Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 8

Rracecarr, stop censoring factual sourced edits
Racecarr, if you continue to censor valid edits I made re: the Physic Today article, I am going to bring it to the attention of an admin. You are conducting rude and unethical edit warring by hiding behind "grammar" to censor factual, sourced material. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not hiding. I fix/remove bad grammar, always.  Also, why do you keep removing the popsci ref, without reason? Rracecarr (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out why all the refs about misrepresenting science keep getting stripped. I finally expanded the sentence so the different statements summarized by "misrepresents" are included. Hopefully, someone will get the point.Kww (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
POV negative soundbites hand selected for shock value seriously violate WP:LEAD which notes "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article." WP:LEAD also advises "It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Editors who continually insist on mining sources for the most extremely negative soundbite quotes are making a mockery of this policy by giving the false impression that these scattered soundbites are what makes this subject notable. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * JzG. These lines are not needed unless you are attempting to create some kind of impression in the lead, a particular point of view, and that is as we all know a violation of WP:POV.(olive (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC))


 * "The film has been criticized for misrepresenting quantum physics to support pseudoscience,[6][7][8] and has been described as quantum mysticism.[9][10] Arntz and the film's two other directors are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment."


 * This is an NPOV way of saying "it's cult balderdash." Further pushing of the point is not needed.  But we do need to give some examples of who is criticizing, so as not to be weasely. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion.(olive (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I accept summarizing all of those sound bites under "misrepresents science", and that's what I had before olive deleted the citations, and boodlesthecat deleted them again after I restored them. Keeping the citations is important. I'll go along if people either accept the summary as valid for all the citations, or include a bit from each citation, but not trimming the citation list.Kww (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kww the citations I deleted did not reference the material they supposedly referred to. This is just straight on research. Just find citations that specifically reference the material and they can be used. If they do not, they are OR because they require a synthesis of material, thinking. I checked the references carefully to see if they referenced whatever what is in the sentence at that time.The wording has changed many times,  so I can recheck whatever references you are talking about... or you could. No one is stripping references unless they aren't referencing what they say they do.(olive (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
 * It's the very same list we discussed here.Kww (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion and please don't think I am in charge of approving or disproving anything, I have an opinion like all of us do, I guess. When I moved the references the lead had changed and was more specific so the references did not match up to the specificity of the material. Its just a matter going through and seeing if the references you would like to include actually reference what the lines are saying right now. If not, there are others I'm sure. I'll check this. We just have to be careful to give the reader really accurate references. Probably the problem is that the lines have changed pretty quickly and the references haven't .... so lines and references are not in synch.(olive (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I realize that you aren't an approval authority ... I'm just trying my best to work with people that I have some pretty deep fundamental disagreements with.Kww (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I respect that we have fundamental disagreements.
 * So this is what I've found. The first reference is ok, not strongly referencing the sentence but probably ok for our purposes. In my opinion, of course. The other two references do not reference pseudoscience and quantum mechanics. If the sentence said the movie misrepresent science I would think that the references would be acceptable as more general referencing because science is a more general term, and the articles are generally talking about misrepresentation of different aspects of science, a more general view.... thats my thought on it, anyway.....The sentence we have in place now is pretty specific and needs that kind of specific reference, otherwise we drift into OR land(olive (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I think Kww's sources are rather good ones. They should be in there.  Here are some quotes:

However, WTB is not too bothered about the truth. The water experiment is junk pseudo- science of the worst kind and has never been replicated by a mainstream scientist. --- Simon Singh

What the Bleep Do We Know draws heavily on the role of the observer in quantum physics. Unfortunately, it also completely misunderstands it.

There is no reason not to keep the sources even if they only support the statements in a roundabout way- as long as the statements are supported directly by some sources. What we need is just a bit more attribution. Kww's version is good, as now in the article. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reworded very slightly to align with sources, by separating "misrepresenting science" from "containing pseudoscience".Kww (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine. Might need a copy edit, another "and." —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes,looks good.Refs and lines are now synched.(olive (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Yeah, looks good. So Kww, are you, ah, unhappy in a good-enough way (-: ? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's weaker than I want. I really cannot find the section of WP:ATT that forbids "x is y [citation][citation][citation][citation]", so if you really think it's there, you should highlight it for me. I've always been unhappy with the "Reception" section. The quotes about how New Ageism is taking over America just don't seem relevant to the article. The war about whether Ramtha appears in the lead has resulted in an awkward bit of text that I'm afraid to change without triggering off another edit war. As to whether I'm not too unhappy, that will depend primarily on other editor's behaviour. If this thing flares up again, I will start campaigning to delete the article and protect the namespace to prevent recreation.Kww (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kww. Since I have been the ahum... pain in the neck... on the citation policy I thought I'd try to explain from my understanding.


 * Pseudosceince, as one example, is a term not necessarily known to the lay reader and that's who we have to deal with here. Scientists are probably not going to come to Wikipedia for knolwedge in their areas, and of course for scientific information no one will probably come to a movie article. We have to connect it intimately with the source to be clear. So we can say, the movie promulgates pseudoscience.... and then the source has to say in pretty close wording ...the movie contains pseudoscientific ideas. So thats a good source, and we are clearly referencing the term pseudoscience.
 * If we don't have such a specific source, then we have to define pseudoscience to be clear and then note that:

Pseudoscience is defined as a,b,c.

The sources say a,b,c.

Thus, we might conclude that, the sources say the movie is pseudoscience.

This is Original Research, and although appropriate in a research paper not in an encyclopedia, as I understand the policy.


 * Possibly, the problems with any kind of OR is that there can be gaps in the jumps of logic from one idea to the next and unless the researcher is pretty good and pretty careful, mistakes are possible . I learned this lesson the hard way in graduate school with a paper I thought was really great but in which I made these kind of minute jumps and earned myself a D-, and the comment simply put "you just can't do this," and a valuable lesson.
 * I am a stickler for Wikipedia policy and maybe rigid about it, but its the only way I can see to be sure to bypass the biases and agendas we all might have in favour of neutrality.(olive (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Well you'd have my support on deleting it, but it will never happen. The thing with ATT is that if something is controversial, we shouldn't just state it as fact, but say who is saying that. In the context of this movie, the controversy between highly qualified people on both sides is notable. If you wanted to change the Ramtha thing, how would you put it? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd put it in the lead sentence of the second paragraph, where it flows better:Bleep was directed by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, and Mark Vicente, students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.Kww (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Um...maybe it's cause I'm to lazy to read through the whole thing but which re-write is everyone agreeing to and is it possible to point to it from here? This page really is as messy as hell again.

Also, one very important fact that has been changed in all of the versions that i can find, in all instances it now says that the interviews are with Knight. This is completely untrue. Anyone with an understanding of ramtha and the whole channeling process will understand that it is not knight that is talking but the 5000 year old warrior philosopher from Atlantis - or whatever name Plato's lost content is now being given. i have supported this previously - I can find the links if needed - and indeed this is cited in the movies credits.

As they say where I come from, if its a 5000 year old ancient being interviewed then it is necessary to mention it just as if it was a "Justified and Ancient of MU MU and they were riding an ice-cream van - or something like that. I shall await a response but may not be able to respond immediately as I am thinking of turning to the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist entries next and deconstructing those from a positivist, materialist post Popperian view-point. Maybe a tad busy as you can imagine Really2012back (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh that shouldn't keep you very long- I've seen it done in seconds. Yes, we could say something about that. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the Zoroastrians. They've been peddling a bogus interpretation of the EPR paradox for 2700 years in order to promote pseudoscience. Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And don't forget about the cosmological constant. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Λ is in our thoughts always, phi. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen/ladies for those kind suggestions. Those are indeed, topics that I wish to investigate, eventually, within the Zoroastrian entry (not to be confused with Friedrich Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra, even if that person - Zarathustra of course not Nietzsche - was the possible founder of said religion. Odd really, as we should really blame Nietzsche for the difficulties incurred in this article. After all, if he hadn't said "God is dead" then perspectivism might never have been born and and thus this movie have been unlikely to have been made. I blame the Germans myself - or at least Germans with very silly mustaches) However, I'm afraid i must start earlier then that with the possible originator of all pseudoscience, and leading to the difficulties with the EPR paradox already mentioned amongst a range of others - and that of course with that most "evil" propagators of pseudoscience MR Ayahuasca. lets see how that one holds up to a Socratic argument - in a non POV ADF way of course. Really2012back (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Commments on the comments about the new lead
Comments by boodle, with replies (I have about 10 minutes before I go to work, excuse mistakes

Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "...as well as claims, presented in the same documentary style, that are not factual at all." Unsourced, totally POV
 * "It was praised by Madonna as "incredibly thought-provoking and inspiring," UNDUE WEIGHT--at least find a bona fide movie reviewer--it's a movie!
 * "it has been criticised as fraudulent" what the bleep does that mean? fradulent? What, it's not really a movie?
 * presenting speculation and unsupported opinion as if it were established science, mixing mainstream scientific views with mysticism, and exploiting people's fascination with and belief in science while at the same distorting and falsifying its claims. Unsourced, POV pushing, undue weight, read WP:LEAD
 * "One of the experts interviewed in the film complained that his interview had been edited in such a way as to completely suppress (and indeed to reverse) his actual views." Anecdotal Undue Weight
 * "Sceptics such as James Randi described the film as "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults."[4] The Committee for Sceptical Inquiry dismissed it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense" [5]" POV pushing, undue weight to critics who are peripheral to both the film, spiritual and scientific fields.

Happy to lose the comment about Madonna, but I wanted to contrast the views of one set of supporters, such as Madonna, with another set (scientists).

Yes the movie is fraudulent for reasons I explained above. It pretends to be a documentary, presented in educational style, and it mixes true with false claims in the same style.

Since the film does in fact "present speculation and unsupported opinion as if it were established science, mixing mainstream scientific views with mysticism, and exploiting people's fascination with and belief in science while at the same distorting and falsifying its claims. " this should go in the intro.

"One of the experts ... " This is well documented. The philosopher (Albert), the one who complained afterwards, did indeed complain exactly that. I will find the source, but as I said I have very little time to edit this. This whole thing is biased against people who have proper jobs.

"Sceptics such as James Randi described ..." - this quote is actually taken from lower down the article. The Rationalist (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"As editors its not our jobs to decide why the article is here ..." of course it is. There is a notability criterion. The film is not in itself notable. It is poorly made and written, and would not normally have warranted inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. The only reason for its notability is the storm of controversy it has provoked (such as on these very pages). The Rationalist (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Recent edit did not even attempt to seek consensus, and reverted the consensus of several other editors. Reverted. Please seek consensus, as we worked hard on that. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 07:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Rationalist--I know you're terribly busy with your "proper job," unlike us slackers, but have you thought about taking a moment to familiarize yourself with that Wikipedia is supposed to be? It's not, as you seem to think, a place to insert mini-essays expressing one's personal opinions on topics, as you seem to think from your edits on this article. The criteria for "what should go in the intro" is, e.g., outlined in WP:LEAD. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please watch your tones, guys WP:Civility. Whilst I think the previous version is superior to Rationalists version, its important to discuss why rather than stating "consensus" (afterall, it's meant to change). Now, there is potential for some of the bits rationalist added to go into the lead, so I think we should discuss those. Jefffire (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. See below.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My thought would be, that since this lead has been worked on by so many editors in a "relatively" amicable way,(relative to past editing on this article), and is in a relatively stable state in terms of verifiability, POV, and consensus that future additions be identified in small units with their citations intact, and are discussed here before adding. It has been a momentous job to get the lead to this state and credit must go the numerous editors who kept working at it. I personally would like to see the stability they established prevail.(olive (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
 * OK that's reasonable. We'll take it step by step. See below.The Rationalist (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. (unindent)

Jeffire, the "tones" that are most problematic here are those in the article. Quoting nobel laureate Brian D. Josephson in his 2004 presentation on "pathological disbelief", I note that Boodlesthecat has been joined by a large group of ediors here in expressing Jacobson's essential POV with regard to the phenomenon of pathological disbelief:


 * Characteristics of scientific sceptics, according to Beaudette:
 * 1. They do not express their criticisms in those venues where it will be subject to peer review. (like on this talk page)
 * 2. They do not go into the laboratory and practise the experiment along with the practitioner. (have not carefully analyzed the movie's entire content and balance from neutral POV)
 * 3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when in fact they are mere guesses. ('Nuff said? If not, diffs on request)
 * 4. Satire, dismissal and slander are freely employed. (and like-minded critics are given undue weight - 'nuff said)
 * 5. When explanations are advanced ... ad hoc reasons are constantly advanced for their rejection. These reasons often assert offhand that the explanation violates some conservation law. ('nuff said)
 * 6. Evidence is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question at the outset. (the consensus outcomes of several WP:SET meta-analyses on pejorative language are repeatedly dismissed/ignored here)

Two points I will now, again, put forward for discussion:


 * a) Previous editors have shown that no encyclopedia -- online or otherwise -- has ever been found to use the word pseudoscience either (a) in a lead or (b) as prominently as it is here on Wikipedia. It's use here in the lead is unencyclopedic and undue.


 * b) According to a quick read of Quackwatch's own Dr. Rory Coker's criteria test for applying the word "pseudoscience", The Bleep movie fails utterly to meet the vast majority of even the Quackwatch criteria.

I agree that it's important to discuss "why" the lead keeps reverting to so pejorative a tone. May we please discuss? WNDL42 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is an underlying problem with the use of the term "pseudoscience" in this encyclopedia, then you will need to discuss the matter on a page like WP:NPOV. The use of the term has a long history on Wikipedia and is generally accepted as useful by most, with a minority of vocal dissenters.
 * Secondly, you can call me a pathological disbeliever all you like, but that doesn't change state of the science, or the guidelines on WP:Fringe Accepted as misinterpreted. Jefffire (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) Whether or not there is an "underlying problem" is not at all my point, as a quick review of what I actually wrote will confirm.


 * (b) I did not call anyone anything. Please don't accuse other editors of incivility where no such incivility exists, and please use care not to so mischaracterize my edits. I quoted Brian D. Josephson and characterized the tone of the larger discussion in a 100% impersonal tone, as you also did in your immediately preceeding comment. May we now agree on this? WNDL42 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will assume good faith, and accept that your quotes from Brian D. Josephson were simply badly placed. However, there is and remains no good rational for excluding from the lead the word "pseudoscience" under existing wikipedia guidelines. Jefffire (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Restating my discussion points now, again, with emphasis for clarity:


 * a) Previous editors have shown that no encyclopedia -- online or otherwise -- has ever been found to use the word pseudoscience either (a) in a lead or (b) as prominently as it is here on Wikipedia. It's use here in the lead is unencyclopedic and undue.


 * b) According to a quick read of Quackwatch's own Dr. Rory Coker's criteria test for applying the word "pseudoscience", The Bleep movie fails utterly to meet the vast majority of even the Quackwatch criteria.

Again, may we discuss these topics please? WNDL42 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you WNDL42, but I haven't even got that far. I'm still wondering why editors seem to feel that the job of an encyclopedia is to refute things. I can pull a dozen quotes from editors above where they basically express that. And, even more odd, why are we trying to refute  a movie? here, why not take a look at the lead in the The Passion of the Christ article. Same hot button issues in that artcile, ya di dah, but at least they manage to remain calm for a few sections before they throw in every possible critique and interpretation further down. But on this article, our defenders of the faith feel the uncontrollable urge to holler WITCH! before we even can guess that this  is a movie. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two points: the current version of the lead certainly mentions that it is a film, and deals with it as a film before it mentions scientific criticism. It also states that the film has been criticized for containing pseudoscience, and references sources that contain that very criticism.
 * Do you have reliable, non-fringe sources that directly state that Bleep does not contain pseudoscience? That's what you would need. Evaluating the film against Quackwatch criteria (of which the film satisfies several) would be OR.
 * For the record, I don't think the article needs to refute the movie. I'm quite satisfied if the article simply states that it has been refuted. Kww (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) requiring proof of a negative is a logical fallacy, and (b) claims of consensus are "exceptional claims" that require "exceptional sources", so if you want to say (about the movie) that "it has been refuted", that is, in essence, a statement of "consensus", and I am quite certain that no such consensus exists among scientists. Now, if I am wrong...IFF there IS a WP:RS that (1) states and (2) demonstrates...in a clear and unequivocal voice...a view among all scientists that "it has been refuted", then I will concede the point. Otherwise, not. WNDL42 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wndl, the reason that the article keeps reverting to a highly derogatory tone is that certain editors feel that this will get their point across better- which of course is the opposite of the truth. There really isn't any argument here over that. No one is trying to say otherwise.

As to use of the word pseudoscience, it isn't hurting anything, except perhaps in some small way the derogationist's case (derogatory jargon), and second WP is different in that we follow the sources more closely, and they have used that word. So in light of the fact that some editors want it, I see no reason to leave it out. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, unless we can be explicit about exactly what is pseudoscience, then it's presence in the lead is a blanket pejorative, and "contains pseudoscience" is like saying "contains mad cow disease" -- it's still a blanket characterization of the whole load of beef no matter how carefully worded. I have yet to see a single recommendation in which the word has been used appropriately in the lead. If certain aspects of the film are explicitly pseudoscience, then I have no problem -- Emoto's "messages from water" are clearly a candidate...as I've said many times. I've not seen a single other case besides that one instance (presented, BTW in a dramatic sequence), that justifies "pseudoscience" by any criteria, WP or Quackwatch. WNDL42 (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, what's wrong with the current intro
Apparently my recent edit 'reverted the consensus of several other editors'. I scrolled up the talk page and I see there has indeed been considerable discussion of the intro. And I see no consensus. Far from it. Anyway, let's tackle this from a different angle by looking at what is wrong with the current intro.

1. The introduction needs to explain, as I have said, why the film is notable. If I look at the coverage in Wikipedia of other films generally recognised as being great or notable, for example,  The Battleship Potemkin, Doctor Zhivago, Don't Look Now, Performance (film), Accident (film), The Piano, Being there &c. This film is clearly not in that league, yet it gets more coverage in this encylopedia than any of these great films. Why is that, if not the notoriety it has achieved through its fraudulent misrepresentation of science? The current introduction only has a short sentence at the end (the one beginning 'the film has been criticised..') that hints at this. Since the notoriety and controversy is the only reason this film is given extended treatment in the encyclopedia, this should be given adequate weight in the intro.

On the question whether it is our job as editors to make this call, of course it is. Indeed, WP:LEAD, which I have read carefully, seems to demand it. (" It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. ").

2. That agreed, the intro needs to capture exactly why scientists and other reasonable people would find the film objectionable, and why the controversy exists. And this is not simply that the film makes strange or preposterous claims. Plenty of films do that, of course. The problem is the style in which it is presented (educational, documentary format), the fact that it uses (or claims to use) scientific experts as authorities who were consulted or interviewed in the making of the film. In short, it presents the outlandish and proposterous in the very same breath as sober fact. It is the extreme to which this essentially fraudulent practice is carried out that makes the film truly notable.

3. Some of these statements are confusing, obscure or badly-written. For example 'a narrative to explain a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality'. The word 'metaphysical' is wrongly used here. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not to be confused with mysticism or spirituality. The sentence 'A moderately low-budget independent production.' has no main verb (nor does 'A moderately low-budget [[independent film|independent production];' - a comma is correct, not a semicolon. Because of the 'troubles', there is no thread: the intro reads exactly as though it was the product of alternating statements by two rival gangs.

4. You all need to be careful about what is supposed to be wrong with some of the claims. It is incorrect, for example, to suppose that scientists would necessarily deny a connection between consciousness and reality. A mind-brain identity theorist would not deny such a connection, holding that states of consciousness are identical with physical brain states, which, being physical, can influence other things. The real issue was correctly identified by David Albert (one of the contributors), namely the claim by the film that quantum mechanics implies a breakdown in scientific mechanism, and that this, in turn automatically resolves the age-old philosophical problem of free-will. Both these claims are false.

Happy to put back the bits I removed about who directed it. But the reasons for the film's notoriety and therefore notability need to be fully reflected in the introduction, and there needs to be a thread.

As a compromise I will remove the quote about Madonna, I will add in the bits about the director, and remove the bit at the end of the new introduction 'Sceptics such as James Randi described the film as "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults."[4] The Committee for Sceptical Inquiry dismissed it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense" [5], which is more than enough of a concession, as these quotes very adequately sum up the controversy over the film.

