credentials are certainly part of that. Justification is that the content is sourced and relevant to the subject of the article...the movie. Dreadstar † 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Those credentials are a part of the reason these folks are in the film at all...so, yes, that information needs to be included. Dreadstar † 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that the credentials are part of the reason these "folks" are in the film? I mean, that's not explicitly stated anywhere. There are a lot of bits of information on the subject of our articles that we do not include. For example, we do not tell the reader how many times certain words appear in the film, what locations were used, what bit actors appeared, etc. At some point we have to decide what is editorially reasonable to include and what needs to be excluded and arguments need to be made beyond "the producers thought this bit of information was important". Part of writing a neutral encyclopedia is not letting the people who make the things we write about dictate the content of our articles (thus WP:COI). Since you clearly are not advocating that every bit of information we can possibly list about the film is worthy of inclusion here and since you have only offered an unsupported supposition that the reason these people are included in the film is because they have Dr in front of their names, then I must ask you for some confirmation of this or a different rationale. Right now you seem to have nothing more than a vague promotional agenda. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've 'only' offered? Nah, - there's more I've offered than that simple last cry for a common sense look at who would be included, I doubt a waiter who had majored in Theatre would have been invited to speak as a physicist in the documentary portions of the film. As for the rest of the mundane details you mention, they're so far off track that there's no comparison with the credentials of those chosen to speak in the documentary part of the film...that doesn't compare at all with the mundane elemements of the film, say for instance, the number rolls of gaffers tape used in the production. That would just be silly. The credentials are important information. Dreadstar † 22:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't the credentials compare with the rolls of gaffers tape? Are you prejudiced against gaffers tape? You seriously have not offered any reason why credentials are important to list about this movie. Do you have evidence that some of the "experts" (and I use that phrase liberally) do not have doctorates in unrelated fields or perhaps didn't finish their dissertations? As far as I remember, the film just lets each of the interviewees list their own "credentials". That's not a reliable source if credentials are as important as you seem to think they are. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"A vague promotional agenda", is that what you think I have? Interesting and quite untrue. As for your last statement, yes, I personally prefer duck tape....and I don't know why I would have to have the evidence you ask for, it seems irrelevant. And, as you say, "As far as I remember, the film just lets each of the interviewees list their own "credentials"", that's enough reason to include them...it's sourced by the film itself and was significant enough to be included in the film. That's it. And this statement: "That's not a reliable source if credentials are as important as you seem to think they are.", is totally irrelevant. I think you and I have about exhausted the possibilities of our two-way conversation on this issue, why don't we let others speak..if they want....maybe nobody cares but you and me. Dreadstar † 22:38, 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 [2]. 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 [3]. ——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 [4], 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)

WP:NOR concerns

One more thing to consider with the above sourcing scenarios [5], [6], as long as those "introductory textbooks" and other sources mention the movie it may be ok, otherwise it would be strictly original research as it relates to the subject of this article...the movie. Dreadstar † 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, since the movie admits to be talking about science, pointing out where the movie gets it wrong and sourcing it to a textbook on the subject is not original research, it's just research. On this, I will not budge. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy and consensus on this issue disagree with you. Dreadstar † 20:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dreadstar is technically correct. We've been to RFC over this issue, and lost. The article can only use references from articles that bothered to notice that WTB is garbage. If a piece of garbage goes unnoticed by scientists, science can't be used to refute it. Truly sucks, but it is true.Kww (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have one thing to say: Hogwash. If a statement is made in a movie and it is a scientific statement there is absolutely nothing wrong with stating that it contradicts mainstream science and placing a citation to a mainstream textbook behind it. I will start an RfC on this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, what you call "wrong" is not pure and simply wrong. It is an interpretation of facts, not a fact in itself. Pagels is biased, that bias creates an interpretation of facts. Other people look at the facts and arrive at different conclusions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, everything is not up for lovey-dovey interpretation. There are statements made in the movie that flatly contradict reality. End of story. If the movie said "-1 x -1 = 1 is stupid and evil" (as another favorite bit of idiocy states) there would be no issue with stating that this sentiment flies in the face of mathematical reality. Likewise, here we are with plain statements made in the movie that are flatly wrong. Not just "interpreted" wrong. Just. Plain. Incorrect. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If a critic calls them on factual inaccuracies, great, print it. If the film makers take something like the uncertainty principle and say that it's a great metaphor for a spiritual insight, that's interpretation of facts. It's not a fact-based statement. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some critics who are in the know don't bother "calling them" on their inaccuracies because they are too stupid to warrant comment. See below. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?

For example, in "What the Bleep do we know?" the following statement is made:

"In quantum theory, you can also go backwards in time."

