Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 11

theme and refutation

 * The film's central theme—that quantum mechanics suggests that a conscious observer can affect physical reality—has also been refuted [...].

Ah, no. You can refute an assertion (or in the language of logic a proposition), but -- at least in my idiolect of English -- you can't refute a theme. You could rubbish a theme, poohpooh it, reduce it to a laughing stock, or (with a straighter face) dismiss it as nonsense; but you can't refute it.

I haven't seen the film and thus don't now whether it's safe to change "theme" to "proposition" or similar, or whether to leave "theme" as is and go after "refuted". -- Hoary (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Proposition" would work well enough.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow the source perhaps? Dreadstar  ☥  17:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

very special effects

 * Margaret Wertheim called propulsion down a CGI tunnel "the sphincter-cam effect".

I'm so sorry to see that go. It was sourced and all. -- Hoary (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably unnecessary, but I'm not sure how much expertise is required to make the comparison: I've only had one colonoscopy, and I feel qualified.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"that meditation can reduce violent crime rates"
The assertion in source 3 was not challenged but rather its relation to quantum mechanics is questioned and only in passing. A better source needs to be found or the section removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.173.71 (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Academic reaction" section is actually a criticisms section
The part titled as academic reaction is actually a thinly disguised criticism section with POV largely from Fundamentalist Materialist POV. It is also very long considering it is one-sided and lacking in POV from other academic fields. I'm not surprised as wikipedia has become an attack site for hard-core materialists, asserting that their POV is a "neutral" POV (and no doubt - in line with dogmatic mentality - convinced that it is NPOV). 121.73.7.84 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is little reliable commentary which is not criticism. Although I agree with the materialist point of view, if you can find reliable commentary which is not from a materialist point of view, it can be added.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because if it isn't from a materialist POV the "rationalist"-skeptic gatekeepers at wikipedia class it as "unreliable". I have experienced this ideological brick wall many times before on wikipedia. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You make it sound as if objectivism is bad and we should all just speculate, fantasize and pretend instead.… — TheHerbalGerbil (TALK, 16:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Objectivism is just a constructed ideology. That you define anyone who doesn't agree with your ideology as fantasists or holders or pretend knowledge because it isn't materialism just goes to prove your dogmatism. Materialism, empiricism - the lot, is ideology masquerading as "fact". To regard your ideology as "fact" makes you no different from those who consider the bible to be "fact". And like them, you are just as blind. You genuinely think your materialism is a neutral rendition of reality, when you actually share their "law-and-order" mentality. You cannot know anything independently of your theories and definitions (and perceptions and cognitive distortions) of what it is. Your ego filters information in line with your pre-programmed definitions of what is "real". As a friend of mine says: "Same shit, different pile". 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Knock it off. You're both wrong.  And we're looking for reliable sources under the Wikipedia definition, which is not exactly "objective", nor relating to what is "real".  Even "fantasist" sources can be reliable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hagelin.org
In his edit, you cited http://www.hagelin.org/about.html for information about John Hagelin. Unfortunately, this site is run by Hagelin himself, so it counts as a self-published source. The text doesn't come across as neutral and academic, either, claiming he is a "world-renowned quantum physicist, educator, public policy expert, and leading proponent of peace". As such, this citation does not justify the inclusion of a claim about his educational background.

Frankly, I'm not sure we should even bother trying to source it, because it doesn't particularly matter. I suspect it's being mentioned in an attempt to bolster credibility, but it doesn't really have much effect in that direction. For now, I'm removing it. Please do not restore it without first discussing the reliable source here. Dylan Flaherty  17:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * okay thats very reasonable. thank you again for your time and patience is cepxlaining your decisions to me. happy editing!! User:Smith Jones 18:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"avatar"
We're told that Marlee Matlin portrays Amanda, a deaf photographer who acts as the viewer's avatar as she experiences her life from startlingly new and different perspectives, in which "avatar" is linked to Wiktionary, which glosses it as:
 * 1) In Hinduism the incarnation of a deity, particularly Vishnu.
 * 2) The physical embodiment of an idea or concept; a personification.
 * 3) (computing) A digital representation or handle of a person or being; often, it can take on any of various forms, as a participant chooses.

Hinduism and computing seem irrelevant, so I infer that she's the physical embodiment of an idea or concept; a personification. But if I were the viewer, then the physical embodiment of me is, well, me. I don't need a personification of me.