Below I include a link to a recent version given by ScienceApologist. It is pretty close in spirit to mine, and I'd be happy to revert to this (subject to some improvement on purely stylistic grounds).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&oldid=140069917

The Rationalist (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The film is notable because it meets the criteria outlined in Notability (films), and those reasons are given in every single version of the lead I've read, without exception. 2. Nope.  That's not what WP:LEAD says about what should be in the lead of an article.  However, there does exist controversy and criticism, described in the article, which should be summarized in the lead. 3. I agree that there is too much thread mode exhibited in the article.  Which is why I've supported efforts such as mediation in the past. 4. Many would like to turn this article into a soapbox about the claims made in the movie.  Other editors have pushed for this to be a relatively straightforward encyclopedia article about the movie, leaving the debunking of claims to sources which can be cited.  This is, I think, a key point and a large part of the reason that this dispute is ongoing. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the dichotomy is between exposition of the claims made AND their debunking, and just mentioning both in WP:SUMMARY style with links to the sources. If we're going to explain the movie's thesis in any detail, it behooves us to also explain debunking of the movie's thesis in detail. I'm not sure which approach is better - either is valid - but I don't support removing the skeptical exposition while leaving exposition of the film itself. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)




 * "If we're going to explain the movie's thesis in any detail" - yeah - IF. I don't think I've read any sources that explain the movie's thesis in any detail"... and I don't believe that is our role here in writing an encyclopedia article. We should present the verifiable facts about movie and the criticism it received. We shouldn't be trying to explain the points the movie made or what is right or wrong about them, other than in the context of presenting the criticism the move has received in reliable sources.  I do agree that Albert's testimony that his interview was deliberately edited in a misleading manner is a key datum that should be prominently featured, which is why I originally put it in the lead and have consistently argued for its inclusion. And I think the facts that the film was made by PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWRs and features interviews with  J. Z. Knight supposedly speaking with the voice of 'Ramtha' are also highly significant and should be prominently featured.  Those things and a simple statement that the film generated controversy for its misrepresentations of science should be quite sufficient for summarizing the controversy in the lead.  The details should be left for the body of the article. Dlabtot (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * JzG, Might I suggest that a constructive use of "abject nonsense" would involve specific references to the "numerous things" that can then be discussed? WNDL42 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You might suggest it, but it would be pointless since we're not here to write an original critique, we're here to reflect what the reliable secondary sources say. And the reliable secondary sources fall into roughly three camps: True Believers who think it is wonderful, people with a scientific background who recognise that its claims are fatuous, and people who focus on the misrepresentation of the interviews and sources it cites.  All three can be discussed, no problem.  WP:NPOV does not allow any of them to be discussed without noting the others, though.  In particular it is extremely important to qualify any claim to being a documentary, any implied claim of scientific accuracy or a credible basis for the claims made.  If the film were honest and portrayed itself as fiction then there would be no great controversy, I think, other than that caused by blatant misrepresentation of interviews.  It's the twaddle masquerading as science that is the big deal in the minds of the critics, and those of us here who support the mainstream Western POV of scientific rationalism. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

fiction/documentary-style
Why is the science in this movie taken any more seriously than Star Trek or The Matrix? We don't call that pseudoscience we call it fiction. This might be the real issue to address in the article. Is there any doubt this movie is fiction and not a documentary, even if there are interviews and it is presented in a "documentary-style"? David D. (Talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the science in the movie is taken seriously by so many because of the very many examples of this. WNDL42 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Trekkies take their science seriously too:
 * But it's still fiction, right? Scientists are not up in arms with trekie conventions so why with this film? David D. (Talk) 19:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not presented as fact. 'The poet lyeth not, for he tells it not as true'. By contrast, what is really offensive about this film is the fiction masquerading as documentary.  The storyline, the part presented as fiction, is a small percentage of the pseudo-scientific garbage churned out as solid fact.  The Rationalist (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful to comment on the why scientists think the movie looks like a documentary rather than nitpicking the science itself. That might be more revealing than a laundary list of scientific rebuttals? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am doing just this by watching the whole ghastly spectacle again. And in any case, Star Trek does not present its 'science' as established science.  Star Trek is speculation about what might be consistent with science, NOT as established fact.  Even the trekkies understand that.  The Rationalist (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the trekies understand it. So the crux of the article is to understand the difference in the phenomena, why true believers for this movie and true aficionados for star trek? Any sources that shed light on that debate will be useful to explain this films notability and notoriety. David D. (Talk) 20:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple. I watched Star Trek as a teenager many years ago, and never supposed for a moment that any of it was, or even could be true - e.g. it is set in the future.  All of it is presented as fiction, including the 'scientific' bits like beaming-up.  By contrast there are large chunks of this movie that seem very plausible.  The documentary style includes blackboards, equation, little cartoon men explaining the difficult parts just like in 'Horizon' or whatever scientific documentary style you like.  The makers were careful to state the credentials, PhD's and suchlike, in the credits.  And large chunks of it seem to be genuine science (e.g. the double slit experiment seemed perfectly plausible - some expert correct me if I'm wrong).  But there are other bits which were presented in exactly the same style, which I almost believed, in a way that I would not have believed Star Trek.   For example, the one about Libet's experiment.  I kept asking myself, 'could that be true'?  In the end I asked a question on the talk page up here, and an expert answered, and my suspicion that it was complete tosh was verified.  So here I am, a non-expert, almost fooled, and saved by the fact I was working on Wikipedia and there were experts to hand.  THE VERY EXPERTS WHOSE VIEWS ARE BEING CENSORED HERE.  The film reminded me of a carpet sale I went to years ago.  The saleman mixed up very expensive genuine carpets with crappy fake ones, and got fake buyers to buy the expensive ones.  This made it almost irrestible to go for one of the cheaper ones.  It's a well-known sales technique.  Check out real estate adverts, e.g.  The Rationalist (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so you've made the point that you, a professed 'non-expert', were able to recognize it as 'complete tosh'. In the same way, I suppose, that you don't have to be a rancher in order to recognize bullshit, a non-scientist can recognize pseudoscientific claptrap. However, that doesn't answer the question of why people get so passionate about this film, a question that remains a mystery to me. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No the reverse. I believed it.  Read what I wrote.  The Rationalist (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)  Also, just go you YouTube and read the comments there.  Most people seem to believe that the film is presenting established scientific fact.  The Rationalist (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What you wrote was "and my suspicion that it was complete tosh was verified." -- but really - who cares? Your musings and reflections about this movie are totally off topic for this discussion page.  Dlabtot (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are they off topic? It relates, as I have said many times, to the question of whether 1. the film mixes fact with falsehood, 2. with whether it was believable, as we agree it clearly was, 3.  Whether the intention of the film makers was to deceive.  And what exactly is your motive here?  You want to remove any reference or hint of this deception, and the controversy surrounding it, from the introduction.  Why?  Why?  The Rationalist (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your musings and reflections are totally off topic because, (again), this is a discussion page for discussing how to improve this encyclopedia article, which must be based on verifiable citations to reliable sources. Therefore your anecdotes about your emotional reaction to the film do not belong on this page.  I must ask that you desist from further personal attacks, and I must note that I have argued consistently and forcefully for the inclusion of the fact that Albert stated that his interview was deliberately edited to misrepresent his views, I have argued consistently and forcefully that the lead should state that the film was made by PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWRs, and I have argued consistently and forcefully that the lead should state that the film has received extensive criticism for misrepresenting science or promoting pseudoscience.  Please do not misrepresent my views again and please refrain from further personal attacks. Dlabtot (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reality check: there are seven full paragraphs of criticism. WHAT is being censored? I appreciate your personal reflections and emotional relationship to this film, but for the umpteenth time, where is it proscribed that the job of an encyclopedia is to debunk things--particularly movies? Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the job of an enyclopedia to educate, and not to support or promote propaganda such as you seem intent on doing. What exactly is your relationship to the makers of this film, may I ask?  The Rationalist (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have zero relationship to the film. I saw it once on video. However, please do not bait me again. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Rationalist I know you are relatively new to Wikipedia, perhaps you are not aware that it is the official policy of WP to refrain from personal attacks such as accusing another editor of being intent on promoting propaganda. Editors are urged to assume good faith, and follow the civility policy, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot understand why you are taking this particular line unless you have some financial or other interest in this film. The remarks you make suggest you sincerely do not believe in what the film says.  You believe, as I do, that it is tosh.  Yet you are extremely determined to remove all reference to this fact in the intro.  I can think of no other motivation than a financial one.  Sorry (apologising again, sorry for that, also).  The Rationalist (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've asked you to stop the personal attacks, I'm trying once more: please stop. I suggest you read WP:ICA. Any further ill considered accusations such as this will be reported to WP:WQA Dlabtot (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to note, also, that this statement: "Yet you are extremely determined to remove all reference to this fact in the intro." is completely untrue, and a total and complete mischaracterization. Further baiting with false accusations of bad faith such as this will be similarly be reported to WP:WQA Dlabtot (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer the original question ... yes, the movie presents itself as factual, not as a piece of fiction. I know people that actually believed it, and I have never been sure whether or not the producers believe it. I am relatively certain that the producers of the film intended it to be believed as true by its audience.Kww (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a VERY good point. Orson Welles' film of War of the Worlds was believed by a whole lot of people.  But Wells did not intend that they ultimately believe it - it was intended as realistic entertainment.  But this was not the intention of the film makers.  They really and knowingly intended to deceive.  The Rationalist (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a VERY good point. Orson Welles' film of War of the Worlds was believed by a whole lot of people.  But Wells did not intend that they ultimately believe it - it was intended as realistic entertainment.  But this was not the intention of the film makers.  They really and knowingly intended to deceive.  The Rationalist (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More samples from this film
From What the Bleep part 5. Woman speaking 1:06 - 2:23.

Can I call upon the science experts here to verify this, or not? The Rationalist (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What does your question have to do with the editing of this encyclopedia article? Is this related to some edit you plan to make or have made, or some edit that some other editor has made? Dlabtot (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The question relates to my claim that the film mixes presentation of scientific fact, with falsehood, in the same style. I am asking experts whether the above quote is fact, or falsehood.  HAVEN'T YOU BEEN FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION AT ALL.  Sorry to shout.  The Rationalist (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not 'yell' with capital letters. It is uncivil as you obviously know or you wouldn't apologize in advance.  Don't engage in behavior that you know is wrong while simultaneously apologizing for it.  Rather, refrain from the uncivil behavior in the first place.
 * I still would like to know if your question related to some edit you plan to make or have made, or some edit that some other editor has made? This is a talk page for discussing how to improve this encyclopedia article, not for general discussion of this film. Dlabtot (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These transcriptions related to my version of the introductionhere which was rejected for the claim that the film includes falsehood, conveyed in the same style and context, as indisputable scientific fact. If the claims here really are untrue, then this supports my version of the introduction.  You will object, of course, that this is original research.  However I discussed this with a couple of other editors and if the claims made really are indisputable false, this should be reflected in the introduction.  Note my version avoids any discussion of detail like 'quantum mysticsism' and so forth.  It's enough to say, if that is the case, that the film mixes fact and falsehood in a documentary style.  Does that explain why I am posting this, now?  21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rationalist (talk • contribs)
 * No. It doesn't, because your original research is totally irrelevant to this encyclopedia article. Dlabtot (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationalist, rather than typing in transcripts, why don't you just (a) mention the random number experiment, (b) state your issues, (c) go to google scholar, type in "princeton", "PEAR", "anomolies" and "consciousness" - like this, (820 publications referenced, all reliable sources and then (d) we can talk about Princeton's research and results? By the way, the scene you are referring to cited Princeton and PEAR and your exclusion of that information from your out-of-context and self-edited "transcripts" is unhelpful to the extent that our discussion here should be more concise, and based on reliable sources. WNDL42 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a scientist, I must say I would regard very few of those as reliable sources. The Journal of Scientific Exploration and The Journal of Science and Healing, in particular I would regard as extremely fringe if not outright coo-coo. Jefffire (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding. 820 publications, dozens or HUNDREDS published by Princeton, and you take the time to find a couple of journal names (both published at princeton.edu, OBTW) with somewhat "un-sciency" names? That could be seen by some as a little disingenous. Talk to my point please, or better yet, let Rationalist talk to my point -- it was addressed to him/her. WNDL42 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you (as a scientist) want a better selection, try looking for the "Foundations of Physics" publications, you'll find them here, and you'll find them interesting. WNDL42 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Dr. Jeffire, how's this for some "ex tremely fringe coo-coo" Really, give us all a break, ok? Please? WNDL42 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, there are loonballs at Princeton too. Fortunately, the PEAR wackos shut down their lab after realizing that no one was taking them seriously. What a lark! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WRT personal POV and unsubstantiated opinions with respect to "loonballs at Princeton", you need to provide a WP:RS -- otherwise it's just dust in the wind. WNDL42 (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is totally irrelevant to this article anyway. Go to Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research if you are interested in pursuing this line of inquiry further. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously for a moment - this obsession that certain WIKI editors have with the reliability and infallibility of peer reviewed journals is simply astounding. While I understand that that this maybe caused by WIKI it self - one gets the feeling that the over reliance of this method of "proof" has come from non scientists/academics - surely some of the editors here must come from an academic teaching background - and even one or two from a "decent" university. If you did - or indeed have studied at undergraduate level - you would understand that at least the last 2 years of an undergraduate degree consists of the student analyzing and critiquing peer reviewed journal articles. Indeed, at least were I come from, a student would fail if they could not display this ability. I will quote from the new editor of the Foundations Of Physics, as it seems to have been suddenly displayed as a "reliable source": " The journal Foundations of Physics has been led by the able hands of Prof. Alwyn van der Merwe for a very long time. Now, we are continuing under my editorship. The scope of the journal remains much the same: the conceptual bases and fundamental theories of modern physics and cosmology, emphasizing the logical, methodological, and philosophical premises of modern physical theories and procedures. As before, we welcome papers on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, special and general relativity. We think it is also time for the experts on string theory, M-theory, and brane cosmology to ponder the foundations of these approaches, and ask them to submit papers. Cosmology is an important subject where controversial ideas abound, and such discussions are welcome.

During my first couple of months in this office, it became clear that fundamental questions in physics and philosophy also attract the interest of many laymen physicists.

We receive numerous submissions from people who venture to attack the most basic premises of theories such as Special Relativity, but instead only succeed in displaying a lack of professional insight in how a physical theory is constructed (My emphasis). I suspect that some of these people may have been working somewhere in an attic, deprived from daylight for decades, determined only to reemerge with a Theory of Everything in their hands. Even though they may be very sincere, we have to disappoint such authors."

He concludes: Acceptation of a paper may not necessarily mean that all referees agree with everything, but rather that the issues put forward by the author were considered to be of sufficient interest to our readership, and the exposition was clear enough that our readers, whom we assume to be competent enough, can judge for themselves. (Again, my emphasis)Really2012back (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Is there really a The Journal of Science and Healing? I wonder who peer reviews that then. AN American "Journal" I assume? Published out of LS perhaps? Might have to track that one down. I wonder if its available through ATHENS? Really2012back (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Goodness, i see that, that studies author is qoutede in WIKI regarding the following: Remote viewing and future machines: While Dean Radin was at the Conscious Research Laboratory, University of Nevada, Las Vegas he worked with remote viewer Joseph McMoneagle. Radin conceptualized a future machine that as yet did not exist. McMoneagle used his remote viewing into the future in an effort to obtain information concerning this machine to produce patentable ideas.[16] Radin wrote that the probable reality of remote viewing was scientifically established by the US government's Stargate Project." Perhaps he knows something we don't know - using either the time machine or remote viewing - how intriguing. Really2012back (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Another transcript from the film
messages from water

The Rationalist (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So what? Why are you posting this? Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * to show off his l33t quotation skills!!!!! Smith Jones (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of argument on this page about claims made in the film, without any reference the actual text of the film. These are not quotations cut and pasted from the net.  They are transcriptions I have made from the actual video, to settle a question of fact (namely, what does the film actually say).  The Rationalist (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your transcripts are original research. As are your efforts to turn this page into a discussion about refuting 'claims made in the film'.   Please desist. Dlabtot (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I find this sort of quotation useful, since the film is basically unavailable over here. If nothing else it demonstrates the jaw-dropping credulity necessary to believe such tripe. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the movie is tripe and people who take it seriously are idiots. Agreed.  What does that have to do with the question of how to improve this encyclopedia article? Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationalists' point with respect to this particular instance in the dramatic portion of the film is a good one, but we've already agreed that this one instance can be reasonably considered by skeptics as pseudoscience, as Emoto is a photographer and his art appeals on an emotional basis. It is not necessary to post transcripts here, links will suffice. Still, the "subway museum" scene is an "art museum" scene, not presented as "science", and the intent of the filmmakers is clear, to illustrate an artistic "eastern mystical" portrayal of Dr. Candace Pert's solid and accurately portrayed science. Taking Emoto out of context does not justify larger "blanket" characterizations. WNDL42 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * These may be useful for placing Emoto's work in context, see here and here. WNDL42 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On a broadish note, the article used to contain a fairly exhaustive list of the movies misrepresentations and inaccuracies (there were a lot), but these were trimmed down to a more blanket criticism of the movies motivations and scientific competence. Having had experience with both versions, I must say that the more streamlined version is preferable from the view of elegance and readability. However, its also very clear that this is not a matter of misinterpreting an "artistic" message. Assuming Rationalist's transcript is accurate, this is blatantly being presented as factual. Jefffire (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to look at a diff...WNDL42 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits of Bleep lead
Hi Wndl."Metaphysical left" was deleted as redundant .It exists later on in the article, so it has to be removed one place or the other. In the interest of elegance and simplicity, I would delete it from the lead. I did like the lead before your additions because it was easy to read and simple, and in a general way seemed to cover everything needed to know about the movie as per WP:Lead. (olive (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I reordered some of his changes, but did not delete the redundant description. It's pretty hard to write a smooth lead that isn't a little redundant with the main article. I did change the wording of the last paragraph back to last night's form ... I see no valid reason for the changes made to it, and there seems to be as much consensus as there is on anything in this article that it is supported by the sources.Kww (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Research physicist
I do not support the decision to identify Arntz as a "former research physicist;" even if it's true (and I haven't yet seen a non-affiliated source for that) it seems to be a pretty clear attempt to highlight one aspect of his career in WP:UNDUE fashion. He is also a former computer programmer, former software entrepreneur, etc. And a "research physicist," to me, means someone who has published papers in physics journals, not someone who worked on advanced technology for Pratt & Whitney. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please. There are (I promise you) research physicists who do not work in academia and do not publish. I know them, lots of them work in "dark" places -- like Arntz did. Private research is still research, and you are way out on a limb questioning reliable sources to imply that Arntz is lying to the world. And how is the University of Colorado at Boulder somehow "affiliated" with "Bleep". Don't you think that if Arntz were NOT a Research Physicist with Pratt and Whitney, that after having thrown the claim around for so many years that someone would have called him on it? Cut us a break here, and look here, again, please. The URL is colorado.edu, in case you hadn't noticed. WNDL42 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, you all want "Ramtha" in the lead -- then we're going to balance it. That's WP:BLP territory, so I suppose we could post it at the BLP noticeboard for an opinion, you think? WNDL42 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Background info seems relevant, and is presented in the same order as he actually went through them- see the source. It is not emphasized more than "high-tech entrepreneur and filmmaker".  He was the prime mover behind the film, so I don't see why one wouldn't give a tiny bit of background.  Just because people don't like his ideas doesn't mean he isn't a physicist.  If the film presented bad programming principles, people would then say that calling him a "high-tech entrepreneur" gives undue weight to one aspect of his career, even when the other aspects were also presented. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What does working as a research physicist decades ago have to do with funding a movie about quantum mysticism today? I fail to see any connection. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Martin... WNDL42 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, all, this is Arntz bio from the 60th Annual Conference on World Affairs, held in Boulder Colorado at the University there, is THIS good enough? Hey...looky, NO RAMTHA. WNDL42 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

William Arntz

Filmmaker William Arntz combined with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente to create What the #$*! Do We Know? Their most important project to date, they delivered through combined mediums of film, documentary, animation, and visual effects the answers to the most asked questions in the universe: “What is it? Where do we fit in? And, why do we do what we do?”