This statement is flatly contradicted by Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (Pure & Applied Physics) by James D. Bjorken and Sidney D. Drell which states clearly that time (or more specifically, the non-zero existence of a time-like component in time-like worldlines) is a single metric element in a Lorentzian 4-space that is orthogonal and independent to the rotations and translations of spatial parts (or more specifically the non-zero existence of space-like components in simultaneous events/space-like worldlines) of the metric. Is it really against Wikipedia policy to simply state that statements made in this movie are contradicted by mainstream science and give this as an example?

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Stephen Hawking, on the quantum level you can go backward in time. I could get you a direct quote, but that is fact. So, what are you trying to say here? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that you don't understand Stephen Hawking. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First, source the statement. Who said it in the movie? Or at least verify that it was said in the movie. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just watched it in the movie. You can read it in the transcript here: [7]. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is John G. Cramer a pseudoscientist? Apparently he thinks it's possible also [8] [9] [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealparr (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No. John Cramer is not a pseudoscientist, though, as with any working scientist, his ideas may be deployed in the service of pseudoscientific ideas. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer

Oh, I completely agree with that. The question here was whether their pseudoscientific statement was completely factless. My argument was that their pseudoscientific conclusions were drawn on a real hypothetical idea in mainstream science. It's still pseudoscience, of course, I was disagreeing with the contention that it is flatly factless. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical effects of retrocausality is not the same thing as "you can also go backwards in time." Don't rely on shitty science reporters to get educated about physics. That's part of the problem with this shitstorm of a movie. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The shitstorm of a movie is a speculative movie that draws similarities between quantum mechanics and spirituality. Like I already said, it's not facts, it's interpretations based on facts. The section of the movie you're quoting is a speculative illustration that occurs on a basketball court, not during an interview with an actual scientist. That should be your first clue that it's speculative. Your claim is that the movie is factually inaccurate in that it conveys "refuted" (disproven) ideas. Retrocausality is a hypothetical (speculative) idea that is currently being tested. In other words, how can it be disproven when it hasn't even been tested yet? No one is disputing that it's a shitty movie that posits pseudoscientific ideas (ideas that draw conclusions not supported by science). You're saying that it is also factually inaccurate. I'm saying what you're saying is factually inaccurate is an artistic interpretation of quantum mechanics (pseudoscience, but not factually inaccurate). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be alternatively grasping at straws and nitpicking. I will point out an error in your estimation: retrocausality is not the same thing as simply "traveling backwards in time". That's iteratively irrelevant, however. The fact is that the movie states that quantum theory allows "you" to travel backwards in time. This is flatly contradicted by mainstream texts. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not grasping at straws. Your example is totally out of context and your argument that the movie contradicts mainstream science is based on that out of context quote. In that scene they are talking about how time is perceived as moving forward before he says in quantum theory it can also be backwards. He's not talking about "you" (as in actual people) time traveling. He's talking about perceptions of the movement of time. It's totally speculative, interpretive, and theoretical, which is what the movie is about. The movie borrows theoretical ideas and draws wild unsupported conclusions. That's not fact based; it's an interpretation of a real hypothesis in mainstream science, namely that in quantum theory there can be backwards perception of time (backwards causality). This is the problem with original research. You assume that 1) you know absolutely what they are trying to say, and 2) that you are correct that they are incorrect in what you think they are trying to say. These assumptions are based on a quote taken out of context. If you are wrong, by proxy, Wikipedia is wrong. That's why we attribute criticism to a source. If the criticism is wrong, it's not our problem. It's the critics problem. When you assume the role of a critic, you make it our collaborative problem. Even if the criticism is right, we're not critics. We're encyclopedia writers that report on other people's criticism. If you'd like to be a critic, that's what blogs are for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They are wrong that in quantum theory time moved backwards. It's as simple as that. It's not speculative, interpretative, theoretical. Physics owns time and how it is perceived. Einstein showed that in his fundamental treatises on special relativity. The rest of this is just pandering to ignorance. The facts of the matter is that the movie contains statements that contradict the facts of science. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The movie is talking about the perception of time, and I'm sorry, you're wrong on the statement that Physics owns time and how it is perceived. If physics owns the physical aspects of time, then surely psychology owns the perception of it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought of a clearer way of saying what I meant to say: Flat-fact - people cannot travel back in time. Disputed-fact - this movie says that people can travel back in time. That's what makes OR and synthesis a bad thing. Allowing people to insert their own independent interpretations of the movie that are not sourced to reliable critics opens the door to a whole mess of other problems. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this movie is saying that quantum mechanics has aspects of a the theory that allow for movement back in time. This is false as I demonstrated above. There's nothing original about this statement: it's just plain false. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, from the circumstances and example given above, the textbooks cannot be used as a reference this way. Yes, this is a "textbook" example of unallowed original research as per WP:NOR. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How? Explain how it is original research to point out that a statement made in a movie is contradicted by a textbook. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Professor Marginalia, this is a classic case of original research. Just to be very clear - ScienceApoligist is suggesting that we add content to an article from sources not directly related to the topic of the article (in this case, a movie), thus violating WP:NOR. Using textbooks as sources is fine as long as the source is directly related to the subject of the article it is sourcing content for. Dreadstar † 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  How can you narrowly define the "subject" of the article to simply be the movie and nothing else? If we write an article about the theory of relativity, does that mean including a reference to a biography of Einstein is original research? How ridiculously fatuous can an argument get? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me first say I am not defending "What the bleep..?". The film is a piece of crap. That said, I think the example that you are citing above is essentially a new (albeit correct) criticism of the movie and falls under NOR. I don't see this as any different than editing the young earth creationism page with statements to the effect that it contradicts geology and biology textbooks. You really need a published work which is specifically critical of the movie. That shouldn't be too hard to find given its high profile. Joshua Davis (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I'm saying that there is a verifiable quote in the movie and there is a verifiable counter to it. It isn't new: it's old. The statements are contradicted because they are simply contradicted. To claim otherwise is to claim that we should not be able to write a damn thing in the encyclopedia but should instead just quote from reliable sources. This is obviously not the way to go. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is plenty at, for example, flood geology that does exactly what you are saying is WP:OR. I expect to see you over there removing statements. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see a problem with this personally. It's already done in other articles so I don't see the issue here, unless I'm missing something in WP:NOR. Hypothetically speaking, if someone made a movie with some nonsensical theory on alchemy, would it really be wrong to use books on alchemy as a source that discredits the nonsensical claim? IMO, no it's not. If this is actually against policy can someone please point me to where as I'd like to educate myself on this. Very interesting situation indeed. Could have major ramification on a lot of the global warming related articles. Elhector (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes and further comment: Ok, I just went and re-read WP:NOR. The only thing I can find there that may be an issue is the line that says "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." IMO since a topic of the film is "In quantum theory, you can also go backwards in time" and the text book is Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (Pure & Applied Physics) the text book deals directly with a topic in the film (quantum theory and mechanics). So I see no issue with this. Elhector (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To the first:Yes and of course. To the second, I dunno, as the policy stands now, but our policy should permit and indeed encourage this type of citing.