Is all of this perhaps a grand way of saying that the filmmakers hope that viewers will see themselves in Amanda? -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary is a poorly written claptrap. Avatar has other meanings, including a representative of a viewer in a movie. User:Smith Jones 02:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Avatar" doesn't mean that, and there is a word that does mean exactly that: every(wo)man. 1Z (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you just drop the hindu stuff, an avatar would be an incarnation, or embodyment, in a medium. Think about how often this term is used related to video games and computer stuff. Was also the whole point of calling the movie Avatar by that name. This is not really that obscure or contentious a word. 209.252.235.206 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of image
Dreadstar, I should request that you explain your removal of the image of the glass of water now that you have deleted it several times. Be aware that it is insufficient to simply repeat "POV" - and that you must engage with the fact that the image summarizes professional, sourced criticisms from ABC, BBC, etc.

As for the image itself, I am also, obviously, aware that it is a generic image of a glass of water. I do not pretend it is a glass "as seen in the movie". You are free to brush up on the relevant image policies; WP:IMAGES (especially "choice and placement") or related discussions that emerged from Choosing appropriate illustrations. In this case, we are illustrating the claims from the movie made by Masaru Emoto.- Tesseract2 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The image summarizes nothing, it is a generic photo of a glass of water that has no relation to the subject of this article whatsoever. Further, the caption on that image went well beyond anything the image itself might represent, even claims by Masaru Emoto, becoming a WP:COATRACK for everyhing from the 10 percent myth to 'representing ideas' about various claims in the movie.  It's inappropriate all the way around, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with the very guideline you quote from, Images, where it says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic."  This image is not relevant to the article and it certainly isn't "significantly and directly related to the article's topic".  If you really think the image and caption meet policy and guideline, then find consensus for your changes instead of trying to edit war them in.  Dreadstar  ☥  23:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, you'll need to provide sources that the image does as you claim, "illustrating the claims from the movie," otherwise it's purely WP:OR. Certainly doesn't look like anything here and if it did, then it would belong in Emoto's article, where it would indeed be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic."  Dreadstar  ☥  23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar for the win on this one. A glass of water just isn't a suitable illustration of the nonsensical claims in the film. Find an image that actually illustrates the claims, and I'll support it, POV argument and all. There isn't really a POV issue here: all reliable sources agree that the claims are without merit. It's just that the image does nothing to help people understand either the claims themselves or the reasons that they are nonsense, so it really isn't anything but an attractive waste of space.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support in the search for a better image. I'm glad it's (mostly) obvious that POV accusations don't make sense here. The article now contains the picture of an actual ice crystal.- Tesseract2 (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you've replaced a generic image of a glass of water with a generic image of a snowflake, which also has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, and does not "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." And the caption still goes way beyond what the image purports to illustrate, and have provided no reliable sources which show that the snowflake represents anything in the film, much less what the caption states.  It certainly doesn't "illustrate the claims," it's a pretty decoration, nothing more. Please remove it.  Dreadstar  ☥  01:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the images should be related. Your polarizations about how the image "has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article..." and how I have "provided no reliable sources that show that snowflake represents anything in the film..." are unhelpful and borderline dishonest. I have been doing everything I can to try and get you to go through the source you cited, to see that Masaru Emoto shows exactly these kinds of regular (although he would no doubt think they are psychically influenced) ice crystals on his website. These are the same kind that featured right in the movie no less (youtube "What the Bleep Water" - or please just go here).

Moreover, if you scroll down at Images you'll see that "Intangible concepts can be illustrated; for example, a cat with its claws out portrays aggression, while a roadside beggar juxtaposed with a Mercedes-Benz shows social inequality." That is the use of this image, that is what another user (Kww) has already seemed to grasp, and that is why it is obviously on the knife's edge of relevant to the 'Academic reception' section: the movie made various faulty scientific claims.

I granted you had a minor case in that the glass of water didn't quite suffice. At this point I am not sure how productive this is. Really, if anyone else has an opinion on this, please share. Consensus would put an end to this either way.- Tesseract2 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A generic picture of a snowflake is no better than a generic picture of a waterglass. Find an image that actually relates to the claims, or don't include an image. Don't go through a library of various H20 related images playing a game of "it isn't a reversion because I found a different unrelated picture of water." You've edit-warred an addition into the article. That violates our edit-warring policy and WP:BURDEN, which requires you to obtain consensus for additions that have been contested.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize for my contribution to that back and fourth of edits.