Arntz graduated summa cum laude from Penn State University with a degree in engineering science and began work as a research physicist with Pratt and Whitney Aircraft. There he worked on developing the first wave optics simulator for high-energy gas dynamic laser weapons (a.k.a. “Star Wars”). He “retired” and moved to Boston where he reunited with a longtime friend. Together they created Beat the Deva, a one-hour animated film noir, which won a Cine Eagle, the Kenyon Film Festival, and received distribution on the art house circuit.

He moved to San Francisco, “retired,” and became a Buddhist. His Buddhist teacher assigned him the task using his meditation/visualization skills to create a software product and company. Arntz wrote “AutoSys,” a distributed job scheduler. AutoSys went on to be one of the most widely used pieces of system management software ever written, with clients as diverse as Merrill Lynch, NASA, ILM, Sun Microsystems, Cisco, and Boeing. In 1995, Arntz sold his company and took a year off. He then devised a second successful software company, which he sold nine months after creating it.

Arntz became interested in uniting his four great interests: leading edge science, spiritual inquiry, filmmaking, and computers. He happily embarked upon the creation of What the #$*! Do We Know?

http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/bios.html?id=648&year=2005

This was a bio that was submitted for the conference by Arntz. As such, it is strictly a promotional bio and not a reliable source. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I correct that Arntz degree is a BS in Engineering Science, and he holds no degree in Physics? A field where MS and PhD degrees are the norm?Kww (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, Arntz is not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination. The attempts to cry "balance" are mean and inaccurate ways of reinterpreting WP:NPOV. You don't make an article "NPOV" by introducing appeals to authority. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions notwithstanding, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifyability, not truth. Find enough reliable sources that support "not a research physicist" to outweigh those that say he is, and you've made a case. Otherwise it's original research. WNDL42 (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The threshhold for inclusion is not verifiability. The threshhold for exclusion is non-verifiability. There are plenty of things which are verifiable (e.g. This person was once called a "weird karate guy": ) which are not worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia for other reasons. Examining the verifiability of a claim independent of other considerations is problematic. In this case, it is questionable as to whether Arntz's past employment with Pratt and Whitney is at all relevant to his production of this movie. However, his involvement at Ramtha was relevant enough for Salon.com to mention it, for example. We are talking about content relevance here as per WP:LEAD, not whether or not something is verifiable. I probably could verify Arntz's shoe size if I really wanted to. That's no reason to include it in the article, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop changing the final paragraph of the lead
Wndl42, none of the changes you keep making to the final paragraph are an improvement in general, and they certainly do not make the statements align more closely with the references. I realise that you have made a number of points on the talk page about how the lead shouldn't sound so pejorative. I thoroughly disagree with you, I disagree with your efforts to make this film sound like it is simply misunderstood, and I would like you to leave the final paragraph alone until you get people to agree to your changes. The final paragraph as it stand today is short, sweet, to the point, not pejorative, and completely in line with WP:LEAD.Kww (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. As I just left it I think it is about what the general consensus would make it. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your attempt, and the problem is that the references do not support the the cause and effect being named. The references do not state that the motive is to support spirituality ... they use phrase like "distorts science to satisfy it's own agenda", or "mysticism", or a variety of things. The nice thing about the short summation paragraph is that it doesn't say anything that can't be tracked right back to the sources, doesn't inflame or exaggerate, it just reports the contents of the sources.Kww (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about now? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It still seems like more words that are just a little bit of a stretch of the sources. I don't think it's an improvement over where we were last night. In fact, it's nearly the same problem we fixed last night ... while the sources are pretty well aligned on generic terms like "misrepresentation", they aren't so well aligned on what exact part of it they choose to complain about, and what motive they ascribe. Last night, olive had reverted the citations because "misrepresents science" had been changed to "misrepresents science to promote pseudoscience", and olive felt that the references had been stretched too far. I can see an editor feeling the same way about changing it to "misrepresents science to support mysticism."Kww (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * continued I really feel uncomfortable with characterizing the ABC's language with this language. They apparently felt the mispresentation was based on a complete misunderstanding of the observer principle, and didn't ascribe any motive at all.Kww (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's fine with me if you want to go back to the version of last night. Just keep the naming of the different directors ok?  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't. I'm certain that you could construct a 3RR report out of my edits if I did so.Kww (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aw, come on, Kww assume good faith. I'm happy to revert to last night. I like its simplicity.(olive (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, I wouldn't set you up that way. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing either of you of bad faith in this regard. I have been blocked one, and only one, time, and that was from a false 3RR report constructed by one of the frequent editors of this article. I don't plan on giving anyone the ammunition to do it for real. If you are willing to revert back, please do so.Kww (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Good.You got to it before I did. If there are changes from now on, could we have a consensus please.(olive (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I see consensus for the current lead, don't you? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

KWW, I appreciate your opinion, but substantive discussion does not include restating your personal opinion ad infinitum. There are at least three substantive points here that you have yet to substantively refute. WNDL42 (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * KWW has done an admirable job of not only refuting these "substantive points" but also providing points of his own that have yet to be refuted (see above about the appeal to authority). ScienceApologist (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure what substantive points you have made that remain to be addressed.


 * See "-- inline". WNDL42 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't like the word "pseudoscience"? That isn't much of an objection, and we have policies in place about pseudoscience. I believe this article follows them.
 * -- (inline) Liking it has nothing to do with anything. Pseudoscience is an ill-defined word (I still haven't seen an off-wiki definition, let alone any definition that justifies using p-science in the lead), and there are no "policies" regarding it's use. Conflating an old Arbcom into "policy", no matter how many times it is repeated, is still conflating. You have not addressed. WNDL42 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Arntz is a "former research physicist"? Sorry, that's pretty obvious resume pumping ... a BS in Engineering Science doesn't qualify you to be a research physicist, and it would be misleading to describe him as one. Most holders of the degree get jobs like project management, and his later software career seems to affirm that project management is his main skill set.
 * -- Huh? (a) Arntz was employed as a research physicist by Pratt and Whitney in "Star Wars" -- the first wave optics simulator for laser weapons systems development -- that's plasma physics in case you were interested in getting up to speed, and that's about as relevant as it gets WRT "research physicist". (b) you are totally confusing Autosys (a unix and HPC supercomputing systems job scheduler) with "project management" -- wow, I'd expected more familiarity on this topic, given the loud assertions. If you spent a moment reading my previous explanations of the difference, you wouldn't make such a statement. (c) The difference between an engineering degree and a degree in Engineering Science is a big difference, fyi. Address the points. WNDL42 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please show me any source that describes his role as "research physicist" that doesn't track back to his own resume.


 * You're kidding, right? You are Begging the question as to whether Arntz has been lying on his resume, which (a) is blatant logical fallacy, (b) in the context of your extended discrediting attacks against Arntz, et al, is a BLP vio (which DOES apply to talk pages, FYI), and (c) indicates that you are still misinformed about what a "research physicist" is, what kind of education "research physicists" need, and (d) you are still talking circles around my point. WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A BS in Engineering Science is not a qualification for being a "research physicist." Kww (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's as wrong a statement as you have yet made. To inform the question of "research physicist" in the context of Engineering science, please examine information you will find here, and here at Penn State's Engineering Science dept. (Arntz' school, where he graduated Summa cum laude), and then take a look at this and this and this and |312|latest especially, this. Kww, people who use known principles to go into industry and design things based on known principles study engineering. People who will perform the actual research to discover new principles, and to design and develop the experiments and simulations on which that research will be based study Engineering science. You see KWW, Engineering science is what you study when you are embarking on a career in "hard research" as opposed to "theoretical" work, as in theoretical physics. Got the difference now? The idea that Mr. Arntz' is lying is expressed as you continue Begging the question of whether Mr. Arntz is lying on his resume. The idea you promote, that Arntz resume is a lie is an exceptional claim and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" -- the burden of proof is on you. I'd strongly suggest you not pursue this line of questioning wrt Mr. Arntz any further, because the directon you are going is taking you into BLP vio territory. WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the burden of proof is always on the editor who wishes inclusion, which in this case is you. It is perfectly acceptable to not regard a living person's resume as a reliable source (who would regard Kent Hovind as a scientist after all). Jefffire (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, here is the relevant parts of the policy.

''Self-published material may be used in BLPs if written by the subject themself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

* it is not contentious; * it is not unduly self-serving;''


 * There's more of course, but the claim in question violates the first two, thus ruling out the reference. Jefffire (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Utter nonsense, and (again, and worse) not even directed to the point I make. I have provided many non-affiliated sources who also describe Arntz as a "former research physicist". The reliability of this attribution has been established in his (a) educational background, and (b) notable achievements in life prior to Bleep. The "policy quotations" you cite have only to do with a BLP article, which this article is not. My point (expressed clearly and explicitly above) is that BLP guidelines also apply to other pages where living persons are mentioned, and we both know that you already know this. WNDL42 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
 * Jefffire (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop deceptively quote-farming BLP and using it to refute points I'm not even making. I've made my point clearly and explicitly and you (again) continue to ignore the actual discussion, and cite BLP outside the context of the argument I made, solely in order to side-step my point. Your comments do nothing to improve the discussion or the artcle because you are debating arguments of your own making. WNDL42 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was of the understanding that I was contending your claim that Kww was violating WP:BLP by insisting that a resume was not an appropriate citation in this case. You said "in the context of your extended discrediting attacks against Arntz, et al, is a BLP vio", but the quote from WP:BLP proved you wrong. You also said that the burden of proof was on Kww, which is also entirely wrong, as seen in the quote from WP:BLP above. Jefffire (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am referring to the repeatedly stated assertion (here on this talk page) that Arntz' resume, and all of the other reliable sources that back up Arntz' resume, is somehow untruthful. Repeated and unsourced original research allegations, as thrown about carelessly here -- to the effect that Arntz' has falsely characterized his background -- these are slander/defamation against Mr. Arntz. How have I not made this clear? Please refer again to what I actually wrote. WNDL42 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, to the extent that these talk page discrediting attacks against Arntz are being used to keep "former research physicist" OUT of the lead, while the same actors simultaneously insist on puffing up the "Ramtha" school angle, is the matter that is tangentially related. Is that also now clear? WNDL42 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, your view is now clear, but it is also mistaken. Not regarding a person's resume, or other related sources, as qualifying as reliable sources for contentious material is not the same as an attack against a persons characters. If face, the rules on WP:BLP make it quite clear that they aren't appropriate sources. Jefffire (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could direct us to the section (and please, no quote farming, the link will suffice) of WP:BLP that supports your opinion? WNDL42 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those "quote farm"s were from the intro, and the section WP:SELFPUB. I've explained the rules quite clearly now. I'm not interested in repeating myself further. Jefffire (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jefffire, WP:SELFPUB you referenced refers explicitly and solely to articles that are in and of themselves "Biographies of Living Persons". This article is not a BLP. Note that WP:SELFPUB points to a section titled "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves". This article and its talk page must nonetheless treat living persons according to the section on BLP consideratios in non-article space. I am sorry to belabor the point, but it's honestly hard to tell the sincere misunderstandings from the intentional smoke screen and Straw Man attacks here. I assume it was the former. WNDL42 (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFPUB you referenced refers explicitly and solely to articles that are in and of themselves "Biographies of Living Persons". That is simply not true. Which would have been easier for me to determine if you'd wikilinked WP:SELFPUB.  Anyway, it's irrelevant, the bio at the conference website, even if written by Arntz, is not self-published. But neither is it a publication with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.  It's just the webpage of a conference.  Dlabtot (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't spotted any of those other references you have cited that weren't based on biographical information provided by Arntz himself. I know exactly what an engineering science degree is ... it's a degree for engineers that don't know what they want to be.Kww (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, your personal and unsupported opinion, no matter how many times you restate it, and no matter how narrow a POV you insist on constructing it from, is still just opinion. I think you avoid/ignore all of the well sourced refutations I gave in order to play a semantic game here for an audience-who-we-don't-know-who-it-is. WNDL42 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Engineering Science is what you study when you want to do hard research in physics? That must have been a well-kept secret in the physics department where I got my degree :).  Look, can't the "research physicist" thing be resolved easily by finding out what Arntz's actual job title was at P&W?  That shouldn't be impossible.  I doubt very much that the official job title was Research Physicist, but if it was, I for one would no longer argue against including it. Rracecarr (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you examined the cites I provided above?


 * Assuming you mean Colorado, yes. I don't see it as a reliable source--apparently he wrote it himself.  It isn't even grammatically correct: "He then devised a second successful software company, which he sold nine months after creating it."


 * Right now, we are discussing these.


 * Nonetheless, I fail utterly to see how either (a) a grammatical issue (which seems either nit-pickingly trivial of non-existent), or (b) the "appearance" to you that he wrote it himself can be cited as the basis for dismissing the source. The point is that it was a 60 year-old globally respected conference on world affairs, and it's organizers can be reasonably assumed not to just "take Arntz' word for it", don't you agree? WNDL42 (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conferences have as much of motive to inflate the speaker's credentials as the speaker does. My personal experience has been that the resume I submit when speaking is printed in the program verbatim, and no fact-checking occurs.Kww (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends totally on the credibility of the conference in question, as you know. I have spoken at conferences that were purely profit-motive driven, and was asked or encouraged to inflate my qualifications, or otherwise not subjected to a background check. Generally, most respectable speakers will conclude that it was not a conference they's want to speak at, because a reputable speaker runs the risk of being associated with non-credible types. Any conference that does not check out the speaker bios is probably not worth speaking at or even attending, IMPO. WNDL42 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nit-pickingly trivial if you like, but certainly a mistake--not language that would make it through any kind of careful editing process. The "it" does not belong at the end of the sentence.  By "apparently" I meant that SA said so.  I assume he has a source.  Rracecarr (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that this proves anything, but of the 294 jobs on offer at the Pratt and Whitney website, none of them is "Research Physicist". Positions have names like "Design/Development Principal Engineer".  Rracecarr (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) Arntz was at Pratt & Whitney during the '80s, and (b) you're probably aware that such positions are filled by direct recruiting, not by posting ads. Arntz has been described as a "research physicist" for a very long time now, by many many sources. Do you have a source to contradict this? Don't you think, with all of Arntz' notability, that if he were NOT a research physicist with Pratt & Whitney that someone at P&W would have complained by now? WNDL42 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think P&W is likely to complain at all. How would it be worth their time?  As far as I can tell, the "many many sources" all come from the same (unreliable) place.Rracecarr (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not committing a BLP violation, I'm questioning a source. For him to describe himself as a "research physicist" is obviously self-serving, and given his lack of credentials, a bone of contention. Find a source that doesn't track back to his own bio. The ones you have provided so far are inadequate.Kww (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense and semantic games. Any and all sources I provide (have provided) will merely be shouted down by you as "tracking back to his own bio". Your vitriolic and opinionated assertions that Arntz' bio is "self serving", in the context of your false and vitriolic assertion of "lack of credentials", supported in the further context of your self professed desire to "frame" your target in a negative light show that your further unsupported opinions on this topic are utterly an purely driven by your voracious POV-laden appetite for discrediting your target. Your opinion-laden arguments are now utterly devoid of any possible assumption of good faith on your part. WNDL42 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's tone down the rhetoric a notch. The fact that Kww wishes to "frame" Arntz as less credible on physics topics than your typical "research physicist" must be viewed in context: the only reason "research physicist" was ever put in at all was to try to give Arntz that kind of credibility.  Why else would it matter what job one of the 3 directors had 20 years prior to making the film?  Since the "fact" was added for POV reasons in the first place, it's not really fair to attack other editors for trying to "balance" that POV. Rracecarr (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rracecarr, you seem to be missing out on large segments of this discussion, and as such have mischaracterized the debate here. I have repeatedly suggested that KWW's hard-line stance on including "Ramtha" is acceptable IFF that pejorative "guilt by association" reference is balanced with a fuller characterization of Arntz elsewhere in the lead. Otherwise, I suggest dropping ALL characterizations (positive and negative) of living persons from the lead. Right there are two compromise positions I've proposed that can be reasonably discussed. KWW has not moved an inch thus far in working any kind of compromise in terms of "balance". Perhaps you also missed my latest lead proposals? Please don't "paint" a false picture here of who is, and who is not striving for consensus, compromise and balance. WNDL42 (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the most significant things about a movie is: Who made it? The undisputed, verified fact the makers of the film are students of the Ramtha School belongs for that reason. If a reliable source can be found that identifies Arntz as a research physicist, it should be included as well.  However, the conference webbio does not meet the criteria for RS, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, "who made it" is significant enough for the lead, but that's not what we're debating, that's not even in question here. What IS in question is the "framing" of "targets" via "guilt by association" and the casting of aspersions. The motives for doing this have been explicitly stated, and are inappropriate. WNDL42 (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The association with Ramtha is too negative? It's the only association he's had that has any relevance to the movie. If you are insistent on adding "software developer", I won't object that it's false, but I do think it's completely irrelevant.
 * -- I didn't say it was "too negative", and it's been in every lead I've proposed. My point (if you were listening) is that if some insist on characterizing Arntz based on his association with religeon (Buddhist) by pumping the "Ramtha" angle, then we need balance. FYI, RSE (with something like 80 Buddhist monks there) is the largest Buddhist school in the pacific northwest, and I am guessing that they believe in the Dalai Lama as a reincarnation more than they believe in Ramtha. Buddhists believe in reincarnation - so do Christians, right? Anyway...if ya'll want Ramtha for shock value, we've got to balance it otherwise for NPOV, and (in this context) uninformed dismissals of Arntz' other notable and (when properly characterized) relevant achievements gives "Ramtha" undue weight. Resume "deflation" combined with Ramtha-pumping shifts balance. Is this clear now, or will I have to restate this again in yet another section? WNDL42 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want it for shock value ... I want it for framing the man's complete lack of credibility.Kww (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now there's a refreshingly straight-up comment for a change. That's exactly why it should stay out of the lead, thank you. WNDL42 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kww's views on the matter are irrelevant. It is verifiable that these people are members of this particular "school", and since the movies features the leader/teacher, it's rather important. As a consequence, there is no justification to keep it out. If you find the directors religious affiliations compromising, that's your own PoV. Jefffire (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, there is no reliable source to characterize people who have "studied" at RSE as "members", the word "members" is loaded language meant to imply "cultish" aspects, so that's no good. Secondly, while it is fair to assume that most Buddhists believe that Tenzin Gyatso is the 14th incarnation of the Dalai Lama (to whom, BTW, all nations but China show great respect), there are simply no reliable sources to show, nor any basis on which to presume, that ALL people who have ever studied under a Buddhist monk at RSE actually believe JZ Knight's claim that she "channels" Ramtha. That's why I worded the Ramtha reference the way I did in my lead proposal. Is Ramtha notable? Sure, as long as (s)he is not used for KWW's explicitly stated purpose...that is...to "smear" Arntz et al. KWW's reasons for "resisting" alternate means of working Ramtha into the lead are now crystal clear and there's your attempted BLP vio, textbook case. WNDL42 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tenzin Gyatso himself is skeptical of reincarnation. I make the point only to encourage you to stick to discussion of the article, rather than relying on analogies that tend to be factually confused. Naturezak (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The "skeptical of reincarnation" assertion seems to be contradicted by information here on page 23, and also here at Tenzin Gyatso, in the last paragraph of the lead. Do you have a source for the "skeptical of reincarnation" assertion? In any case, the point I made was about his believers, so your speculation about Gyatso's personal skepticism, whether you can source it or not, is irrelevant to the point I made. WNDL42 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the lead describes them as "students", not "members", so your first criticism is bunk. Kww's PoV that such "students" are a triffle fruity is irrelevant, since it is verifiable that they were "students". WP:BLP is only violated if it is unverified, so your second point is bunk. Anything else, or will I start a behavior RfC now? Jefffire (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, I'm responding to KWW's explicit hard-line demand for "members", or didn't you catch that before you characterized my comment as "bunk"? Secondly, I'm arguing that if KWW wants to "Ramtha-tize" in the lead, then it needs to be otherwised balanced with other notable aspects of the "Ramthafarian's" lives, or didn't you catch that before you characterized my second point as "bunk"? WNDL42 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead is too negative? The lead makes it quite clear that the movie was a success. It doesn't indulge in attacks against anyone associated with the film. It really pulls its punches in terms of reflecting the language of the sources, because the harsher accusations against the film are all lumped under a blanket term of "misrepresent", instead of "distort". It doesn't go into the accusations of fraud and deceit on the part of the film makers.