The theory that a factual book on science should not be used as a cite for scientific facts strikes me as pretty bizarre. If a film were to say that Abraham Lincoln died of pneumonia at the age of 85, or that penguins live on a diet of eucalyptus leaves, it would be absolutely appropriate to include a cite (following the usual guidelines on reliable sources, of course) stating that this is not factually correct.

Citing relevant and reliable sources on factual topics is not "original research." The fact that the source in question here doesn't mention the movie is completely irrelevant -- the job of factual science books is not to discuss movies, it's to present science facts. A factual science book is exactly the type of source that one should cite in reference to a question of science fact.

In the case of quantum mechanics, I think that there is room for various theories on the subject, however it is wholly appropriate to cite a theory on the subject advanced by a reliable source.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(If our policy doesn't state this now then we need to change the policy.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with ScienceApologist with respect to the policy question. Assuming no confounding factors, if the movie makes a claim that contradicts the verifiable mainstream scientific view, it does not constitute original research to say as much, even if the mainstream scientists haven't directly criticized the movie. To say otherwise would undermine WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV by allowing articles on very fringe theories to be presented without a statement of the mainstream view merely because no one has bothered to directly address the theory directly. I don't know enough about the scientific question to say whether ScienceApologist's description is accurate. Fireplace (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment For those who aren't familiar with the movie, the part ScienceApologist is quoting occurs in a drammatized portion of the film that isn't part of the interviews with actual experts. It occurs on a basketball court and is meant to be illustrative, not a fully explained discourse on scientific principles. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't quite buy this. The basketball court scene is meant to be pedagogical in my estimation. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. In my opinion, this is an online encyclopedia not a parlour game so it is not really against Wikipedia:NOR policy to simply state that statements made in a movie are contradicted by mainstream science and give appropriate citations and further reading or link to our appropriate article on the mainstream science topic.