I cannot apologize for failing to find the image that you guys would think fits that section at this point. There has been no real discussion, and no real suggestions offered on your sides. Would a supremely relevant image be an actual picture of thoughts changing water? Or maybe an authentic magic ice crystal? In the end you are free to ignore the image policies and repeat "irrelevant" or even "POV" without qualifications. This is the right of consensus. I am, of course, disappointed that the consensus has so far been that simply deleting everything can been deemed an acceptable compromise. I do think Wikipedia loses.- Tesseract2 (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to illustrate or explain the claims referenced in the caption. It doesn't have to be a picture of reality. Certainly, somewhere in the world, one of the people that believes in this stuff drew a picture of what they believe in.
 * The best way to avoid getting your contribution deleted is to discuss it before you put it in. The normal flow is what is called WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss. You made a bold effort, and it was reverted because of disagreement. You then discuss it before putting in back in. You don't just keep throwing it back in and then discussing the fact that someone removed it the first time.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lede section
Dreadstar claims that it is WP:OR to use the definition of quantum mysticism this way:.

I strongly disagree. I welcome his analysis here.

71.174.134.165 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Parked Content:
Original:

Proposed:

To add the content you are suggesting you would need sources that explicitly support these statements, and you need to summarize the sources and not selectively extract content to make a point which creates a POV. Do we have a source that references What the Bleep and specifically says consciousness in What The Bleep is quantum mysticism. Do we have a source that refs What the Bleep and specifically says there is a spiritiual connection that is purported. I hope that explains the concerns with your edits. (olive (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
 * I had not noticed this edit with a misleading edit summary, and think we should go back. The anonymous editor is quite right: the current version of the lead implies that there is a spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness, and this film describes it. This film cannot "describe" such a connection, because it doesn't exist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's source what we have to add whatever that may be rather than depend on our opinions.(olive (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
 * I'm busy tonight but will check in later.(olive (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
 * What would you have as a source, Littleolive? The change was made long after the one we so painstakingly pounded out as a compromise. The question is the correct verb, which isn't something you are going to find a source for. "Posits" is fairly neutral on the topic of whether the film is right or wrong: it could be taking that position correctly or incorrectly, and "posits" would still describe it. "Describe" is not neutral, as it presumes the existence of the connection.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with posits. The topic of this thread and my concern is content the IP added. which unless it is sourced is OR and/or editor opinion. Sure, feel free to use and add posits instead of describe. I agree its a more accurate word.(olive (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC))


 * (ec) First, the wording anon propooses juxtaposes "consciousness" with "quantum mysticism" in parentheses as if the the two are the same when they are not, and which is not per sources (OR). Second, anon doesn't have consensus for the change they propose.  I do agree that 'posits' should be restored, it was indeed put there by hard-fought consensus, but I don't see 'posit' in any version proposed by anon. The wording of the lead should be as it is here - although I don't believe we need the references repeated in the lede per WP:LEAD, the refs in the body of the article are sufficient. Dreadstar  ☥   23:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As for this, that content has nothing to do with the subject of this article and is purely POV, cherry-picked content that does nothing but add bias, and I believe is a violation of WP:BLP. Dreadstar  ☥   23:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the older "posits a relationship" wording. Hopefully that will address the primary concern of the anonymous editor. "Quantum mysticism" does appear in the lead, but it's not such an obvious or important term that it absolutely has to appear in the lead sentence.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Next time do your homework before you support an anon's inappropriate edit. Dreadstar  ☥   01:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the words at the end of the lead are about the spiritual connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness, I moved them up. That is part and parcel of quantum mysticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.90.74 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus for your edit, and I believe you're a sock of a banned editor. Dreadstar  ☥   03:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not a sockpuppet, but feel free to file a case on WP:SPI where your allegations will be shown to be false. I can prove my identity and I was never User:VanishedUser314159 nor User:ScienceApologist. As for your contention that the edit lacks consensus, the edit seems to be legitimate as a content description of the film. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm working on SPI now, you're an obvious sock and you have no consensus for your edits. Dreadstar  ☥   04:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be agreement to not have quantum mysticism in the lead. I would agree with KWW and Dreadstar so that's three to one. I'll revert based on this agreement. I would suggest that continuing to revert against this agreement is disruptive(olive (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

Critics
There is not a positive review of the film? Obviously the film especulates about philosophical ideas abduced from quantum mechanics, but considering it "pseudocience" is exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.128.89 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, "pseudoscience" is a fairly polite and restrained description of the contents of this film.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To add, this is a film not a science or pseudoscience., and science is a process not a thing However, per Wikipesia we can label certain aspects of the film science or pseudoscience as the case may be. (olive (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC))


 * If you know of a positive review, by all means add it to increase the WP:NPOV. —EncMstr (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The criticism part of the article went on and on. Absolutely a POV problem. I cut it down a bit. Also, some of the sources were a bit suspect, to say the least, so I cut just the least scientific sections of this section. 108.202.113.201 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)