 * -- Fraud and deceit(?!?!) - what on earth are you talking about. Albert has made it clear over and over again that there was no such thing. What a comment... WNDL42 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at Singh's and Ebert's comments. Words like "hoax" and "distorts science to fit its own agenda" go roughly under "fraud" and "deceit" in my book.Kww (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now we are to use Singh, who self describes "I am an author, journalist and TV producer, specialising in science and mathematics, the only two subjects I have the faintest clue about." and Roger Ebert to support your "characterizations" for the lead?!? The 43 yrs. young Simon Singh, while also a notably non-popular book seller, has never done a single bit of science in his life. What kind of physicist earns a Ph. D. and then goes to work directly for the BBC, where he has been ever since? Also, as the books Singh is peddling are explicitly of the Richard Dawkins genre (diametrically opposite "Bleep's" POV), Singh has a conflict of interest -- and his characterizations can't possibly be seen as NPOV from a science perspective. Dipping pretty low into the barrel of reliable sources, aren't you? You're going to hold up Simon Singh as a respectable source to refute Amit Goswami, Jeffrey Satinover, Stuart Hammeroff...etc...etc...? Nice try. WNDL42 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the lead does not use "distorts science for its own agenda" or "hoax". Those are pejoratives. Pseudoscience is a pretty tame descriptive in comparison.Kww (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What's left?Kww (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Balance is what's left, and you've not addressed that.


 * As pointed out above "balance" is not exactly what WP:NPOV is about. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fallacious and circular. My argument is WP:UNDUE in the context of WP:LEAD. Both must be addressed to acheive the larger goal of NPOV. Please stop talking circles around my points. WNDL42 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is as balanced as it can get. It makes no conclusions as to whether the movie is an intentional misrepresentation of science or a good-faith mispresentation of science, and that is really the only open issue.Kww (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * KWW, The lead is full of loaded language and your POV laden "framing" of credibility.

Now..."The lead is as balanced as it can get" is a particularly interesting personal opinion. WNDL42 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KWW, neither you nor others have addressed the issue of "blanketing" in the use of pseudoscience -- I have repeatedly expressed my support for the proper use of the word, to the extent that it is not applied with an overly broad brush, as it is now. You have not defended on these grounds, indeed when you have encountered the question you respond by changing the subject, or with personal opinions that do not cite specifically what is pseudoscience. WNDL42 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I can see in the lead, there is no "blanketing". The lead properly characterizes the movie as containing pseudoscience. Since this is a criticism for which we have sources, and it is framed properly (the entire movie isn't pseudoscience, rather the movie contains pseudoscience) I fail to see how this use is "improper" in any sense. I don't see the "broad brush" application either. Sure there are only specific instances of pseudoscience in the movie, but the lead is a summary, and as a summary it lets the reader know that the movie contains pseudoscience. This is verifiable to reliable sources that criticize the movie. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't blanketly dismiss the film as pseudoscience, or say that it consists of pseudoscience, it says it contains it, and cites reliable sources to support it. Kww (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could assert an equally valid unsupported personal opinion that your comment is a pseudo-argument (aka fallacious). Saying "contains pseudoscience" is like saying "contains evil", or "contains pseudoskepticism" -- utterly unencyclopedic construction for language in the lead, or anywhere on Wikipedia. WNDL42 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a loaded statement by definition, therefore unencyclopedic. WNDL42 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By this criteria, the entire lead is a loaded statement because it follows summary style. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now there's a clever way to talk around the point (again). Restating; putting "contains pseudoscience" in the lead, while lacking explicit characterization of exactly what is being referred to as "pseudoscience", is a "blanket pejorative" in the same way that "contains fraud" is a blanket pejorative -- clearly intended to sully the whole work and (more importantly) the many non-"pseudo" scientists that the film represents. "contains pseudoscience" is a ridiculous statement to make in the lead, and such tripe is not (to my knowledge) found anywhere else on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone here can show all of us an article here on Wikipedia where such a pejorative construction is  permitted...let's see a wikiprecedent, and (if any exist) discuss how that precedent might apply here. WNDL42 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's from sources. That's why it's there. It wouldn't be there if it wasn't sourced. The lead does not say that the movie contains pseudoscience, it says that the movie has been criticized for containing pseudoscience. That's a fact. It has been criticized for containing pseudoscience.Kww (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Circular (again) and failure to address. WNDL42 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will address your point in simple words. We have sources that say the movie contains pseudoscience. We refer to those sources. I'm not running in a circle, I'm standing on this point. We have a reliable source that contains the word. It is a bit nicer than "tosh", "balderdash", and "nonsense", which can be reasonably viewed as supporting statements. Your opinion of the word is irrelevant. Would you really prefer "The movie has been criticised as tosh, balderdash, and quantum nonsense"? Kww (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You have ignored overwhelming evidence to the contrary, see here. You have no attribution for "contains psuedoscience", pure and simple, and you repeatedly ignore arguments against the construction you propose on its merits, and refuse to defend your construction on the basis of merits. And don't present false choices either, please... WNDL42 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here and here. Those funny numbers after a word in the article ... they are called "references". If you click on them, they take to you "articles" that contain "words". In this case, the words "pseudoscience", "tosh", "balderdash", "Pseud's Corner", "lies", "claptrap", and "pseudo-science", which looks to me to be "pseudoscience" with a decorative hyphen.Kww (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly the tiny minority opinions (demonstrated as such well and fully via WP:SET) deserve inclusion in the article, but these "fringe" criticisms from BBC film-critics-who-couldn't-get-a-real-job-in-science have no place in the lead, per USER:Jimbo Wales and per WP:LEAD, and per any-other-wiki-policy-or-precedent you care to (specifically) cite. WNDL42 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Moreover (and FYI) I am quite thoroughly familiar with Rosenblum and Kuttner, thank you. You may recall that we've discussed "Quantum Enigma" here extensively (months ago, and again weeks ago). Suggest that you be careful leaning too heavily on Rosenblum, he's apparently moved closer to the dark side (IONS) since the letter you cite. ;-) WNDL42 (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(deleted "groupthink" section) per editor request

Lock down the lead
Any chance we could agree on the lead and then leave it in place so we can work on the rest of the article. What's in place now has the agreement of three editors. (olive (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC))


 * What's now in place is better. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not, as the consensus version has already been unilaterally displaced by nonconsensus edits. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Blanket pejoratives in the lead fail on multiple policy grounds (cited endlessly here, and we are dealing with living people, and as we all know WP:BLP trumps all, and "disputes" are settled conservatively in favor of those individuals who might be harmed. Enough is enough, let's get to work on the article and stop this nonsense about whose POV for the lead has more "votes". WNDL42 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What pejoratives? BLP doesn't trump all. What BLP complaint has been filed at the WP:BLPN? I don't see any. The Lead is fine the way it is. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not "fine" because we don't know what "it" is. Get caught up on the talk page and discuss issues in play, rather than dismissing discussions you have not participated in. WNDL42 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm totally caught up. I see a lot of noise and little substance. You've got an issue with BLP? File a WP:BLPN. Otherwise, there is just a lot of smoke-and-mirrors. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there is no consensus for this version of the lead, but there was a general consensus till a few min ago. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know what consensus is. You might want to read up on it. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How on earth could a "consensus" have magically appeared in the three hours I was out to dinner last night? See WP:CCC, specifically that little word "wait" right underneath the "make an edit" box. [[Image:Consensus new and old.svg|thumb|right|400px|Wikipedia consensus process flowchart]]

Wow, after months of contention over this lead, the idea that any consensus whatsoever could possibly have developed in any given three, six or twelve hour period is utter nonsense and sheer poppycock. WNDL42 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No quotes in the lead please
Please keep quotes out of the lead, please. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ALL - please stop creating unnessary section headings on talk
There is no reason for continually creating new section headings to add comments to discussions already in play. You and others here been doing this repeatedly. Please consider the impact you are having on other editors as you are making the relevant discussions impossible to follow. I'm sure it's not intentional, but when you do this repeatedly in contentious topic areas it gives the appearance of a Smoke screen, and I am quite certain you know where the relevant discussions are taking place. Please do not use talk page section headings to "shout" over the discussion. This is now at least the sixth time you have done this recently and this is my second request that you stop. WNDL42 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any other section that is discussing quotes in the lead. Do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that you fail again to talk to my point; that this kind of repeated "heading abuse" is disruptive here -- there are four separate places where the Arntz quote, "a film for the metaphysical left" quote has been discussed without closure, and that is the only "quote" currently in discussion for the lead, as you know. And we both know you don't need pointers to these discussions. search this talk page if you need help finding the relevant discussion on this mess of a talk page. WNDL42 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a policy on heading abuse you would like to cite? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, (a) I didn't make a policy claim, so why do you ask for a policy(?)...and (b) I didn't think it necessary to provide the explicit pointer to the guideline in order to request that you stop, but the guideline basis for my request is here at WP:TALK. WNDL42 (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * wikipedia is not your personal slave facotry. headings when appropriate can be used whneever appropriate, without need of permission from you. Smith Jones (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Smith Jones, there's a talk page for discussion of your opinions about WP:TALK where you can be as incivil as you like in expressing your opinion. Suggest you propose your ideas over there. WNDL42 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

false claims of consensus?
I think there should be a general moratorium on talking about "consensus". Most of the people declaring it are using it to push an agenda. Let's put aside declarations of "consensus" and actually work to write a lead that conforms to the content guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Those people who think that there is a BLP issue with the lead can start out by filing a WP:BLPN, because I cannot see what the BLP issue is right now. Those people who think that there is an NPOV issue with the lead can ask for a third opinion or a request for comment, because I don't see what the NPOV issues are (if there are any). But trying to argue about consensus is not productive. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about, we drop any artificial claims of consensus, and we simultaneously drop the completely counterproductive refrain of accusations of 'POV pushing' or 'pushing an agenda'? Does that sound like a good faith effort at finding common ground for discourse? Are you in? And maybe we should skip the shotgun approach to personal attacks: "Most of the people declaring it are using it to push an agenda." Blanket accusations of bad faith such as this are not helpful, and I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from these in the future.  Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! I will gladly agree to this. You'll notice, however, that I was one of the people talking about consensus too. Agenda I'm pushing? I think you can guess. ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i think that the people who are mentioning consensus ar etlaking in good faith but they are making a mistake. you see sometimes one person will post an idea, a few more people wil agree with it, and then the topic of the conversation will shif tand the person who initiatlly posted the idea wil get the false impresison that consensus was reached since no one got around to disputing it. they will make the edit and all of a udden will find themselve sbeing accused of scientific totatliratiarnism and bad faith. Smith Jones (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If a "consensus" only exists until someone with a a scientific background speaks up (or a Stalinist, as Boodles and Wndl42 call us), then it is hardly worth defending. A true consensus can only arise in a full informed community. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (responding in-line to refute another false attribution) Jeffire, I've asked politely on several occasions now that you please stop falsely portraying my characterizations of the conflicts here as personal attacks, as you have again just above. Please do not post user talk page entries here to make your points. My full response to your comment above is here, with proper diffs to restore essential context. WNDL42 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't agree with WP:CONSENSUS, you should just go to WP:CONSENSUS and be WP:BOLD... hey, it worked at WP:FRINGE... (so far) ...  Dlabtot (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with wp:consensus, it's just that we don't have it here, and it's disingenuous to pretend that we do. Jefffire (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous to speak of consensus in the context of the small number of people participating in this talk page. Consensus is represented by policies such as WP:NPOV, our job is to see how best to apply that consensus to this particular article. Anything else wopuld be an open ticket for every crackpot in the land to skew content just by bringing friends. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i know that im just saying that sometimes a false consensus regarding content can ber eached due to a number of people agreeing with an idea or insertion and a large number of other people who dont bother to register their dispaproval. if i wanted to add an external link and all of the most frequent editors said that they saw no problem with it, i might be fooled into thinking that this means that EVERYONE who edits the article agres with it, and the only way iwould know better i s through experience, knowledge of the policeis. My point tha t it is possible to falsely assume conensus in good faith without having any evil or satanic intent as it implied by the person bleating above. Smith Jones (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then, what is the proper context in which to speak of consensus? - since you seem to be saying that the community of editors involved in editing an article is not the proper context - (correct me if I'm wrong) - what is? Dlabtot (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's look to WP:CCC, and please let's respect those editors who are unable or unwilling to "ride" this article as tendentiously as many of us here have been doing -- including me. The best editors with the most reasonable and neutral POVs are continually being either (a) driven away, or (b) drowned out by our "noise", and the sum total of our behavior is tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I for one am not able or willing to "keep up". Wikipedia does not belong to the most tendentious partisans in any topic area, indeed the articles that result from the "winning" of such noisy arguments wind up being, in general, amongst the worst crap found on Wikipedia. WNDL42 (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the only times I ever see WP:CCC cited in anger is when POV-pushers continually seek to draw a new "consensus" average between the current article and their POV. Consensus is represented by policy.  Agreement of a few editors on a talk page is just that: agreement between a few editors.  If the few editors can't agree, then dispute resolution is necessary.  You can't justly invoke consensus without a minimum of many tens of users contributing, ideally some hundreds, and in this case just one editor would still represent the consensus view even if fifty editors turned up to try to rewrite the article into a puff piece, because consensus is not equivalent to the people who turn up to support one or another POV.  Sorry to labour this point, but it is absolutely critical not to be misled into thinking that any number of editors agreeing that we can ignore criticism in the lead, to pick one example, will never amount to a consensus especially when weighed against WP:NPOV.  Where you have unanimous agreement among all editors of all POVs that a certain wording is aceptable per policy, then that is consensus. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Guy, wow...were you serious with "Where you have unanimous agreement among all editors of all POVs that a certain wording is aceptable per policy, then that is consensus.", really? I can only say (a) what mythical Wikipedia are you editing? (b) you managed to talk completely around my point, which might indicate that you are unable to refute what I wrote, and prefer a Smoke screen. Do you care to discuss what I wrote instead of dismissively and falsely attributing it to an emotional state? Keep to civility please. WNDL42 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want the canonical definition of consensus, you will have to ask a member of the Society of Friends. But I am completely serious here: agreement of half a dozen people with a smaller number dissenting does not equate to consensus, and never will. Consensus means policy, and when people can agree that a certain wording is acceptable per policy, then that is consensus. And if they can't, then you go to dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even DR doesn't work if editors aren't willing to participate nor abide by the results. Just look at this RfC, for example. Dlabtot (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Restating: Let's look to WP:CCC, and please let's respect those editors who are unable or unwilling to "ride" this article as tendentiously as many of us here have been doing -- including me. The best editors with the most reasonable and neutral POVs are continually being either (a) driven away, or (b) drowned out by our "noise", and the sum total of our behavior is tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I for one am not able or willing to "keep up". Wikipedia does not belong to the most tendentious partisans in any topic area, indeed the articles that result from the "winning" of such noisy arguments wind up being, in general, amongst the worst crap least encyclopedic articles found on Wikipedia. WNDL42 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you feel that way, then you should stop editing the article. I for one do not feel that way. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks against editors or false claims about consensus won't really get this article into an NPOV state. It is not true that consensus requires a lot of editors. It is true that NPOV trumps consensus, but consensus can be a super-majority. Although I don't agree on the principles here, it is nice to have an admin confirm what I said about consensus on the lead, since what he basically said was that the NPOV view is always consensus. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that argument quickly circles on itself when you can't get a consensus about what NPOV is.Kww (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't say it was a good argument. The determination of NPOV is done either by 1) consensus, which is to say supermajority of however many editors happen to be actively editing the article, or 2) by dispute resolution.  Theoretically, NPOV trumps all, but you stated the problem.  The above post acts as if NPOV is distinguished by it's aura of truthiness, and as if WP:CONSENSUS says something it does not. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fresh discussion of the lead
There is clearly no consensus for the lead. I would like to re-propose a simplistic, NPOV lead that can serve pragmatically as a "lowest common denominator" and give everybody a little piece of what they want. This will, of necessity, give no one as much as they want, but it will move us forward.

What the Bleep Do We Know is a 2004 film followed by an extended 2006 DVD release that explores the controversial boundaries between science and spirituality using a metaphysical interpretation of Quantum Physics. Created by filmmaker William Arntz, the film features scientists, philosophers, doctors and New Age "channeler" Ramtha in the context of a fictional narrative. The film presents minority scientific and in some cases "fringe" views to support the idea that individuals "co-create" thier subjective realities in the process of experiencing their lives.

So, there is (a) "fringe", (b) "ramtha", (c) "new age", (d) "fictional", (e) "metaphysical", all in the context of spirituality.

Thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What "minority scientific views" are presented in the film? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the "metaphysical interpretation" of quantum physics being employed by the film? The interpretation of Ramtha? If so, shouldn't we just call it quantum flapdoodle? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One would consider it controversial that there even is a boundary between science and spirituality to be explored, leaving aside that the phrase is essentially meaningless. Jefffire (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Objections:
 * There are no controversial boundaries between science and spirituality.
 * The phrase "minority view" gives excessive credence to the science in the movie.
 * Kww (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Controversial indeed. But I think it's not meaningless.


 * I would offer, per WP:SET; see here and here and here and most especially here. WNDL42 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Objections (sorry)


 * There are no controversial boundaries between science and spirituality.
 * The phrase "minority view" concedes what no one else here is willing to concede, namely the pretence that the film makes to scientific respectability
 * the 'metaphysical interpretation of Quantum Physics' has already been discussed by the philosopher David Albert - there is no such interpretation.
 * ' individuals "co-create" thier subjective realities in the process of experiencing their lives' is 'word salad'. Means nothing.   The Rationalist (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That lead looks good to me - clear concise and the most accurate I have seen so far. Not convinced about the use of the word "fringe" but if dropping the word pseudoscience then why not.

However, can I make another suggestion - as I know no one will agree on this intro - why not use a similar sort of introduction as is presently being used for Capra's "Tao of physics" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics While I understand that Capras argument is not as "extreme" as those put forward in WTBDWK - there are similarities. Really2012back (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm growing bored, but an accurate - and consistent with the leads to other article about similar subjects would be:

"What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film, followed by an extended 2006 DVD release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative to describe a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality.[1][2] The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life. Bleep was conceived and its production funded by William Arntz, who co-directed the film along with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente. A moderately low-budget independent production, it was promoted using unusual, grass-roots marketing methods and opened in art-house theaters in the western United States, winning several independent film awards before being picked up by a major distributor[4] and eventually grossing over $10 million.[5][6]" There are certainly criticisms of the movie and these can be included in the relevant sections. The reference to the Ramtha school are equally important as Ramtha is a major contributer to the ideas expressed in the movie - which is far from clear. However, it seems irrelevant to mention this in the introduction. Thoughts? Really2012back (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Tao" is an excellent example. The reason the lead I proposed has a few more words in it is to reflect (exactly as you say) the perception of a more "extreme" treatment by Bleep. I actually prefer an even shorter lead, if we can agree on one...but I believed that so many have made it clear that they believe "Ramtha", "fringe/pseudo" absolutely must be in the lead...well...it was my best shot at represented all sides as much as possible. I am feeling good about the direction you are taking us.WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you add a sentence to the end of Really2012backs version that reads "The film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[7][8][9][10] and containing pseudoscience[7][8], and has been described as quantum mysticism.[11][12]" then I can go with it. You also need to mention that Arntz, Chasse, and Vicente are students of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment.Kww (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kww/WND142 Thanks for your comments. KWW perfectly reasonable I would suspect. Can we except this a move to consensus. Olive/SA? Really2012back (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, KWW's proposal does not work because it defeats the entire purpose of a "stripped" lead. I will move forward with either your "Tao" based proposal, or the original (which was derived from The Great Global Warming Swindle). I have a big problem with the explicit phrase -- "containing psuedoscience" for reasons I've already stated.


 * One of the several proposals I and others have repeatedly made to include the word "pseudoscience" might work, but have been rejected by a couple of editors based on opinions that they were "too soft" in the way they used the word. These opinions have never been clarified or supported in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. Apart from the op-eds we've all seen repeatedly, I'd really like to understand the objections to the several proposals that all work pseudoscience into the lead. WNDL42 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the introduction is still wrong
I have already pointed out the problem with the current intro. Unfortunately this got lost in the fog of war. If I can begin again. The problem with the introduction is that it needs to characterise in general terms what the film is claiming. But all we get to this effect is that the film 'describes a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality'. This is far too generalistic and sweeping a statement to be meaningful. And it is not what the film actually says, anyway. What the film asserts is that the mind has certain occult powers over the material world, (beyond the power mediated by the brain, the nervous system and the body), and that we can use this power to influence our destiny and improve our lives.