(Whether it's relevant and appropriate to the particular movie article is another question...) Alice^✉ 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• No to the first question, and Yes to the second. Textbook example of what is WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist, that would be OR, because the textbooks you want to use have nothing to do with the film. If you feel strongly that it needs to be corrected, and you can't find a secondary source, perhaps you could add something in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  "nothing to do with the film" except that the film purports to explain quantum physics. A reliable source on quantum physics contradicts content in the film. It was published before the film came out. Are you asking for it to predict the future to be used as a reliable source? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• It often -very often- seems to us as editors that we should be able to cite "obviously" (as opposed to what OR means by "directly") relevant sources to contextualize, refute, or support a subject. For example, research on whether fish can feel pain seems to me quite relevant to whether a fetus can feel pain. And QM textbooks seem very relevant here. In an ideal world, with ideal people, one could allow OR. But in the presence of POV pushers, the general effect on WP of allowing any OR would be highly deleterious. It would also cause source wars, for instance, my Stephen Hawking source against SA's textbook. The guideline has stood up for a reason. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  In an absense of such a source, we'll have to defer this rhetoric. The policy question itself still stands. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No It is OR, the purpose of this Wikipedia article is neither to refute nor to corroborate any supposed claims made in the movie, rather the purpose of the article is present all significant viewpoints about movie that can be cited to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Nothing beats the simplicity of the basics. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad point. I'm not saying that we should refute nor corroborate, I'm saying that simply reporting the contradiction is a verifiable fact based on reliables sources. I'm not saying "refute" their nonsense, I'm saying we should be able to say that standard texts plainly refute their nonsense. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We are responding to an RfC that asks "Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie" Dlabtot (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that means that the textbook refutes it, not us. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. That is, if you know of a textbook that actually does refute the movie. Now all you have to do is find a textbook that mentions this movie, and it appears that the consensus would support such a citation being included in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, it can't be used, Yes, it violates WP:NOR. It's true that there are more articles where this type of OR is done routinely by their regulars. That does not make it acceptable, tempting as it may be. Avb 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  I'd appreciate some elaboration on this opinion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• We aren't writing a research paper here in which case good sources might include a textbook, although, a textbook is generally seen as a teaching tool and not a research tool per say. This is an encyclopedia which is an account of material relating to the topic - a movie. The title of the article is What the Bleep .... - the movie. The fundamental question is not about whether this is a textbook but rather whether references are made in the textbook to the topic, again, a movie. Otherwise we are dealing with Original Research because we have to make jumps in logic and application from the information in the textbook to the topic. Encyclopedic content does not require such jumps, but reports from reliable sources info. that has already been published on the topic. As Jossi notes ... classic OR. And as noted, no need to attack any editors because they disagree-at best, a red herring. Just deal with the discussion.(olive (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

  What jumps in logic are made to simply point out that the plain statement made in the movie is contradicted by the textbook? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the textbook that refers to the movie itself, and that is different than material in the textbook that refers to some aspect of the movie. What if we use a different movie and two different reliable references A and B (textbooks or not is not the issue). The movie is the Bourne Ultimatum. Reference A states that car chases in modern movies are unrealistic . Reference B states car chases in the Bourne Ultimatum are unrealistic. Wikipedia Policy allows us to use Reference B, because the movie is directly referenced. To use Reference A we would have to jump from:

• 1. IF: Car chases in modern movies are unrealistic

over

• 2.Bourne ultimatum is a modern movie
• 3.Bourne Ultimatum has car chases

to

• 4.Then: Car chases in Bourne Ultimatum are unrealistic.

In a research paper we can make this kind of jump... its called research and support of an argument. In Wikipedia this has been noted as OR and has been disallowed because as in any research paper the door is open for individual arguments, research and mistakes.There are some checks and balances in the research world for this such as peer review.My concern personally isn't with whether the movie has worth or in proving that it does or doesn't . As a editor in an encyclopedic format , my concern is that what is include in an article, specified as being about the movie, not about science but about the movie itself is verified.I don't want to get into discussions about Wikipedia policy.This seems inappropriate here.(olive (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Borne Ultimatum isn't making a prima facie claim of fact. This movie is. Fiction is fiction. If this movie were purporting to be totally fiction, there wouldn't be problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, refuting trivial things is certainly not OR. In this case it is a trivially wrong statement about Quantum Mechanics that anyone who knows about Quantum Mechanics can agree is wrong. OR refers specifically to statements about a certain topic that are nontrivial even if you have knowledge about the topic in question. In that case we demand that the statement be published in a peer reviewed journal first. Being a nontrivial statement, that would be possible. Trivial statement cannot be published in peer reviewed journals, so it would be unreasonable to consider such statements to be OR and demand that they be published first before they can be used in wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"... anyone who knows about Quantum Mechanics ..." fails WP:V (see e.g. WP:SPS). Where major peer-reviewed journals don't provide scientific info on the more contentious (pseudo-)scientific subjects, we typically use self-published sources that are written by experts and (on a general level) have solid support from scientists, such as www.pandasthumb.org, www.quackwatch.org, etc.