Furthermore, the film does not just state these things, nor just state them as true (plenty of films about astrology, Atlantis &c do that). The film also claims that these ideas are supported by legitimate science, and have the support of legitimate scientists (albeit a minority). It presents its claims in a documentary style that is indistinguishable from the style of documentaries aimed at the general public.

These two facts (1. that the film asserts the occult powers of the mind, 2. that this is supported by legitimate science) are key to any explanation of what the film is about. But I did not realise this was what the film was about from reading any of the versions of the article here. I had to watch it to discover that.

I tried to alter the introduction to reflect these important facts, and transcribed portions of the film to show why this is true. But immediately a cloud of people descended on the talk page and accused me of ::: If that is as good as it gets, I may as well stop here. What about the awful 'describes a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality? As I've already pointed out, the word 'metaphysical', which describes the subject of the book by the same name written by Aristotle, does not mean 'occult' or 'paranormal' or whatever. Why isn't that said? And it is still too much of a sweeping claim to make any sense.'original research'. What? Why is a transcription original research. Why is stating the bleeding obvious original research. I am not conducting an experiment at Harvard. I am writing out what is said in a film, the result of which can easily be verified by clicking the link I provided to YouTube, and watching for one self. Thus, completely verifiable, and of course true.

I am still bewildered and baffled by most of the discussion here. The Rationalist (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PS There's a beatiful quote from one of the comments on YouTube. '''This "documentary" is interesting because it is a mix of truths and falsehoods. A lie is more easily believed if preceded by a few truths. Unfortunately you need degree (or higher) level understanding in the relevant fields to sort out the truth from the hogwash. Quite often the "voice over" is full of rubbish while the "experts" are on the money."''' Quite.

I've started a sandbox to understand better how the filmmakers managed this hoax. Take a look (and feel free to contribute). If you look at the credits in section 14, a number of contributors, mostly quite respectable ones, are mentioned together with their academic credentials and a list of the books and academic publications they have authored. But there are 3 characters who feature throughout the film - I have called them 'suit man', 'cactus hippy' and 'random number woman' who I cannot locate in the credits. Who are they? They are responsible for all the really outlandish assertions in the film, if you follow the transcripts I have made. But they are not given credits. Who are they?

I have also started collecting some of the more gullible comments from YouTube. To be fair to those who claim this was all meant as 'entertainment', many of the comments spotted that the whole thing was a hoax. But (a) many people were clearly taken in by it and (b) it is a hoax - clearly the film makers interspersed the truth with the lies quite deliberately. In my view, this fact should be at least mentioned in this article, original research or not. The Rationalist (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead (the first three paragraphs) is probably about as good as it will ever get. Concise, summarizes the reception, and summarizes the criticism without going into full rebuttal mode. It always suffers from a vicious cycle: editors complain that the criticism is too sweeping, so material gets added to support the criticism, which is then perceived as too long, so it gets cut back too far, and then some generalized sweeping criticisms are added, and so on... Right now, I think it balances those reasonably well.
 * As for detailing the claims made in the movie, that is not the role of the article. It should only detail the claims far sufficiently for the reception and the criticisms to make sense. Right now, it goes a bit far, because we hit the same problem in the main article as in the lead ... people try to dismiss the criticism as unjustified, so it gets its coverage expanded, until people say it's too large and cut it back. It's a bit too sizable at this point, but people won't let us say "the movie makes crap up[1][2][3][4][5][6]", so it has to have some flesh. Kww


 * The most important thing to realize is that writing the article based on your opinion of the script is a real no-no. Imagine for a moment if you showed the same ten-page excerpt to me and Wndl42, and each of us then wrote about it. Do you think you could even tell at the end that we had read the same thing? Probably not. If there are things that you think the main article is missing, find a review that mentions them. That's a nasty constraint, but a real one. That's the rule that guides the criticism sections. There are a lot of cleaner and more logical ways to discuss the claims in the movie, but we can't do it... we can only outline criticisms of the claims that have already been made by other sources.
 * One other thing: linking to copyright violations (like pirated YouTube clips) is a real no-no, too.Kww (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is as good as it gets, I may as well stop here. What about the awful 'describes a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality?  As I've already pointed out, the word 'metaphysical', which describes the subject of the book by the same name written by Aristotle, does not mean 'occult' or 'paranormal' or whatever.  Why isn't that said?  And it is still too much of a sweeping claim to make any sense.
 * Not sure I understand. You say first that it's not the role of the article to detail claims of the movie.  Then you say in the very next sentence that the article should detail the claims of the movie.  Which?  You say the article should not reflect one's own opinion of the script.  Of course, that's the reason for the transcripts!  It seemed to me a lot of the people writing here, on both sides of the debate, had not actually seen the film.  On linking to pirated copies, OK I'll see if I can find a site where the links can be kept.  Again, the only reason is for purposes of verification. The Rationalist (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)  PS On the 'nasty constraint', I see your point, but if you carry this to its logical extreme, any assertion whatsoever has to be cited.  I see no articles in Wikipedia like that.  Surely any 'bleeding obvious' statement does not have to be verified, so long as it really is bleeding obvious or verifiable?  The point of an introduction is to summarise the various key points of the subject.  That inevitably requires some editorial judgment.  Otherwise you just get a list of 'X said this, Y said that', which is exactly the problem with the current intro.  It has no thread, and is simply a list of other people's opinions. The Rationalist (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reformatted your comment to not make hash of mine. Given the way Wikipedia software works, responding in-line is generally not a good idea. As to the first objection: I don't care much for the word "metaphysical" myself. If you wanted to campaign to change it to something like "interactions between quantum mechanics and conciousness", go for it. But if you try to get something like "perpetrates a hoax by presenting a wholly unwarranted connection between quantum mechanics and New Ageism", it just won't stick.
 * All I'm saying is that there is a limit to discussion, and you are going about it kind of backwards. One does not go through the whole movies, analyze the claims, and then write rebuttals. One goes through what reliable sources have said about the movie, and then explains those sections well enough for the material gleaned from sources to make sense. If you want to keep a complete list to help you search for sources, fine, but the complete list does not go in the article.
 * I agree that the constraints are a real pain, and usually, you can get a good-faith consensus to be a little relaxed about them when they cause real problems (see WP:IAR). This article, however, is a crater-pocked battlefield, and that kind of allowance is not being made. It angers me some days, but overall, it works. If there was an allowance to let scientific rebuttal of Bleep's concepts to be used, even when those rebuttals didn't mention the movie, imagine the kind of thing that Bleep's supporters would try to drag in.
 * The ongoing battle has damaged the articles readability. I didn't say "as good as it could possibly be", I said "as good as it will ever get". Big difference.Kww (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also made the point about the size. I gave a list of films such as Doctor Zhivago and other greats, which have less coverage in the encylopedia than this film.  Again, editorial judgment in a proper reference source would be required in order that the space allocated to any subject reflects its notability.  This seems to be impossible.  The size of this article is out of proportion to the merits of the film itself.  The only notability, or rather notoriety that it has, seems oddly to be the one thing we can't mention in the introduction.  The Rationalist (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another side-effect of a year-long war.Kww (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments, which are very useful and helpful. Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not trying to refute the claims made in the movie.  I'm trying to prove the claim that the film intersperses legitimate scientific claims with more doubtful paranormal claims, all in the style of a legitimate scientific documentary.  The Rationalist (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken about original research. This is a key weakness in Wikipedia, as I now see.  Summarisation and synthesis is crucial to all editorial work, it is clearly impossible here.  However I did locate some material, linked to in the sandbox  here, about allegations the film was a hoax.  Indeed, the makers themselves reply to the allegation here.   Even more interested, they themselves verify another claim that I would like to have had in the article.  They say What’s new, however, is the research that now tends to prove scientifically what these [mystical] teachings have always espoused: that, through some natural mechanism, as yet not fully understood, each of us is creating our own reality; that, at an essential level, everything is connected.    Given they actually said that, can't we include it?  They are not just stating things that are false, nor merely stating them as if they were true, they are stating that these things are supported by legitimate scientific research.  The Rationalist (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PS - yes, I'm not listing out the claims as anything that should go in the article. The transcripts are there so as we can all be agreed on what is actually in the movie.  The Rationalist (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "creating your own reality" stuff is already in the synopsis, and touched on in several of the criticism articles already linked to. Singh's critique describes it as "distorting science to fit its own agenda", which is a sentence that just won't stick in the lead, even though that source is cited. It seems to have disappeared from the body as well, which is a shame. I think it best states your objection.Kww (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the 'creating your own reality' bit but the 'the research that now tends to prove scientifically' bit that is important from the quote by the makers. The Singh bit is perfect.  Why can't it go back in the lead?  It should go back in the lead.  I shall make it my purpose in life to get it back in the lead.  What is needed is something like The makers claim that scientific research validates the views expressed in the film.  Scientists such as Singh, however, accuse them of distorting science to fit their own agenda, and Ebert even claims that the film was a hoax.  Perfect.  The Rationalist (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whitout making any judgment about the content of the following text, Ebert even claims ... is not good. Ebert claims ... is ok. Re: I shall make it my purpose in life to get it back in the lead. Your wasting your time. Anthon01 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On a purely technical level, don't mix criticism from Ebert and Singh to make a point. Roger Ebert has even less scientific credibility than Arntz. On a practical level, you need to put your guns away. Figure out a good way to integrate that into the criticism section (which is choppy, overlarge, and misses critical points while emphasising not-so-important things). If you try to get that text in the lead, you will just trigger another edit war. Look at the lead we have today ... it really isn't too bad, and makes everyone unhappy. If you try to fix it so that it makes you happier, you will just lose the support it gets from people that are unhappy because they think it's a little bit too unkind.Kww (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with an edit war if it is necessary to characterise this film in exactly the right way, for what it is. Wikipedia gets very high Google ranking for most things - this film included.  It is a widely used reference source.  It needs to be accurate, and reflect truthfully any subject that it deals with.  Are you against that?  On the need to put away guns, I looked at the draft proposal you submitted above and it was more extreme than the one I would propose (it opens right away with the claim that the film misrepresents science).  I would suggest a blend of your version and Slim Virgin's would get it just about right.  I'm generally against the versions such as by ScienceApologist which tend to go into details in a way that is out of place in the introduction.  As you say, the body of the piece needs a lot of work.  But how can I work on it if locked down?  The Rationalist (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I doubt you mean it this way, I have no problem with an edit war if it is necessary to characterise this film in exactly the right way makes you sound like a trouble maker. Anthon01 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. A trouble maker would be here for the sake of causing trouble. I am here to improve this terrible article.  If trouble is unavoidable, so be it.  The Rationalist (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"The problem with the introduction is that it needs to characterise in general terms what the film is claiming." No. That's completely wrong and absolutely contrary to Wikipedia policies. Dlabtot (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. Look at pretty much any film in Wikipedia and there is something to tell you in a short sentence or two what the film is there for.


 * Doctor Zhivago The word zhivago shares a root with the Russian word for life (жизнь), one of the major themes of the novel. It tells the story of a man torn between two women, set primarily against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent Russian Civil War of 1918-1920. More deeply, the novel discusses the plight of a man as the life that he has always known is dramatically torn apart by forces beyond his control. The
 * The Servant (film)It is a tightly woven psychological drama that focuses on the relationships between the four central characters. The intricacies of class, servitude, ennui and Pyrrhic victory are examined and exploded.
 * Brief Encounter A 1945 British film about the mores of British suburban life, centering on a housewife for whom real love (as opposed to the polite arrangement of her marriage) was an unexpectedly "violent" thing.
 * Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (film) The first of the social-realist or "kitchen sink dramas" of the 1960's. Others include Tony Richardson's The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (from Alan Sillitoe's 1959 collection of short stories of the same name) and A Taste of Honey; and John Schlesinger's A Kind of Loving and Billy Liar. It was at the forefront of the British New Wave, films dealing with working class issues in a serious manner for the first time, and portraying the more realistic side of everyday issues such as sex, unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
 * A Clockwork Orange (film) A Clockwork Orange features disturbing, violent imagery to facilitate social commentary on psychiatry, youth gangs, and other topics in a futuristic dystopian society.


 * How exactly is this against Wikipedia policy. What policy?  Where?  The Rationalist (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I misread you... sure the lead should briefly summarize the movie, such as the examples you provided... doesn't every version do that already? What exactly are you saying should be in the lead that is not now? Dlabtot (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:LEAD. Anthon01 (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines Dlabtot (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read this, carefully.  In particular, the bit that says 'The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies'.  We agree now?  The Rationalist (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We are agreed that you have correctly quoted a sentence from WP:LEAD. My unanswered question, however, remains: What exactly are you saying should be in the lead that is not now? Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember you asking the unanswered question, but see below. A 4 point introduction on the lines suggested, wording to be decided.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)]
 * I'd like to ask you again if you have any specific suggestions for what should in the lead that is not in it now? Dlabtot (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and I say again, read the 4 point specific suggestion below. Do you have some kind of attention deficit problem?  The Rationalist (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read your 4 point essay below. I guess we just have different ideas about what is meant by the phrase 'specific suggestion'.   If you ever do make any specific suggestions about how the article should be changed, I'll be happy to comment on them. Dlabtot (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For your attendance, I think it might be fruitful to consider the lead of. It too makes a number of statements which are heavily criticised scientifically. Jefffire (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the loose change introduction very much. It starts with what the film actually claims (that the September 11 attacks were planned and conducted by elements within the United States government), then follows this with what the scientists would like it to say, i.e. 'prominent members of the scientific and engineering community[6] argue that the film's main claims are false.' without descending into the unnecessary detail that should be handled by the main article.  Thanks for that link.  Why can't we get this article into pretty much the same shape?  1.  Start with the usual stuff about director and dates, per WP guidelines so helpfully quoted here.  2.  A brief statement about the format used by the film (documentary style overlying a fictional narrative).  3.  The main point of the film - that our conscious mind can affect the material world in various paranormal ways, and that the protagonist Amanda, whose life was in a mess, can get out of the mess by using the these powers.  4.  Finally, characterise in general terms the controversy this has caused, because of the claim that these ideas are supported by legitimate science, and have the support of legitimate scientists, and because of the presentation of such claims in a documentary style that is indistinguishable from the popular educational format.


 * The exact wording we can decide upon. It should not be too detailed - that is what is wrong with the versions suggested pro-science lobby, who insist on getting stuff like 'quantum mysticism' into the lead.  Nor should it spare legitimate, verifiable criticism by authorities such as Singh.  I have no problem with soundbites, by the way.  What's wrong with those?  'Documentary aimed at the gullible' is a good one from the BBC - not suggesting it should go in there, but a couple of pithy quotes deserve to go in.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much like how the loose change intro is handled and I think we could well use it as a template. Personally I think the intro would probably read better without soundbites, but that's a stylistic choice. Jefffire (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationalist, do you have any specific objection to the current final sentence:The film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[7][8][9][10] and containing pseudoscience[7][8], and has been described as quantum mysticism.[11][12]? How much more does a lead (as opposed to the body) need to contain for you to be satisfied?Kww (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I object to this sentence for the reasons already explained: too much detail. 'Containing pseudoscience' introduces the technical word to an untechnical reader.  What the hell is pseudoscience?  Do I have to click that link to find out while I am reading about this film?  Better: describe the criticism in a way that makes it clear to anyone who already knows what pseudoscience, that it really is pseudoscience, while at the same time explaining clearly to the untechnical reader what is going on.  Thus: the film has been criticised for its claims that these paranormal phenomena are supported by legitimate science.  For that is what pseudoscience is.  Rather than contrast mysticism with science, pseudoscience cloaks its statements with the mantel of science.  On the 'quantum mysticism' bit, again, same objection. What the hell is 'quantum mysticism'.  A bit more difficult to find a clear explanation here, but couldn't we work on it?  I rather like Ebert's remark that he couldn't tell at first that the film was tosh because it was incomprehensible as the genuine science was.


 * David Albert has written a very clear explanation of the quantum science issue - I suggest incorporating a resume of this into the body of the article, as it very clearly explains the various fallacies and mistaken assumptions underlying the film.   The Rationalist (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely -- Albert's various critiques have really nailed the topic, and have done a good job of describing what the film got right and what it got wrong, and his extended interviews on the DVD release version (where Albert was 100% unedited and given top billing) are excellent. Can you post a link to the particular Albert document you are looking at??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. Good luck all. Have fun. Really2012back (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling that sentence "too detailed" is really a stretch. Pseudoscience and quantum mysticism have definitions, policies about them, and have the very real advantage of being direct quotes from multiple sources. Once you start saying the film has been criticised for its claims that these paranormal phenomena are supported by legitimate science you have to start finding reliable sources that 1) discuss the movie; 2) use the phrase paranormal phenomena; and 3); use the phrase legitimate science. Scarce as hen's teeth. The material has to be completely defensible at a purely technical level, because there are editors that will leap at any excuse to remove material that is critical to the movie. The best way to do that is to not give them the feeblest of pretexts to remove the material. As for your summary of Albert's critique, why don't you make a pass at it, and then include it on the talk page.Kww (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Which definition of "psuedoscience" are you referring to? I'm looking for a WP:RS, not something that was created here on Wikipedia, because (as you know) Wikipedia is not, by Wikipedia's own definition, a reliable source. WNDL42 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, from the arbcom referenced above helpful.


 * Also, (a) please stop referring to a very old ArbCom decision as if it were a Wikipedia "policy", because it's not. As you know, "policy" has a very special meaning on WP, and (b) any appeals to authority based on that non-policy are fallacious, (c) the previous ArbCom decisions may nonetheless be useful in this discussion, especially if you provide the link to the section you think is relevant here. WNDL42 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, a "principle from arbitration". If you want to feel that you are not bound to abide principles set down in arbitration cases, eventually you will learn that that isn't true. It also isn't very old ... about 14 months, and still having specific restrictions enforced against a couple of the editors that work on this article. It's very much active. This, [this], this, and this all apply to the discussions of the "science" contained in WTB. Variations of consciousness causes collapse, which is basically what WTB's central thesis is, are generally considered to be pseudoscience. We are under no obligation to treat them as legitimate science, and an article with the NPOV with respect to science treats it as scientifically invalid.Kww (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Causal associations between "consciousness" and wave function collapse are widely and seriously discussed and generally thought to be scientifically unfalsifiable. Your repeated assertions of opinion that this is therefore "psuedoscience" is utterly unsupported. This has been overwhelmingly demonstrated here with reliable sources as support for many months now. WNDL42 (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources that describe the movie as "pseudoscience", "tosh", "balderdash", and "quantum nonsense". A quick run down your Google Scholar yields words like "quackery" and "tortured version of quantum theory ". We have no reliable third-party sources defending the science in the movie. That places it somewhere in between "generally considered to be pseudoscience" and "widely considered to be absurd." Most of your results don't discuss the science at all ... they just mention the title in the context of movies that talk about spirituality and science. Part of running a search engine test is to take a few minutes to actually scan through the results and see what kind of conclusions they support. Why are you so motivated to try to defend this film?Kww (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For a meta-analysis of three different search engines to see if "pseudoscience" is supported, please consider, per WP:SET:


 * The first test is of the entire www population of web hits for Bleep, both with and without the word "pseudoscience". The control population is 40,400 hits, and the "pseudoscience sample" is 666 hits, for a tiny (might call it "fringe") population of 1.65% that associates Bleep with "pseudoscience".


 * Next, the Google News (archive of published sources) is tested and yields a control of 219 hits and the pseudoscience test yields only 2 hits, for 0.91%. Nice cluster emerging.


 * Finally, the Google Scholar (archive of adacemic publications) yields a control of 29 hits and a "pseudoscience" sample of 0 hits.

If anyone is interested in opening this in a spreadsheet, let me know and I'll post the text string that can be opened as a .csv file in Excel or whatever. WNDL42 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on editing Bleep
Given the situation last night I would respectfully like to make a few comments.

Wikipedia in describing itself, describes a fundamentally, community-driven, editing project. This implies, to be workable, cooperation and compromise.