Then again, this is not what SA is asking. He did source both viewpoints in mainstream sources (the film itself and a science textbook). I think the disputed content is a new synthesis, which violates WP:NOR (see e.g. WP:SYNTH). Apparently this is intended to satisfy WP:WEIGHT, which in itself is a good thing. However, we assign weight on the basis of sources that discuss the subject - i.e. the film. Avb 10:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the WP:SYNTH angle is what people are going for. However, there is a problem with this. If you interpret the synthesis clause too strictly then one could say that every article at Wikipedia that uses more than one source is in violation. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion Reel Science, a division of the American Chemical Society aimed at "encourag[ing] critical thinking about the way science is presented in film" says: "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought." [11] Why not include that quote, attribute it, and move on? Fireplace (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

^There you go. That's all anyone was asking for before SA went off on a tirade about POV pushing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good quote. But this RfC is useful in that quite a few editors gave and explained their opinion on the matter. Avb 10:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That deals with the accidents of the argument but not the substance. Is a textbook written before the movie came out a reliable source about subjects the movie itself purports to be about? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No to the first question and Yes to the second. A text book (that is not about the movie) cannot be used to refute errors in a movie point out that the movie contradicts mainstream science [change inspired by ScienceApologist below]. To do so is to do original research. The purpose of this article is neither to reveal to the public the truth -- or lack of -- that might be in the film — not a place for idea spam. The Wikipedia Spam policy advises:

Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of ... ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is [or conversely how bad] ... you're in the wrong place.

The purpose is to reveal what the reliable sources are saying about the film. If one wants to know what reliable sources are saying about quantum physics, then one goes to articles on quantum physics, not this film. If this means some falsehoods in the film go unchallenged, then so-be-it. It is not Wikipedia's mission to reveal the truth.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

(Quoted from Wikipedia:No original research#Verifiability) —Len Raymond (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really "refuting" errors, I'm pointing out that the movie contradicts mainstream science. There's a subtle but important difference. Wikipedia is not meant to be a debunkers' paradise, but it is also not meant to simply ignore verifiable facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No This is a clear violation of NOR. If the sources do not mention the movie, then they are not literally mentioning the content of the movie, they are mentioning content that you (or I) believe is "really" contents of the movie. This is at best a slippery slope leading wikipedia editors to insert their own views into articles. The issue hee is not what is a reliable source but what is an appropriate source. An appropriate source should be a source concerning the topic of the article. If the topic of an article is biology or physics, then sources on biology or physics are appropriate. If the topic of an article is a film, then sources on the film are appropriate sources.. It sounds like Science Apologist has his or her own opinion and wants to make that part of the article. If the movie really is not an authoritative documentary on science, can´t we find appropriate sources - e.g. reviews of the movie by critics or scientists who watched the movie - that say so? NPOV requires us to include notable views ... about the film. Science Apologists´ views about the film are not notable. Let´s find real sources that are appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. Say someone makes a documentary about Margaret Mead that states, in part, "Margaret Mead received her PhD from Cornell University." Are you saying that we cannot use a biography written about Margaret Mead to cite the simple contradiction that this movie makes to the historical facts of the matter? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I made it quite clear what I think. Why are you asking me this question? I have already explained what the policy means. Your question serves no purpose except to disrupt this RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't do a very good job in my estimation, which is why I want you to explain what I consider to be a poorly considered position. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein wrote: "An appropriate source should be a source concerning the topic of the article." -- IMHO, an appropriate source is a reliable source concerning any assertion of fact made in an article. To deny this is to permit articles to contain incorrect information, which can't be challenged because "that's not the main topic of the article."-- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, this textbook can't be used in this way. The above passage isn't self-evidently contradicting what the film says. I must rely on ScienceApologist's understanding and interpretation. Yes, this is therefore a good example of the sort of original research disallowed by WP:NOR. If one were to open Wikipedia up to the interpretation of sources by various editors, then why wouldn't I also be able to support the point using Hawking and Cramer? There's a good chance that I'd misunderstand and misinterpret what they say -- and that's the problem. We'd be forced to decide which editors know their stuff and can properly interpret sources and which ones don't have the requisite knowledge. This would be a fundamental change for Wikipedia -- and seriously problematic. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  Your lack of understanding of physics is not an excuse for not dealing with the substance of the argument. Let's say that the statement was made that "1+1=5". Would you allow us to source a textbook that was written before the movie came out that states "1+1=2" and point out that the movie contradicts that statement? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an additional can of worms. Then we'd need to decide, in each instance, whether it was a simple and straightforward refutation or open to interpretation. I feel like you're misframing the issue. You're creating an artificially simple situation and suggesting that policy be changed on this basis. When in reality, the ramifications would create serious problems by opening the door wide for original research. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that science textbooks are reliable sources that can be used to contradict statement made under presumption of fact when the context is right. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using this talk page to personally insult other editors. Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if TimidGuy would cut out that crap, but I'm not holding my breath. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, this type of use would be original research, so it won't work for inclusion in the article. That's my response to the RfC question. However, the movie clearly presents pseudoscience, and that can be stated in the article if it can be attributed to a reliable source who states it in context of commenting about the film. I've found a few of those and will add them in a new section below titled "bleep pseudoscience sources". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why does that constitute original research? Imagine the statement: "the movie presents, as fact, statements which are contradictory to maisntream physics theories." Then we include a footnote pointing out an example of such a contradiction. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• yes you *can* use a text book to comment on a film's accuracy. Whether you want to or not depends on whether the film has any pretensions to describe reality William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• No Obviously original research. Can we bend the rules? I think WP:NOR says no. Anthon01 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to your characterization. I don't get how consistently you get away with this? You yourself admit to being an agenda-driven editor, as the defender of science, albeit your version. I do have an agenda and that is to support alt-med where justified based on RS. I think it will make wikipedia a more balanced, useful and attractive encyclopedia. You are trying to bend the rules here in order to further your own agenda. For the record I support the reinclusion of the Benviste affair at homeopathy, based on WP:RS, in spite of my suspicion that homeopathy has some merit. Anthon01 (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple: SA is pushing the dominant POV, he's more of an NPOV-pusher. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So pushing the dominant POV allows editors to make such characterizations? Does WP policy sanction disparaging remarks made against editors interested in presenting RS minority POV? Anthon01 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is plainly original research. While this would be perfectly appropriate for a periodical article addressing the flaws and inaccuracies of the film, it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article about the film. We should be drawing on reliable sources that report about the film and leave it at that. This is not the appropriate place for "debunking" the film and its claims. The path suggested would allow a wide swath of inappropriate original research and could lead to many articles covering new age, supernatural, religious and similar topics being bogged down by debunking and other skeptical baggage. (That is not even close to the whole of the potential damage, but rather just examining the principle within the debunking context.) On the flip side, the claims that disallowing this type of original research would lead to an acute undermining of FRINGE and related rules is simply bunk of its own. If the topic is notable enough for inclusion, there are certainly reliable sources that explicitly contradict the FRINGE claims. This particular article is a good example. There is a virtual mountain of reliably published sources that review and analyze this film from a wide variety of perspectives ranging from the secular humanist debunking model to the new age apologetics models (and quite a fair swath in-between). As noted by comments above, the potentially erroneous claim is contested by published sources discussing the film, eliminating any "need" to act outside the core content rules. Vassyana (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that there exist other sources is beside the point. What makes a textbook about quantum physics original research? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• No A source should not be used to criticize a topic unless it is actually criticizing the topic. While the science being cited may be valid it still violates WP:NOR if the criticism originates from a user and not from a third party source. If this were allowed then anybody could simply add a criticism section to any science fiction movie or TV show and thus imply that they had been serious academic criticism of them, or they could take any entry on a politician and imply that a particularly policy of theirs received criticism simply by citing a criticizing a different politician with a similar policy. perfectblue (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC etiquette