I would suggest to that end we all consider:
 * None of us knows why another editor spends time here, for how long, and when, and should reserve judgment on any other editor, for any reason, in these discussions.
 * That although subheadings may appear to cause disruption, they also clarify topics being discussed when multiple topics are under discussion. Checking the history tab will clearly let the reader know what is going on where. We need to assume good faith. If there are larger problems with editors, they can be addressed in the appropriate way as outlined by Wikipedia.
 * No one has to agree with Wikipedia ‘s policies and guidelines, but to edit here we should abide by them or go someplace else. If an editor wants to implement changes to these policies, there are more appropriate places to discuss them.
 * Consensus seems to be a word that invites almost hysterical kinds of reactions. I would suggest that we remember that no consensus is binding, that consensus changes, and that there are multiple levels of consensus. The lead has been in place for a considerable amount of time given the history of this article, several hours is almost remarkable, and was worked on by multiple editors. In the end three editors, myself included, compromised on what was needed in the lead. I suggest that none of us was completely happy with it, but we did have a stable, bare-bones section that could be padded out, with careful consideration, from editors who want to or could be involved. I asked if we could please make smaller additions complete with citations so discussion could be carried on in a non-chaotic, amicable way. We had a general agreement on the lead from the editors who had done the work, and I asked for additional input. We can call this a small consensus, and this should be non-threatening because we all know this can be changed in an unprotected article.
 * Massive changes without discussion and agreement may not take into consideration the efforts of editors involved.
 * Working for long periods of committed time on an article doesn’t drive other editors away. Incivility, and a heated, angry environment could. The editing going on in this article in the last few days has been relatively amicable and there has been a fair amount of give and take with editors who obviously don‘t always agree.
 * Although finding an article and discussion have moved beyond where we left it is frustrating, its unreasonable for any of us to imagine that an article will stand still while we are way. Step out of the river and the river flows on without us.

I am disappointed, that an article/discussion I've spent several days working on, using time that was more precious to me than any of you could possibly know, in the space of half an hour, went from being relatively amicable to angry and chaotic, that edit warring took place, and that the admin. who warned us not to edit war did indeed step in and protect the article indefinitely. Unless we can change the way we deal with this discussion, and return to more amicable ways of dealing with this article, I can see no reason why an admin. would lift the protection. This might be worth considering.(olive (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC))


 * One of the problems is that your "small consensus" was being used to prevent other editors from making small edits. Another issue is your definition of a "massive change" is not necessarily someone else's definition of a "massive change". That kind of emotive wording does not help diffuse the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry SA. That is absolutely not true. Multiple editors made changes and editors could make changes and continued to do so . Please characterize the editing as it happened. Massive changes was a phrase used to describe the possibilities of large changes that had not been discussed, and not changes that had been made. Again Please characterize exactly what I said if you have a comment and do not create drama where there isn't any.(olive (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure what you think is "not true". Certainly some editors were using your "small consensus" as rationales for revert. Certainly editors' opinions on what is or is not a "massive change" differ from editor to editor. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Loo, my point is a temporal reference to the amount of activity here. If an editor is committed, but cannot come here six or more times a day, that editor's "voice" will be (unintentionally) drowned out - perhaps that editor makes two comments a day compared to six other editors commenting a dozen times a day. Clearly that editor is not going to have the same "voice" as more active editors, nor have the opportunity to keep up with or even follow the scattered discussion. Jimbo has made a number of recent comments on this effect, he is very unhappy about the loss of more moderate editors. One of Jimbo's posts (diff) is at my user page, if you want to see it. Thanks for your long hard work in commentary, but I think you kinda missed my point...hope I have clarified. WNDL42 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea that may rectify this continuing waring. Perhaps all of those that believe in the validity of the reality expressed in this movie - ie that reality can be changed by thinking it into the desired outcome - together with the various TM Sidhis present - can change the existent reality by thought, thus changing fluctuationsin the quantun field, so that everyone agrees? Not only would this be an agreeable method of working but could also prove the theories in the Movie - and who could doubt Ramtha - thus stopping all future disagreements? Just a thought. Sowing some seeds. You know the sort of thing. Really2012back (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it our job to prove the movie is correct or incorrect? David D. (Talk) 18:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'm working on that just now. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really, just thought it would be a useful side effect. You know. Really2012back (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if nothing else the thought might help lighten things up a bit. Even if it doesn't make some of us see the light. :) David D. (Talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Olive, the sight of SA reverting in a change that you and MartinPhi had agreed on gave me a moment of hope. I think you can understand why I sometimes think the best thing to do is to delete the article and protect the namespace to prevent recreation.Kww (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then, Kww I am completely in the dark . All of the changes that I agreed to keep were because I understood both you and Martin agreed on them. I did not agree with everything Martin did and vice versa. I don't feel that your statement in any way characterizes what happened in terms of editing in the last two days. If you however enjoyed seeing SA revert that is of course your prerogative.(olive (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I think you misunderstand. I believe it was the first time that you, Martin, SA, and I all spoke in favor of any sentence. The reversion part wasn't so nice.Kww (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The article lead got protected in quite an acceptable state. I any editors would like to try and put up another one which might gain a general consensus, we can have the page unprotected and put that in. And then request page protection again perhaps? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * page proteciton is not some condom that you can switch on and off at random. it is sused only in extreme cases when the article is being subject to either huge amounts of vandlaism, edit warring, or is too unstable dispute-wise to be edite d very well. if we come up with an acceptable lead, the thing to do is not to automatically swithc off protection but to contact an admin and have them edit the page for us. protection will only be removed win it expieres or when the admins are satisfied wthat the content dispute has been effectively resolved. Smith Jones (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For some values of acceptable, anyway. Acceptable, that is, to those who would minimise the two most significant sources of notability (being denounced as complete bollocks and being outed as blatantly misrepresenting its sources / interviewees) and maximise the least significant (selling to lots of credulous people). Guy (Help!) 15:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the film "metaphysical"?
I'm not sure. Certainly the filmmakers think so. However, it may not be as simple as that. User:The Rationalist has pointed out that it probably isn't metaphysical. I'm inclined to agree. We can say that the filmmakers consider the film metaphysical (and, in fact, include a quote to that effect later in the article), but we shouldn't just tack that adjective onto the film. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * People often use 'metaphysical' when 'paranormal' or some cognate is intended. There are some genuinely metaphysical or rather philosophical moments represented by David Albert's contributions (from what ai have read of his work, he is a rather good philosopher).  But his remarks were edited in such a way as to reverse his point.  Albert believes that quantum theory does not represent any crisis for mechanism, and that it has nothing philosophically to offer for the problem of free will.  And if there is any sentence I would like to expunge from the intro it is 'a narrative to describe a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality'.  It tells us absolutely nothing.  What the film is clearly trying to say is that there is a paranormal connection between consciousness and the material world, of a kind not explained by the physical interaction involving the brain, nervous system, muscles and so on.  For example, it is claimed that consciousness can directly affect events in the past, in such way that events happening now are happening because someone in the future is going to will them to happen.  I have the exact quotes from the film in my User:The_Rationalist/What_the_Bleep page.  Note the lady talking about random numbers whom I quoted earlier I have now identified as Lynne McTaggart, who is not a scientist at all but a journalist who writes a lot of New Age stuff, and has apparently read a lot of papers on quantum mechanics, which she writes about as well.  The point of the film is that Amanda, whose life was in a mess, can get out of the mess by using the powers (of consciousness over matter, space and time) that she never realised she had, and which are explained by quantum physics.  If you take a four day course at the Ramtha institute you can learn a lot more about how to develop these hidden powers, though I think it costs you.  The Rationalist (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an interview with McTaggart here. And one of her websites here about 'intention experiments'.  These show how people across the Internet can use their powers of thought to change things that are happening in the physical world.  Interesting.  The Rationalist (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, the word 'metaphysical' is not used as an adjective to describe the film, at least not in the current version of the article. Am I missing something here? Dlabtot (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence we were discussing (once again, it helps to read the talk page) was the intro sentence 'a narrative to describe a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality'. That is the sentence I would like to burn.  The Rationalist (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to assure you that the word is not used as an adjective to describe the film in that sentence, which is why I find the objection to using the word as an adjective to describe the film so puzzling.  I do think that particular sentence was better in a previous version with the word 'posit' instead of 'describe'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Describe a metaphysical relationship" implies the existence of such a relationship, which is PoV. I agree that "posit" is a better choice of word. Jefffire (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the film doesn't posit a metaphysical relationship. It posits a paranormal relationship (remote affection) between the conscious mind and the material world.  These details are important. The Rationalist (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)  PS philosophers agree there may be metaphysical relationship between the conscious mind and reality.  Very few philosophers would say there is a paranormal relationship, because not many philosophers believe in the paranormal.  Think: who exactly invented the ideas of scepticism and rationalism? The Rationalist (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the film doesn't posit a metaphysical relationship. It posits a paranormal relationship (remote affection) between the conscious mind and the material world.  These details are important. The Rationalist (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)  PS philosophers agree there may be metaphysical relationship between the conscious mind and reality.  Very few philosophers would say there is a paranormal relationship, because not many philosophers believe in the paranormal.  Think: who exactly invented the ideas of scepticism and rationalism? The Rationalist (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationalist, that's a totally inaccurate characterization, suggesting to me that maybe you've not seen the film. In the context of the subject-object relationship between observer and observed, the film asserts that the POV chosen by the "observer" has an impact on the events the observer will experience in his/her life, and the film uses (according to David Albert himself), a variant of the Copenhagen interpretation. The "impact" is characterized in the film as small, but meaningful. David Albert does not say that science "refutes" the interpretation, Albert says, repeatedly, science doesn't KNOW that (that's Albert's emphasis, btw). Albert then proceeds to predict that it might be "a hundred years" or more before science can prove that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong. The film's assertions WRT QM are, by definition neither "true" nor are they "untrue", because they are scientifically unfalsifiable. Descriptions of the film as "metaphysical" are used in exactly the same way they are used to describe John Archibald Wheeler and his interpretations of the Holographic principle. WNDL42 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a legitimate variant of copenhagen, that's just quantum mysticism. Jefffire (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While your opinion on the matter, when stated repeatedly as fact, may someday be shown to be true, for now its a logical fallacy -- please recall that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. David Albert is a reliable source, and he does not support the opinion you state here. WNDL42 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and btw WNDL42 I checked out the paper you referenced above, and it looks like bullshit pseudoscience to me. Bullshit because it is just another example of the human tendency to see patterns in noise, and pseudoscience because of the proliferation of technical statistical terms in the paper.  I'm not a scientist but I do have some knowledge of statistics - this is all pretty standard statistics included only to give a patina of respectability to this, well, bullshit.  The words 'lipstick' and 'pig' come to mind here.  The Rationalist (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you so upset about the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research study I provided? I'm sorry it "looks like bullshit" to you personally, but an extra double-helping of your personal opinion, even when slathered with a gravy made from bovine fecal matter, still needs a plate to serve it on, otherwise the entire confection just splatters all over the floor leaves an unfortunate stink. Now, the Straw Man you created to discredit my point may be hungry to lap up the mess, but I'm not. Maybe if you put it in a trough, the pig you describe will eat it? Please speak to the point I made when I provided the source. WNDL42 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because it has no validity? Cited primarily in further work by the same authors, citing primarily work by the same authors, partially written staff of the fringe "Institute of Noetic Sciences", and only made it to the "letter" status in the journal in which it was published. Rationalist has described the "science" contained in the article pretty well. You wonder why people don't respond to you in a way you would like, and this is why. So far, every contribution you have made has been of extremely low quality. Researching your claims invariably ends in a sense of having wasted time. Trying to get us to describe project managers as research physicists, citing garbage papers as evidence for your point, misrepresenting search engine results, trying to hold up crackpots as legitimate scientists... the list goes on. Do you have a legitimate reason for wanting to work on this article? If so, would you please try to make sensible and reasonable contributions?Kww (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry KWW, but you again offer only personal opinion, and in an increasingly more nasty and personal tone. I am only concerned about substantive responses to my arguments. Personally directed op-eds like yours above, sadly looking like this unfortunate dysfunction, are not of interest. WNDL42 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The contributions you have provided to date have entirely lacked scientific credibility. That's a fact. Jefffire (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * More opinion presented as fact, and directed at the editor. Might I suggest that (just for one of many examples) You must have missed this.


 * Please don't remind me of WP:CIVIL. I am well within it's bounds, as I am denigrating only the quality of your contributions.
 * Please don't remind me of WP:CIVIL. I am well within it's bounds, as I am denigrating only the quality of your contributions.


 * I am reminding you and am reminding you again. WNDL42 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly why? I'm being very civil towards you. I'm just pointing out that you have been wasting mine and everybody else's time by not doing cursory examination of your claims before you make them, and then not doing it again after they have been refuted. You rely heavily on the counts on search engine tests, without examining the contents returned. It's a very tiresome way to argue, and frustrating to everyone. I imagine it must be frustrating to you as well ... to type and search so much, and still not persuade anyone because the arguments are fundamentally flawed wastes your time as well.Kww (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could I second that one on search engine tests? It is extremely tiresome.  One reviewer misuses a word, then that review gets cloned by mirror sites, then Wikipedia picks it up and it apparently has become established usage.  Can we please stop it?  Thanks.  The Rationalist (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Addressed below... see new section heading "discussion of WP:SET meta-analyses"WNDL42 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You tried to present Arntz as a "research physicist", when he is not, never has been, and that is obvious from his credentials.


 * I provided reliable sources per WP:SET who describe him that way. WNDL42 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You presented search engine results from Google Scholar and claimed that they refuted the concept of the movie having pseudoscience, when in fact they described the movie as "quackery" and the presentation of quantum mechanics as "tortured".


 * I provided meta analyses demonstrating overwhelmingly more support for metaphysical than for pseudoscience in the lead. WNDL42 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The paper you try to use to support your claims is uncited and not reviewed.


 * I did not "use" the paper in the context you suggest. WNDL42 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not my personal opinion. That's fact. If you want to persuade anyone, you need to present valid arguments and valid information. So far, your contributions to this discussion have been below worthless, because they consumed time that could have been spent doing useful things.Kww (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You must have missed (as just one of many examples), this. WNDL42 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a relevant criticism if it was my intention to present it in the article. However, on Wikipedia, the sole onus is upon the person wishing to write something in the article to provide evidence for their view. To cut a long story short, you need to provide strong evidence the film is "metaphysical" to describe it as such, and I don't need to provide anything. Jefffire (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the policies you refer to. I do not need to "provide strong evidence the film is "metaphysical", and that is not even my intent. All that needs be done is to demonstrate that reliable sources have broadly described it as metaphysical, and that has been done, well and repeatedly. You will perhaps recall that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting lost here. The point is that "describe a metaphysical connection" is PoV, whilst "posit a metaphysical connection" isn't. Jefffire (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jefffire, you are absolutely right, and I think your construction via "posit" is perfect. Please note that the "describe" language was not mine in the first place and I have not defended or advocated it other than to offer general support for the "direction" Kww was taking WRT my original proposal, see above. WNDL42 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He isn't a third-party source with respect to this movie. He's reliable for discussions about what his views on things are, but not reliable for validating its contents. There's a reason why the WTB producer's thought he would make a good interview subject in the first place, and even he squawked "distortion" when they saw the final product.Kww (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KWW, we are agreed WRT Albert's commentary in the original film. But please note that you refer to the original film, while I am referring to Albert's post theatrical-release statements, including his revised and extended comments and rebuttals made in the DVD release. In these I would assert Albert IS a reliable source for comments about the original movie. Do you agree? WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Within very tight limits, his comments can be used. Because he is involved in making the movie, his comments about the film's intentions are allowable, his reaction to the accuracy of how his input was portrayed is allowable, production information, all kinds of things. His comments about the accuracy of the science itself is off-limits, because he isn't disinterested.Kww (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I scanned this page and quickly found about three dozen instances where an editor's useful comments were the targets of attempted refutations based on nothing but opinions, like above. Please try to discuss the article without resorting to unsubstantiated rhetoric. This can become tiresome WNDL42 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the rules on referencing. The sole onus of evidence is upon the editor wishing inclusion. Jefffire (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply to this and your assertion above that I have inaccurately characterised the film. Wrong.  Both Lynne McTaggart and Dean Radin explicitly assert the existence of paranormal phenomena in the film, and both claim that this is supported by quantum physics.  Those were the bits I was referring to, not the interviews with David Albert.  The paranormal bits are essential to the story.  The high point of the drama is where man passes Amanda, thinking deeply about what the water 'experiment', and says to her 'if thought can do that to water, what can it do to ourselves' or something like that.  The clear inference we are meant to draw is 1.  science proves that thought has all sorts of extraordinary powers 2.  we can use these powers to make our lives better.  The Rationalist (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)  [edit] Specifically  at the end of the film where Radin describes an experiment by which he 'proves' that we have precognition of randomly selected computer images.  The Rationalist (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, quite. It's only "metaphysical" until there's an experiment to "prove" it. Jefffire (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of WP:SET meta-analyses

 * Quite quite. Except, ahem, I wish you and the others would avoid the word 'metaphysics' which is a respectable discipline that has nothing to do with the paranormal, with mysticism, or pseudoscience.  I know it is often used that way but ...  The Rationalist (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SET, (first sentence) "Search engines allow users to examine web pages on the Internet, which in turn allows checking of when and how certain expressions are used. This is helpful in identifying sources, establishing notability, checking facts, and discussing what names to use for different things (including articles)." Now, recalling that the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, please consider: using WP:SET for exactly this purpose, the score is 671 hits for "pseudoscience", versus 3,950 for "metaphysical". The result I provide here is the worst of the three I performed, the Google News and Google Scholar searches provide even more support for "metaphysical" versus "pseudoscience". WNDL42 (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that this word is misused by a lot of people is not an argument for misusing it yourself, and certainly not for misusing it here. [edit] And please note what WP:SET actually says: '[searching does not] Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false). [or] Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance. 'The Rationalist (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationalist, yes, you are exactly right, that is why WP:SET offers guidance in this area. The special purpose search engines Google Scholar and ''Google News" mitigate this effect, and help to triangulate against a the full www indices.


 * So, using WP:SET for exactly this purpose:


 * (a) the "Google Scholar" score is zero hits for "pseudoscience", from a control population of 29 academic publications


 * (b) the "Google News" score is zero hits for "pseudoscience" from a control population of 129 hits of (what Google considers to be) reliable publications.


 * Yet these meta-analyses, overwhelming as the results are, make no substitute for an actual "hard source" citation. However, making an even further "narrowing" by limiting the Google Scholar search to the physics area only (see query construction page) yields many good documents. For example, in the Journal of Physics, Sheehan's scholarly critique of the science in "Bleep-like" treatments (2007), including discussion of both Bleep and "The Tao of Physics", the topic is discussed extensively. Perhaps Sheehan's language might provide some alternative ways to characterize critics of the film as well:


 * "Science and science studies are thriving today in many ways, but they are lacking in philosophical vision and social commitment. There is much funding, many metrics, all sorts of empirical studies. However, many studies are narrow and shallow and driven by market demand and fast-track careerism rather than search for truth and public interest. Even many social studies of science, including some associated with the strong programme [21], are too weak in conceptualisation and too random in contextualisation. Science studies have become too small, too introverted. Its exponents esoterically cite themselves and each other and fail to look wider. I picked up a science studies reader recently and could not imagine why anyone would want to read it [28]. It seemed obsessed with minidebates of micro-tendencies. There was only weak evidence of relevant intellectual history and thin social context. There are no references to Bernal, Haldane, Caudwell, Bukharin, Hessen, Levins, Lewontin, Wartofsky, H¨orz and only trivial ones to Marx and Engels. Nevertheless, marxism has been a formative force in science studies, particularly through the work of Bernal, and it is a continuing influence, but it is not often acknowledged. It is sometimes “the philosophy that dare not speak its name” [29]."


 * Food for thought...WNDL42 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, don't much care for philosophy. Now, is the film "metaphysical"? Frankly, it's a bit of a bum term since so many people misuse and misunderstand it. The important question is: Does the film claim to be "metaphysical"? If it does, then that means that we can attribute the claim. Do we say "the movie is a metaphysical description..."? No, absolutely not, because its unattributed PoV. Jefffire (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Philosophy certainly isn't the basis for encyclopedia articles. As for "metaphysical", the producers claim the film is for an audience consisting of the "metaphysical left." So long as we attribute the description, I'm happy with it.Kww (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeffire, I agree, the the language you're referring to..."metaphysical description" (proposed by Really2012 above) probably doesn't work -- at least not for you or I.


 * I think either (a) the Arntz quote "film for the metaphysical left", or (b) your "posits" suggestion, or (c) the three-sentence proposal made here all work better. Your suggestion "posits a metaphysical connection" is my choice as "most likely to achieve consensus" at the moment. WNDL42 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "posits a connection between science and mysticism|metaphysics|spirituality" are all fine by me.Kww (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a modified "fresh discussion" proposal WNDL42 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What the Bleep Do We Know is a 2004 film followed by an extended 2006 DVD release that posits a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality. Created by filmmaker William Arntz, the film features scientists, philosophers, doctors and New Age "channeler" Ramtha presenting the idea that individuals "co-create" thier subjective realities in the process of experiencing their lives.


 * Are you proposing that as the entire lead, or as a replacement for What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k) πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film, followed by an extended 2006 DVD release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative to describe a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.?Kww (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure...what do you think? I thought Really2012 made a really good suggestion that we look to the "Tao of Physics" lead as an example (two sentences), and right now I think (at least temporarily), the cleaner and shorter the lead is the better chance there is for a consensus - even if it's temporary. I think everybody here would rather be working on the article as opposed to keeping the article locked up over the lead. WNDL42 (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that The film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[7][8][9][10] and containing pseudoscience[7][8], and has been described as quantum mysticism.[11][12] is an essential part of the lead, and cannot be deleted.Kww (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that, I guess we'll give the others a day or two to pipe up. WNDL42 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A two sentence lead that doesn't even try to follow WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines would be a real step backward, I think. But it is also counterproductive to draw a line in the sand about one particular sentence and choice of words.  As far as the 'controversy' concerning the film, the elements that I think are significant enough to deserve mention in the lead are (1) the film was made by PWBJZKSWTVOTTYOLWRs and 'Ramtha' appears in the film, (2) one of the interviewees, David Albert, acccused the filmmakers of deliberately editing his interview to misrepresent his views, and (3) the film has received extensive criticism for misrepresenting science.  The wording, I won't quibble about, but the reader should be informed of these verifiable facts in the lead. Dlabtot (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Broadly agree. I think the pre-edit war intro carried it all rather nicely. Jefffire (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that I think the sentence I quote (that is in the lead now, BTW), is the closest to middle ground I've seen. It marks the only time in a long time that MartinPhi, Olive, ScienceApologist, and myself agreed on a sentence. Each phrase can be tracked back to the source it comes from, and it uses a non-accusatory phrasing (misrepresent as opposed to distort). If it were up to me, I'd make the language stronger, and I've spent part of the morning trying to persuade The Rationalist not to fight to make it stronger, so I think he agrees. I think Jeffire would make it stronger, as would SA if given free rein. I suspect that MartinPhi, Olive, Boodles, and Wndl42 would all fight to make it weaker. I don't know how much closer to the middle we can come.Kww (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh,oh, Kww...do not assume that I would ever make an article or section weaker in any way for any reason. I will and have been attempting to reach a ground where all editors can agree, so we can go on. I am interested in neutrality. Tsk,tsk,tsk.I am recovering from flu, and will be happy to comment later more fully.(olive (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Well, I think that sentence contains some unnecessary redundancy, and I do think Albert's charges belong in the lead, but I'm certainly not gonna fight about it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I detest pretty much all of it in the present form. Most of all, I dislike 'posits a metaphysical connection between science and spirituality'.  It is absolutely meaningless.  If the word 'metaphysical' is correctly used, the film is positing a connection that falls into one of the 10 Aristotelian categories, which it is not.  Otherwise what does it mean?  What exactly is a 'metaphysical connnection'?  It is not even true to the film, which quite emphatically asserts the existence of certain magical or paranormal connections between the conscious mind and the physical world.  So it is quite useless.  We are meant to agree to this because nothing else will do.  I will just opt out of this, I think.  The Rationalist (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(Kww) Philosophy certainly isn't the basis for encyclopedia articles. Sorry but what is this? Philosophy is an established discipline, a very old one, which is very much based around the use of logic, reason, and the careful use of language. The meaning of Metaphysical does include the paranormal. To use it in this way is to abuse the term. Why are you doing this here? The Rationalist (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC) PS I don't mind if it says 'the film claims there is a metaphysical connection ...'. But as I have argued above, I do not believe this is true. The Rationalist (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly guilty of misusing 'philosophy' and 'metaphysics' as words myself, which is part of the reason why I think it should only be used as an attributed quote here. I see an endless and pointless discussion about what 'metaphysical' means otherwise. I get the feeling I'm probably fairly ignorant about this compared to you, and that you are probably completely correct about the definition, but for the sake of clarity to the reader base it's probably best to stick with quotes where appropriate. Jefffire (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Philosophy does not consist of a set of verifiable facts. There's no way to evaluate which one is "right" and which one is "wrong". I may have spoken in irritation, but I think my point remains valid: the only way for us to determine whether or not a concept is "metaphysical" is to rely on the evaluation of others.Kww (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it consists of verifiable facts is not the point. Philosophy is more a method of doing things - clarifying ideas, logical, rational thinking and so forth.  Part of this is using terms in very careful ways, such as 'metaphysics'. I don't mind if it occurs in quotation marks.  And perhaps I can draw an analogy.  You physicists get incensed when people use 'quantum' in all sorts of incorrect and silly ways.  Exactly the same with 'metaphysics'.  There's nothing that irritates philosophers more than when people confuse philosophy with mysticism, the supernatural, paranormal, or just plain 'bar room philosophy'.  If you respect physicists, please respect philosophers, for exactly the same reason.  Thanks. The Rationalist (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rationalist, that's very helpful because I (for one) have been thinking in terms of meta + "Physical", according to which I construct "Meta (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with")" to mean that "metaphysics" is "beyond" physics, hence my suggestion "a meta-physical interpretation". I understand your position much better now. WNDL42 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PS just to be absolutely clear, it's not the 'metaphysical left' quotation I object to - it is a quotation, and that is fine. It is the first bit, which is not in quotes, about the 'metaphysical connection' between science and spirituality.  That does NOT occur in quotes.  Put it in quotes, by all means (but then my other objection applies, that the film makers did not say this).  The Rationalist (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationalist, We do agree that "metaphysical connection" is not OK. Were you ok with "metaphysical interpretation of Quantum Physics", or is there some heartburn there? WNDL42 (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "metaphysical interpretation of quantum physics" being offered by the film. There is a quantum mystical interpretation of reality being offered by the film, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that calling anything in the film an "interpretation of quantum physics" is POV--it goes too far toward describing the film on its own terms.Rracecarr (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quantum mystical interpretation of reality, though it may have been a joke, is much closer to the mark. If you look at the section on God (part 6) you get people like Lynne McTaggart saying 'our current understanding of quantum physics is this understanding of complete unity, and so that we have to derive our spirituality from a sense of unity' And then in the Unity section (part 11) she says 'We are finding non-locality everywhere. In our bodies, in space, from stars. In regions of the zero point field, everything is connected. And so we have this, this involvement in everything. We are our world. There is no 'out there' out there. There is no place where we and everything else begins. We are all connected.'  This is not metaphysics, which is a rather dry subject intimately connected with the philosophy of language.  This is, as SA says, a quantum mystical interpretation of reality.  I'm also comfortable with 'metaphysical interpretation of Quantum Physics" EXCEPT this only covers the contribution of David Albert, and he was unhappy with the way this was edited (follow the link I gave below to see his very clear resume of what he actually thinks.  The Rationalist (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't quibble with Quantum mystical interpretation of reality personally, but I'm interested in how good of sources you can find to support it. The two in the article would have to be stretched a bit too far to be rigidly defensible.Kww (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Penrose-Hameroff model, on which the movie is based, is explicitly referred to most commonly as a "metaphysical interpretation", for example see here, is quite strongly supported. Rationalist, you probably know by now that the "cactus hippie" referred to above was Stuart Hameroff, FYI. I can't find any support whatsoever for "quantum mystical" anywhere, except to some old reference to Shirley MacLaine and "dancing in the light". Is there a rationale behind "Quantum Mysticism"? WNDL42 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The movie is based on no such "model". That's original research of your own design, pure and simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that Hameroff (who co-developed the model with Penrose) has about 70% of the interview time in the film discussing it, and references it explicitly several times, please explain your interpretation as "original research of (my) own design". It was a curious and personally directed statement, don't you think? WNDL42 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where in the movie does Hameroff explicitly cite Orch-OR? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow..."Where in the movie does Hameroff explicitly cite Orch-OR?" Now why on earth would Hameroff explicitly use the obscure adademic term "orchestrated objective reduction" in a pop-culture movie? That would be absurd. More semantic games. Hameroff and Penrose are the creators, why would any reasonable person assume Hameroff would be referring to anything else?WNDL42 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The model is incorrectly referred to as a 'metaphysical interpretation'. I've commented before on the use of Google, and that includes 'Google scholar' which, some elementary experiments suggest, is  far from scholarly.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the Penrose-Hameroff model? If so, how can it be incorrect to refer to it as a metaphysical interpretation? WNDL42 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Orch-OR seems to indicate that it is not a "metaphysical" model. Even so there is more than just this idea being discussed in the film. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that reference, & see my comment on 'interpretation' below. Philosophy and metaphysics are not meant to make any scientific conjectures whatever.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As regards WP:SET, apart from not liking it, can you please be explicit about your objections, especially as regards Google Scholar? Would citeseer be better? WNDL42 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Search engine tests only give a vauge guidance on questions of relative importance or connection of subjects, for exmample. They are not used to justify singular opinions of an article's direction as you are now doing. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True (as far as you go, which is not far enough) but that is why I generally provide a Meta-analysis of three different sources, (a) Google (www), (b) Google News, and (c) Google Scholar. I could add a fourth (citeseer), but I think you are setting a bar that is way too high...perhaps because you don't like the results of the tests? Note that I (a) use explicit language constructions rather than the too-frequently used non-explicit variety, (b) use these tests only for estimating the relative popularity of a given descriptive phrase or word, and (c) always cross check against one or more other search engines. WP:SET says, explicitly, in the first sentence:


 * "Search engines allow users to examine web pages on the Internet, which in turn allows checking of when and how certain expressions are used. This is helpful in identifying sources, establishing notability, checking facts, and discussing what names to use for different things (including articles).


 * Can I also suggest actually reading some of the stuff that the search throws up, and subject to a simple 'is this nonsense or not' test. Searching is great, but needs to be accompanied by human intelligence.  Particularly the intelligence bit.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure you can argue for application of some human intelligence, argue all you want. But it's even better to bring it rather than arguing for it based on a logical fallacy. WNDL42 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments about my use of WP:SET to the actual argument I am making for it's use here. Your "justify singular opinions" comment is false, a Straw Man mischaracterization, and as it is personally directed it is an uncivil comment. Argue to the argument and not to the editor, please.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment to the appropriate place again. Please stop mutilating other peoples comments by interspersing your text in the middle. Please stop accusing some of us of violating [{WP:CIVIL]]. A comment like justify singular opinions is not a violation of WP:CIVIL by any stretch of the imagination. My comments toward you haven't violated WP:CIVIL, either, nor have SA's. If you are going to use search engine texts, you have have to evaluate the results or you get nonsense, much like your use of Google Scholar to say that the use of pseudoscience wasn't justified, when the only results in your search that actually examined the movie called it quackery and tortured science.Kww (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any time an editor directs an uncivil comment to me personally - I WILL address it inline. WNDL42 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I remain amazed at how civil everyone has been towards you. No one has addressed an uncivil comment towards you, and, on the off-chance that someone finally loses his temper and does, you should address it after his comment, not in the middle.Kww (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * KWW, might I offer that what is commonly known in discourse and debate as the Straw Man attack is explicitly defined as a "discrediting attack". Now, we both know that you already know this, so please don't be disingenuous. On request, I will post about a dozen examples of this tactic, used when the attacker is unable to handle the argument on its merits and instead needs to resort to attacking a "caracature" of the argument, in the venue of your choosing. For illumination: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]" WNDL42 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are a few more objections, in addition to agreeing with SA's and the Rationalist's comments:  according to the WP:SET article,  Google Scholar doesn't include a full complement of journals for all fields;  most computer science journal articles are referenced there but many other fields are not well represented, so your count could be skewed by being taken from a biased sample of references.  The page also cautions, "hit counts have always been an extremely erroneous tool"  and urges their use only sparingly and with intelligent interpretation, as already noted.
 * As another example of how it annoys people in a particular field to have their words misused, I object to the use of the word "meta-analysis" to refer to google counts as a surrogate for scholarly research.  As a statistician, meta-analysis has a specific meaning to me; I've never heard it used in this other way.   I read WP:SET throughout; the article does not use that term (I'm glad to say), so I'm not sure where this usage comes from. Another neologism? Woonpton (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me explain. Examining Google's general www indices for use of the explicit phrase "mystical interpretation", when compared with an identical search for "metaphysical interpretation" is an analysis of the relative popularity of those two usages. When the same identical analysis is then performed on two other different data sets (Google Scholar and Google News, for example), and the results agree, then you have what is commonly known as a "meta-analysis". Look it up, the term "meta-analysis" is used frequently and explicitly in the context of search engine results testing, proving that it's not "another neologism" . Sure, it can be misused, resulting in "metacrap" but you won't find me doing it. WNDL42 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I learned something: the word meta-analysis has a meaning in search engine testing, and it wasn't another neologism like "meta+physics=beyond physics." But it wasn't an unreasonable speculation, given that such words had been coined before in this discussion.   At any rate,  the fact that I was ignorant of this particular use of the word doesn't have any bearing on, much less validate,  the way raw search engine hit counts have been used here to support a, yes, a singular position. There's nothing uncivil, as I understand civility,  about saying that a position is singular, since the comment refers to the argument, not to the editor, and does accurately describe the situation as I see it.  Woonpton (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Woonpton, I've not seen anybody use a "raw search engine hit count", have you? Many weeks ago we discussed and agreed that a "raw search" would be http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-43,GGLG:en&q=quantum+pseudoscience, and the 139,000 "raw hits" would be metacrap no matter how someone tried to use it. I've never used a "raw search" except to demonstrate how they give meaningless results. As regards the other matter, I'll drop you a note to explain. WNDL42 (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also Woonpton, RE: your comment "it wasn't another neologism like "meta+physics=beyond physics.", that's not a neologism either, please see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here, which explicitly supports my interpretation. Would you please stop saying I am creating neologisms? WNDL42 (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What about replacing "metaphysical" with one of the following - all of which I think would be relevant:

Occult - although not of the "hidden" variety Paranormal Magickal - with a k of course.

Of course in the context of the present sentence non of this make much sense so what about something like:

"...release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a fictional narrative which attempts to use ideas extracted from quantum physics to rationalize or support certain new-age paranormal beliefs. These beliefs being those that place individual thought as the creator of the material world."

Thoughts Really2012back (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm new, so my thoughts aren't as valuable as those of the folks who worked so hard to hammer the lead into its present shape--and by the way, I want to thank those folks, who gave me a real education in how people with different points of view can work together productively to arrive at a consensus. I was impressed by the demonstration, and it's too bad that things went wrong just after that, because it did seem like significant progress was being made.  But having said that, I do have to agree that "metaphysical" is problematic.   I like your construction (except that the second sentence is a fragment).  Is it even necessary to have an adjective there; couldn't it just say "ideas extracted from quantum physics to rationalize or support certain new-age beliefs"? Woonpton (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"...release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a fictional narrative which attempts to use ideas extracted from quantum physics to rationalize or support certain new-age beliefs, with particular emphasis on those beliefs that place individual thought as the creator or modifier of the material world."Really2012back (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's technically fairly accurate, but a bit of a mouthful. Jefffire (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be tidied up, but I like it. Particularly 'rationalize or support certain new-age beliefs' which is exactly right.  Do we have a consensus?  The Rationalist (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One nitpick. Please, not a fictional narrative, just a narrative. I think most of the documentary part is fictional as well, so there shouldn't be a contrasting adjective. Objectively, we can all agree that it is documentary-style and narrative.
 * On a grander note, I think you need to carefully examine your sources, and determine which ones you are going to cite for each of your major phrases. You really need to aim for something unassailable, where every phrase can be traced to a source that is considered reliable by most editors.
 * Third, I hope that you are only proposing a replacement for the first paragraph, not for the entire lead.Kww (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm pleased with the direction, but I have to be careful lest that comment be misconstrued as support for a consensus. I'd like to see a fresh lead proposal...I don't see a consensus developing until the entire lead is laid out - see here, and I will again offer that a temporary compromise will offer an opportunity to (a) get back to work on the rest of the article for a while, and (b) re-examine the lead in a week or so to see how it feels/looks/reads in the context of the larger treatments of topics that follow. I can't see any way right now toward consensus other than to temporarily agree to a stripped down lead, and a further agreement to leave it alone for at least a week. WNDL42 (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stonewalling. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead currently in place is much better than any "stripped-down" lead you have proposed. So far, the stripped-down lead you have proposed is unacceptable.Kww (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"...and a fictional narrative..." would be a correct statement. It does not say that the entire thing is "fictional" but includes the fictional narrative of the deaf character. This would be correct. To separate or clarify this any further would simply make the "sentence" even longer and unwieldy then it already is. While I would not mind to see a shorter introduction I find this unlikely to occur with the impute of present editors. It seemed to me the major stumbling block was the word "metaphysics", understandably, within its existent context. This has now been removed and less value laden wording introduced. As to finding the sources - well, this would not be difficult but I will leave to someone else, together with the relevant corrections in style. I am, alas, a scientist and we are somewhat legendary for our poor grammar. In addition, I am English, and my use of punctuation and - in my view - correct spelling would be considered not so to an American audience - whom I assume will make up the majority of this article readers.. 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Really2012back (talk)
 * I wasn't asking for more words or comments, I was asking for less. Why not documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative to ...? Kww (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

David Albert's critique of the film
Albert's critique of the film, contained in an email to a journalist. Note this is more directed at the 'second version' of the film, which I assume means the DVD version? The phrase 'swarming with scientific inaccuracies' is quite a good soundbite, I thought.

Note the sandbox I have constructed is not meant for inclusion in the article. It is simply a collection of references I have put together for my own research into the film, meant for my own use, though anyone else is welcome to use it, particularly for the transcriptions. When I have finished work on this I shall delete it. The Rationalist (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationalist, I'm not sure how the two movies should best be distinguished, but "the DVD version" doesn't seem sufficiently specific to designate the later version, since both versions are available on DVD.  The original version is titled "What the Bleep Do We Know:  A Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics"  and the later (2006) version is called "What The Bleep Do We Know:  Down the Rabbit Hole."  The movie itself has been revised significantly from the original version; it still contains a lot of the same material, but omits some material that was in the earlier version and adds material that wasn't in the original, besides including an extra disc of supplementary material. Woonpton (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I guess '2006' and '2004' are the best ways of distinguishing the versions.  Problem is, all my references are clearly to the 2006 version.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Irritated comment now moved to talk page. The Rationalist (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Metaphysical 'interpretations'
The point of a metaphysical or philosophical interpretation is that it should leave the science untouched, being an explanation of what the science means in a philosophical context. (A classic example being the discovery in Descartes' time of the laws of motion, suggesting a universe where laws of cause and effect are entirely physical, apparently leaving no room for free will - philosophers sought to rationalise this discovery, without questioning the science). But take this quotation from Hameroff:

This is a mixture of bad philosophy and scientific conjecture. Thus, not just an interpretation. Much other of what Hameroff says goes beyond interpretation, and speculates on the science. The Rationalist (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The opinions; "a mixture of bad philosophy and scientific conjecture" and "Much other of what Hameroff says goes beyond interpretation, and speculates on the science" are well noted, but unsupported. Thanks very much though for finding the example that SA was looking for in which Hameroff does in fact refer explicitly to the Penrose-Hameroff "objective reduction" model, (or Orch-OR for short). Now, if you can demonstrate via reliable sources that the opinion, namely that the Orch-OR model of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff (that Hameroff was discussing) indeed represents "bad philosophy and scientific conjecture", then we'll have something to work with. WNDL42 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not relevant to this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you now say it's not relevant when you yourself just asked for explicit references to Orch-OR? Now that Rationalist has answered your question by providing one explicit example (I've since found six more), YOU think the question is somehow "Not relevant to this article"? The movie is about conscousness, and the Roger Penrose-Stuart Hameroff Orch-OR model of consciousness is, (as you've now been shown) central to the movie's presentation, presented by Hameroff himself, and now that you've been refuted...the topic is somehow "not relevant"? Nice try. WNDL42 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I asked for explicit references to Orch-OR being the sole provider for ideas in this movie. You have yet to provide a single source that says as much. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) I'm sorry SA, but you said "Where in the movie does Hameroff explicitly cite Orch-OR?" (see diff above), so no, I'm afraid you did not "ask...for explicit references to Orch-OR being the sole provider for ideas in this movie".
 * (b) No one here ever said it was the "sole idea", I said 70% of that topic (QWF collapse WRT consciousness) consisted of Hameroff's exposition of Orch-OR, now well and fully demonstrated. If your "sole provider for ideas" is not now being presented as a straw man to smoke-screen your error, then please direct me to a diff where someone here asserted that, other than yourself.