When we ask for comments via an RfC, involved editors should avoid trashing or pressing on their viewpoints on respondents. Let them make their points, and when the RfC is closed you can continue on your debates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC response tally

It has become difficult to keep track of the responses to the RfC because one user has been cluttering up that section by arguing with every commentor who did not agree with his position. In the interest of clarity, here is the current tally of responses:

YES it can be used, it is not original research.

ScienceApologist

Elhector

Writtenonsand

Fireplace

Alice

Count Iblis

William M. Connolley (talk)

NO it can not be used, it is original research.

Nealparr

Professor marginalia

Dreadstar

Joshua Davis

SlimVirgin

Martinphi

Dlabtot

Avb

olive

Len Raymond

Slrubenstein

TimidGuy

Jossi

Jack-A-Roe (talk)

Anthon01 (talk)

Vassyana

perfectblue (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I object to the enfranchisement of more than a few of the people voting "no" as obvious disruptive editors and POV-pushers. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE concerns

Besides WP:NOR concerns, there is also WP:UNDUE to consider. The Reception section, the largest section in the article by far, is about 60% criticism of the science in the movie from sources that do not violate WP:NOR, to add even more criticism from unrelated "introductory textbooks" would make this a purely attack vehicle for the movie, violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Dreadstar † 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the content of the RfC, so I have moved it to a new section. Note that I'm simply pointing out the propriety of using textbooks as a source. I'm not saying anything about whether or not I want to add material. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect, you are suggesting that we add content to an article from sources not directly related to the topic of the article (in this case, a movie), thus violating WP:NOR. Using textbooks as sources is fine as long as the source is directly related to the subject of the article it is sourcing content for. Dreadstar † 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And you are claiming that an article about a movie that talks about quantum mechanics shouldn't have references that talk about quantum mechanics but not the movie, thus violating WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm claiming exactly what WP:NOR says. To claim UNDUE as you have, is a strawman, as I've shown above. Dreadstar † 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm claiming that you are unduly weighting the article towards the idiots at Ramtha who think that quantum mechanics explains their woo-woo beliefs. That is an inappropriate holding hostage of scientific terminology. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the movie, not quantum mechanics or water crystals forming or even Ramtha. The individual articles on those sciences or fringes can contain the information you're suggesting we add to this article. Dreadstar † 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to have a place in the article where they are mentioned so we can link to them. Same issue applies: sourcing would therefore be done by standard texts. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to ScienceApologist: Yes, persons at Ramatha think, "quantum mechanics explains their woo-woo beliefs." And yes, the producers of the film play loose with "scientific terminology." So what? Why should it be Wikipedia's problem if no reliable sources pick that up? —Len Raymond (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that destroys the reliablity of the movie to report on its own content. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "the reliability of the movie"? That phrase has no meaning in the context of this article. This bogus movie is not a source for this article, the movie is the subject of this article. Dlabtot (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I am not sure how to follow up on your comment. Do you mean to say that if claims made by the movie can be debunked that such debunking would serve to discredit the movie as a reliable source regarding quantum-physics & consciousness? —Len Raymond (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a concerted group of paranormal POV-pushers including User:Dreadstar, User:TimidGuy, User:Nealparr, and User:Martinphi are holding this article hostage in order to prevent meaningful information about the subject matter to be presented to the reader. I have therefore added the NPOV tag to encourage broader realization of these problems. In particular, I think that there has been a lot of good information removed from the article since July 2007 that has been excised simply to allow for a sympathetic rather than a neutral point-of-view. This is wholly unacceptable according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The scientific community owns quantum mechanics and the interpretations of it. This needs to be made clear in this article. Currently it is not. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, get off my case. You're always lumping me in with others and frankly, it's lazy and uncalled for. I'm disagreeing with you because I am unaware of anything in the film that is dis-proven by critics. Sure it's a shitty film but fair is fair and there's rules at Wikipedia for accurately conveying criticism. Calling me a POV pusher is the lamest way of getting your way. What is POV about my suggested wording?

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."

Hmm, could it be that my suggested wording clearly points out that the film misrepresents science, and is properly attributed to a reliable source that is specifically about physics? The only thing I disagree with you on is your claim that things in the film are disproven. I think you're wrong. Big deal. Stop trying to discount people's opinions and WP:V your claim. In the very least, stop with the stupid personal attacks that don't doing anything to prove your point. Check the history. I've barely done anything on this article and haven't removed any criticism at all. Verify, verify, verify. So whatever your issue is with me, check it at the door and play nice. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I greatly respect the work that Dreadstar and others did to improve this article starting in July. They followed due process every step of the way, including RfC and consensus, and adhered to closely to Wikipedia policies. In fact, in my mind it was a model of due process -- and helped Dreadstar to become an Admin. Fine if you want to reopen the issues, but please be cautious about making accusations. And please be civil. TimidGuy (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I suggest you review WP:NPOV. You seem to be misapplying the term. You have not actually noted anything about the article that violates NPOV. Would you care to do so? Thanks in advance.

I would also advise you that personal attacks against other editors are not appropriate for this talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I share ScienceApologist's NPOV concern, even though I have given up on directly editing the article. By taking such a narrow view of OR, the article winds up in the absurd position of not being able to effectively point out that the movie is a tissue of falsehoods. The article does give undue weight to the concerns of whackos, because most scientists ignored it. Instead of being able to treat the scientific position as being against the movie, we are forced to attribute these concerns to "some scientists." We are force to act as if there is some sort of controversy. Thus, the OR concerns crippled this article, whether that crippling was intentional or not.Kww (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it is the role of this Wikipedia article to "effectively point out that the movie is a tissue of falsehoods" ? Wouldn't that be better left to reviews of the movie? (Reviews, which, of course, can be appropriately cited in the article.)

As for "sharing his NPOV concern", since you share it, maybe you could try articulating it: what is it specifically about the article that violates WP:NPOV? Dlabtot (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the film have been criticized as crossing the line into pseudoscience instead of the film crosses the line into pseudoscience. It took a lot of arguing to get Ramtha mentioned in the lead, because other editors thought that point that out was biased. Vegso, Rienecker, and Dolnick come in front of the scientific criticism. The article has grown much better since ScienceApologist went through it ... compare it to the locked version, and you will see how much better it has become. Today, it is nearly acceptable.Kww (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned with the article as it is; I have no interest in examining old versions that have already been discarded. You seem to think the article presents the film in too sympathetic a light, but, I have never heard of this film before today, I know nothing about it other than what I've read in this article - and it's absolutely clear to me that the film is a crock of shit, to use the vernacular.

Responding to your specific example, I refer you to Let the facts speak for themselves and Attributing and substantiating biased statements Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that we were having a civil conversation about whether "refuted" is the correct word to use before ScienceApologist jumped in with a what I say "needs to be taken with a grain of salt". Then he went nuts when we asked for a source that verified what he was saying, posted an RfC, and WP:CANVASSed half of Wikipedia for responses, misrepresenting the issue when doing so. When he was done with all of that he posted this stupid NPOV section calling it a conspiracy (of which I'm apparently a part of) and said that science "owns" this article. It's irritating, and he clearly needs to unplug and chill out on these things. Fireplace posted a great solution above:

Reel Science, a division of the American Chemical Society aimed at "encourag[ing] critical thinking about the way science is presented in film" says: "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought." Why not include that quote, attribute it, and move on?

That's all that was needed. It's something SA could have done if he had just chilled out for a second and not freaked out and started calling everyone POV pushers. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the film, and I don't remember any place at all where it said people could travel backward in time. I doubt very much it said that. And one of those animations doesn't necessarily count. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It comes down to a source vs your memory in this case, I'm afraid. Antelan ^talk 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr has evidently gone back to the movie and examined that section. Here he presents what actually takes place.[12] TimidGuy (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive of current discussion

Would whoever archived the most recent posts please de-archive all the December comments pre-December 20? I think that December 20 is far too late of a date to archive. That's 1 day old. There are current discussions, including one I was having with Dreadstar, that were caught up in that archive. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 03:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Time travel on the sub atomic scale

"Each history will be a curved spacetime with matter fields in it. Since we are supposed to sum over all possible histories, not just those that satisfy some equations, the sum must include spacetimes that are warped enough for travel into the poast... So the question is, why isn't time travel happening everywhere? The answer is that time travel is indeed taking place on a microscopic scale, but we don't notice it. If one applies the Feynman sum-over-histories idea to a perticle, one has to include histories in which the particle trevels faster than light and even backward in time. IN particular, there will be histories in which the particle goes around and around on a closed loop in time and space....One cannot observe particles with such closed-loop histories directlyl with a particle dectector. However, their indirect effects have been measured in a number of experiments... It seems, therefore, that quantum theory allows time travel on a microscopic scale."

Stephen Hawking, The Universe In A Nutshell Page 148-150 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to me to be totally unrelated to a discussion of how to improve this article. Why did you post it here on this talk page? Dlabtot (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with the article, but anyway, Hawking is just being silly here. Sum-over-histories is not a theory, it's a way of doing calculations in wave mechanics. It's not obviously causal, but it's mathematically equivalent to the wave formulation, which is obviously causal. Sum-over-histories works for any linear wave theory, including Maxwell's equations, so Hawking might as well have said that classical physics allows time travel on a microscopic scale. -- BenRG (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. From the response, we see exactly why we should not allow OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point to this? Antelan ^talk 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point is that ScienceApologist, in his RfC, made it sound like the claim in the movie was simply contradicted by textbook physics. But Martin, I think, was making the point that it's not such a straightforward situation, suggesting in my mind that the point in the RfC was a bit misleading. Anyway, Nealparr's later discussion convinced me that ScienceApologist didn't accurately represent what was in the movie. TimidGuy (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As a matter of physics, ScienceApologist is correct. You, due to your size being orders upon orders of magnitude beyond the quantum scale, will never travel backwards in time. A photon can do so, depending on how you feel about Feynman diagrams. The question revolved around whether or not this info could be used to refute wrongheaded notions in the movie. We probably have enough sources refuting the inaccuracies that we don't need to do so. Antelan ^talk 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The movie only made the claim about the sub-atomic realm, I think. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't even do that. The section we're talking about referred to the perception or experience of time, not actual physical objects moving backwards in time, whether they be photons or photon torpedoes. My issue on the whole time travel thing was that the movie doesn't actually say that people can physically travel through time because of quantum theory. It's talking about the perception or experience of time, not physical time, and it's only a tiny blip in the movie. An introductory physics book can tell you that you can't physically go back in time, but an introductory psychiatry book on the effects of LSD will tell you that you can certainly experience time backwards. Regardless of my opinion, at least one source thinks it actually does make the claim that people can go back in time (Reel Science). Eventhough I disagree with that source personally, I have no problem with printing it as long as it's attributed as their opinion. Like I said above, there's two separate issues on criticizing for factual inaccuracies. The first is whether or not it is a factual inaccuracy (flat-fact: people cannot physically travel through time). The second is whether or not the movie is actually saying that they can (disputed-fact: the movie says that people can physically travel through time). I don't think (at least not because of this example quote) that it should be flat-fact stated that the movie is inaccurate. But as long as it isn't original research, is sourced criticism, and is attributed to the critic, I don't care otherwise. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:29, 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 [13]. "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)

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)

Where are the New Age talking heads?

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)

• 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)