 * Evidence: Both Stenger and Shermer (the movie's two most reputable critics) say that Orch-OR is the basis for the movie, and thier criticisms are on that basis; namely Orch-OR. Proof is here via Stenger and here via Shermer, from Scientific American. These ARE the movie's critics, FYI. Why are you talking in circles, contradicting (a) yourself, (b) the critics and (c) the evidence provided by other editors? WNDL42 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, where did you get 70%? I read Stenger and Shermer as criticizing one tangential aspect to the movie (that is Hameroff's Orch-OR) but they don't explicitly say that the movie is based on this and certainly don't provide us with the 70% figure. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Circular. See what I actually wrote for my usage of "70%".


 * Perhaps restating (with a bullet) will help focus the discussion:


 * Now...you said five words; "Not relevant to this article."
 * Then I said "How can you now say it's not relevant when you yourself just asked for explicit references to Orch-OR? Now that Rationalist has answered your question by providing one explicit example (I've since found six more), YOU think the question is somehow "Not relevant to this article"? The movie is about conscousness, and the Roger Penrose-Stuart Hameroff Orch-OR model of consciousness is, (as you've now been shown) central to the movie's presentation, presented by Hameroff himself, and now that you've been refuted...the topic is somehow "not relevant"?


 * Do you suppose you could take a minute to support your claim of non-relevance? After all, if we were to actually discuss relevance, then (imagine that) we might actually find a way to work out an answer to the question of relevance. WNDL42 (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, one minute. Orch-OR ǂ What the Bleep Do We Know!?. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Still unsupported, except by personal opinion. If opinion is all you'd like to add here, why don't you just say so, and we can just take it for whatever it's worth, and express our due respect? WNDL42 (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two different articles. If you think they are the same thing, just post a tag. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Different points being confused here. First, the 'reliable sources' argument applies only to the stuff that goes in the main articles. I can say anything I like on the talk page, can't I?

Second, we are wandering away from the point at issue, which was whether Hameroff's view is an 'interpretation', which attempts to explain the meaning of certain generally accepted scientific propositions, without questioning them, or whether it is a 'conjecture' i.e. not just explaining the meaning, but making a claim that is not generally accepted by scientists. The quotation I provided suggests that it is the latter. That was the only point I was trying to make.

Finally, the 'bad philosophy'. My attention was attracted by the phrase 'Platonic logic'. I have never heard this before. You usually see 'Aristotelian logic' - Aristotle came after Plato, and is generally credited with the first attempt at developing a logic. Plato does not, as far as I know (and trust me here) does not have a 'logic' although he discussed many things (such as the law of contradiction and other basic principles of logic) that are fundamental to logic. I subsequently did some Googling to find out where the 'Platonic' bit came from and it seems from Penrose. See the Orch-OR article. On Penrose, he is one of those characters that philosophers tend to dislike, namely scientists who have achieved eminence in some scientific field, and feel that entitles them to spout off about philosophy. Penrose is not taken seriously by most philosophers of mind. The Rationalist (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone indulge me and explain why the gobbledy-gook Orch-OR theory is even under discussion? The quote given at the head of this discussion secion, concerning paste and shrimp and superimposition, is patently nonsensical. If someone needs me to dissect the quote, indentify the underlying assumptions (that is, decode it) and then point to references in the literature which reveal the theoretically absurd basis of such assumptions, I'll find the time too. It's just so strange to see such ideas being taken seriously. Naturezak (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're talking about whether or not Orch-OR is good or bad, I think the discussion here is whether or not it is the consciousness model that the movie's "quantum flapdoodle" is based upon. It's under discussion because the film's two most reputable scientific critics have cited it specifically and focused thier criticisms on the Orch-OR model explicitly, for example here is physicist Stenger and here is critic Shermer, from Scientific American. Also. just this week, Stenger has released a pre-press version here of an article to be published in the March 2008 editions of Skeptical Briefs, which again reiterates the connection to "Bleep" - quoting Stenger's latest (snipped for...brevity);


 * "In 1989 the eminent Oxford mathematician and cosmologist Roger Penrose published a bestselling tome called The Emperor’s New Mind that was packed with wonderful material on physics, mathematics, and computers...Fine, so far. But then he went off the deep end with the incredible proposal that the actual mechanism had something to do with quantum gravity...met with considerable skepticism...also among physicists who could not see what quantum gravity could possibly have to do with a large, hot structure such as a brain...Penrose then teamed up with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff in proposing a model for how quantum mechanics operates in the brain. Here’s how they explain it: According to the principles of OR [objective reduction, proposed by Penrose in his 1994 book Shadows of the Mind], superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometries. When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to a sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state, thus preventing “multiple universes.” In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum classical reduction occurs and one or the other is chosen. Thus consciousness may involve self-perturbations of space-time geometry. Hameroff was one of the subjects interviewed in the 2004 independent documentary film What the Bleep Do We Know? That film, along with the succeeding 2005 film and still-bestselling book The Secret, exploited the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make out own reality (see Reality Check September, 2007). In his Scientific American column of January 2005, Michael Shermer give Bleep a scathing review. Referring to the Penrose-Hameroff model, Shermer references my 1995 book The Unconscious Quantum that discussed their proposal in some detail as well as the general question of whether the brain is a quantum device..."

Hameroff replies here to clarify that Orch-OR states that "consciousness is collapse" of the QWF, also stated in "Bleep". I hope that helps.WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To Naturezak - the orch-or idea is under discussion because it is one (though only one) of the ideas that underlie the film. The film is the story of a woman who is unhappy with her life - she is divorced, she takes prescription drugs, things are generally a mess. The story is interspersed with interviews with 'experts' - Hameroff is one of them - who explain how thought and external reality are connected. The experts show us how our will can go backwards in time, how it can influence reality 'at a distance' i..e without the mediation of physical processes such as nerves, muscles, flesh &c. We can even see into the future. The high point of the film is a much-discussed section where she is shown how thought can influence the formation of ice crystals. Someone whispers to her: 'If thought can do that to water, what can it do to us?'. From then on her life gets better. She regains control of her life, and the film ends with her throwing her medication into the river. I have a sand box here with a lot of transcriptions from the film. The 'experts' interviewed range from 'real scientists' to characters like Hameroff, to outright charlatans like Lynme McTaggart. McTaggart's idea, which we haven't discussed here, is to publish photographs of objects on the internet, have thousands of people project their thoughts onto the objects, and then 'prove' that the objects have changed in some way. The Rationalist (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. I've made as much as study of the movie as anyone else, but I do quite like your synopsis, Rationalist. My point about the Orch-OR model is that it is thoroughly disdained by cognitive scientists; how is it that we are quoting mathematical and physical critiques of the "model" (and it isn't one), rather than neuroscientific? That would seem to me to be a quick way of wrapping up this nonsensical topic. Naturezak (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS Here is an article about Amit Goswami, which is a perfect example of 'crap philosophy' - the rubbish and nonsense that respectable scientists spout once they move away from their area of expertise and into something they know nothing about. He claims in the movie that chairs, tables, even the camera making this film, are nothing more than movements of consciousness.  That idea seems clearly wrong.  The Rationalist (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, on a personal note, that life, the universe and everything is quiet "mysterious" enough without this type of thing. And all because of a cat in a box - poor pussy. Really2012back (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, not meaning to turn this into a discussion forum but this might be used within the article at some stage and is related to the this discussion - somewhat. I would post the link but it appears you need to be subscriber to read it so:

from a brief article in new scientist not completely critical of the observer/reality modifier models - i thought it was actually a good summery of the general issues in what the bleep from a "positive perspective but understanable to the general reader. Also, the opening lines were telling - even amongst the sympathetic:

ONE of the most scandalously bad misrepresentations of physics in recent years is the drama-documentary What the Bleep Do We Know?, released in 2004. The film promulgated the idea that according to quantum theory, you can change everyday reality simply by thinking about it. In the fictional story, the main character successfully uses this mind-over-matter technique to thin her thighs. Depressingly, it is the fifth-biggest-grossing documentary in the US.

The irony here is that the true world revealed by quantum theory - which remains our best description of the microscopic world of atoms - is far wilder than anything in the movie. It is a world where an atom can be in two places at once - the equivalent of you being in London and Tokyo simultaneously. This is not some theoretical fantasy: it is possible to observe an atom in two places at once, or at least the consequences of this. It's a world where one atom can influence another instantaneously even if they are on opposite sides of the universe.

This property was deemed so outrageous by Einstein that he held it up as proof that quantum theory was not nature's last word on reality (though experiments appear to show that Einstein was wrong). Furthermore, it's a world where things happen for absolutely no reason at all, where events are irreducibly random in a way utterly unlike the pseudo-random roll of a die in the everyday world. “It's a world where things happen for absolutely no reason”

This quantum weirdness is expounded clearly by physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, who teach a course on these fundamental ideas at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Indeed, the bulk of their book Quantum Enigma serves as an entertaining primer on the nuts and bolts of quantum theory. However, what principally interests the authors is not quantum theory's fantastically successful recipe for prediction, but what the theory "means". This takes them to the boundary of physics and philosophy: the observer-created reality.

An atom does not travel through space along a single path with 100 per cent certainty as a planet does. Rather, it has a large number of possible paths open to it, each with a particular probability. When the atom is "observed", one and only one of the possibilities is actualised. Thus, reality is created by observation. Here the authors make their most controversial assertion: that the observer must be conscious. Consciousness, they believe, is intimately tied up with quantum processes.

Many physicists think that the phenomenon of "decoherence" does away with the need for a conscious observer. Decoherence explains why an atom on its own can do many things at once, while entities composed of many atoms, such as humans, cannot. This is because in a large collection of atoms it is impossible for the quantum waves associated with each to overlap sufficiently (a state known as "coherence") to allow them to interfere - the key behind all quantum weirdness. Some believe a conscious observer is not necessary for decoherence to take place. However, Rosenblum and Kuttner point out that while decoherence explains why you and I are never in two places at once, it does not explain why a single atom is in one place rather than another. For an atom to become fixed, a conscious observer is essential, they argue.

Rosenblum and Kuttner thus tie together two great mysteries: consciousness, and the "quantum enigma" of how reality coalesces out of the fog of quantum possibilities. They never spell out what they think the connection is, they only emphasise that it is an enigma at the heart of quantum theory that physicists must sooner or later confront head-on. They also remind us that we have not got to the bottom of quantum theory by a long chalk. We still need a new way of seeing and, as quantum philosopher John Bell said, "The new way of seeing will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us." Marcus Chown is the author of The Quantum Zoo (Joseph Henry Press, 2006) From issue 2565 of New Scientist magazine, 19 August 2006, page 47 Really2012back (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fresher discussion of the lead
I really like Stenger's latest comment, that Bleep "exploited the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make out own reality". I think it is the best and most encyclopedic critical language I've yet seen. Thoughts? WNDL42 (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How 'bout changing "notion" to "misconception"? Rracecarr (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's changed, then it can't be sourced back to Stenger... WNDL42 (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Stenger's CU website, and his bio. WNDL42 (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

An new introduction - again!
What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film, followed by an extended 2006 DVD release which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and an narrative which attempts to use ideas extracted from quantum physics to rationalize or support certain new-age beliefs, with particular emphasis on those beliefs that place individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the material world. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

Bleep was conceived and its production funded by William Arntz, who co-directed the film along with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente all of whom are students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.[3] A moderately low-budget independent production, it was promoted using unusual, grass-roots marketing methods and opened in art-house theaters in the western United States, winning several independent film awards before being picked up by a major distributor[4] and eventually grossing over $10 million.[5][6]

While being well received at film festivals where New Age adherents are demographically strong, for example Sedona, Arizona.[13][19], the film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[7][8][9][10], containing pseudoscience[7][8], and exploiting the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make out own reality

I have removed the word "fictional" above. Re-reading it, I see the "fictional" aspect is covered in the next sentence - apologies. Really2012back (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you feel the need to remove the 'quantum mysticism' description in the final sentence?Kww (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Kww, seems I re-edited while you were writing. I thought it was "overkill" with the addition of the new final part of the sentence. But as I said I think that sentences statement is incorrect and have thus re-inserted the mysticism part. Really2012back (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Edit, actually the phrase: "and exploiting the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make out own reality" Should be removed alas - sorry WNDL42. Quantum physics most cetainly doesn't give "...the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make out own reality" misconception would befar better. So, back to something closer to the orginal:

"While being well received at film festivals where New Age adherents are demographically strong, for example Sedona, Arizona.[13][19], the film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[7][8][9][10] and containing pseudoscience[7][8], and has been described as quantum mysticism.[11][12]Really2012back (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be happiest to go with the lead in place just before the block and with the removal of metaphysical . I don't like the use of pseudoscience but can live with it as a compromise, but prefer not to add in any other such cliche ridden phrases like new age. I consider a stripped down version a possibility too, although I need to go back and find it and look at it. I'm thankful that the lengthy discussions have given way to actually deciding on a version for the lead. This is progress.If its simple, but with enough material for all to agree we are less likely to run in material that can or may be construed as POV and OR. If we have to work too hard to read it or decipher what is being said its not good for the reader.(olive (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi Olive, I'm not convinced that "new age" is a cliche - I think it may actually be a self defining internally held, label within the so called "newage" community - despite the fact that the "Age of Aquarius" is actually still far in the future - relatively. There are certainly, books, magazines, public access TV programs that define them selfs as such and hold reality manipulation views similar to WTBDWTWK - togeather with "occultists" oddly enough. Although the majority of these are in the USA admittedly, the terms is also used - both positively and negatively - in other parts of the world - if a fear of to great a localization is your concern. Really2012back (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)




 * Stenger's accurate charge...that the film "exploited the notion..." is a very powerful criticism, and it's well sourced to an expert critic, and is appropriate for the lead, IMO. WNDL42 (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Exploited is a heavily, value ladened word and I would consider it POV Wndl. I am ok with removing qauntum mysticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is POV, but it's the critic's POV, not ours. Exploitation is the essence of "pseudoscience", right? It's the exploitation of certain notions about science. Wow, I feel like I'm in an alternate universe, arguing for Victor Stenger, but what I'm looking for is to represent the criticism fairly and in an encyclopedic and unmitigated manner, an I think "exploited", when attributed to the eminently qualified critic Stenger (see links above), does the job... WNDL42 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * f we don't need the term why use it. New Age is again a term whose boundaries and whose inclusions are different for different people as you note. For some it is negative for some positive. Lets choose words that are clearly without bias of any kind as much as possible My point is to establish a lead as quickly as possible and have the article unprotected . What needs to be said can be said with out the phrase. We don't need it so why use it.(olive (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Use of the word will slant the lead. In order to create neutrality we would have to offer another view, and thus the lead grows and grows like some unweeded garden. make it simple . Can we nail this down.(olive (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Olive, I agree with you, but there are strong viewpoints here that want the films critics strongly represented in the lead...I see no way around that right now...and (as some have noticed) I actually agree that this film certainly deserves criticism -- I guess I'm trying to (a) offer an "olive branch" [ ;-) ], and (b) make sure we have a notable and attributable and reliable source criticism that works for the lead. I'll leave it alone now -- I've said my peace. WNDL42 (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that exploited is a loaded word; it has more than one meaning, and the first meaning, "to make use of and derive benefit from" is the meaning I read in Stenger's use of the word: the way I read it, he's simply saying that the film makes use of "the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make our own reality."  The problem is not the word "exploited" but the phrase that follows, which takes the "quantum mystical" or paranormal, or whatever you want to call it, approach to quantum mechanics.  Woonpton (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Woonpton, I would respectfully suggest that "exploited" is indeed Loaded language, but in this case I am simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with you, (now please WP:AGF for just a moment). My point is that Stenger is using "exploited" in the context of this interpretation, and Stenger's POV here is entirely respectable. Can we agree that Stenger has presented an encyclopedic and eloquent way of "calling a spade a WP:SPADE", and yet has (just this week) given us all an "out" of this morass? Consider...we can now say, in the lead, that "noted physicist and critic Victor Stenger has said that "the film exploits the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make out own reality". Wow...powerful stuff. Now, if we can somehow agree that this is all the criticism we need in the WP:LEAD, then we can surprise the hell out of everyone and get on with unprotecting this stupid bleeping article and let everyone here get on with more productive aspects of life. Ok...rantish diatribe over, throw me a frickin' bone here, wouldja? WNDL42 (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're asking if I can agree that Stenger has presented us a way out of the morass? No, I can't, for reasons I've already given, and as I explained above, the usage of the word "exploit" is irrelevant to my objection.   The objection is to the phrase "the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make our own reality;" as others have pointed out, quantum physics doesn't tell us anything of the kind. Woonpton (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Olive, rather then argue about it what would you suggest rather then the offending "new-age"? Perhaps this might help us move forward quicker. :-) Some other defining term less offenisve and clearer. Personally, I think there would be very few peole that would not understanmd the term - and we could link to the wiki article on it to help those that don't I am sure. But perhaps you have a far better defination? If we are not careful, we will simply descend into another 6 pages of arguments - in an academic sense - about individual words again. Really2012back (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So how's While being well received at film festivals where New Age adherents are demographically strong, for example Sedona, Arizona.[13][19], the film has been criticized for misrepresenting science[7][8][9][10], containing pseudoscience[7][8], exploiting quantum mechanics [x], and has been described as quantum mysticism.[11][12]?Kww (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, I had hoped I had explained very clearly that I would go with the version in place before the protection, and that I would consider removing quantum mysticism in the third line and metaphysical in the first paragraph . I don't think the lead needs anything else. I like simplicity.(olive (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Olive, as I have no idea which lead you are referring to - post lockdown - perhaps you could post it for clarification? :-)


 * Oh, sorry, Really .... basically its the lead in place now I believe. At any rate that would be fine for me. Would I make changes if I was editing it, yes, but more importantly is to just get on with the article and compromise if necessary. My view anyway.(olive (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC))


 * So do I, but if Wndl42 insists on "exploiting", it doesn't bother me as much as it bothers you. I'd prefer to leave the second and third paragraphs of the existing lead alone. I don't think that the changes being proposed are improvements.Kww (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by Wndl exploiting. I would love the extended discussions to be put on hold since they really are extrapolations of the material we really need in this lead . These discussion may be more pertinent as the article develops. For now, Wp: Lead seems to support simplicity . If editors would go with a lead with quantum mysticism and or metaphysical I could stand that too.(olive (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC))


 * So taking out metaphysical, the  first sentence would read  "What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k) πow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a 2004 film, followed by an extended 2006 DVD release, which combines documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative to describe a connection between science and spirituality." ?  Woonpton (talk) 04:3t4, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me woonptona - for whatever thats worth.Really2012back (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really2012, thanks for dropping by my talk page...your question made me realize some here don't know what I'm referring to...so for clarity...reposting from above.... WNDL42 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also. just this week, Stenger has released a pre-press version here of an article to be published in the March 2008 editions of Skeptical Briefs, which again reiterates the connection to "Bleep" - quoting Stenger's latest (snipped for...brevity);


 * "In 1989 the eminent Oxford mathematician and cosmologist Roger Penrose published a bestselling tome called The Emperor’s New Mind that was packed with wonderful material on physics, mathematics, and computers...Fine, so far. But then he went off the deep end with the incredible proposal that the actual mechanism had something to do with quantum gravity...met with considerable skepticism...also among physicists who could not see what quantum gravity could possibly have to do with a large, hot structure such as a brain...Penrose then teamed up with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff in proposing a model for how quantum mechanics operates in the brain. Here’s how they explain it: According to the principles of OR [objective reduction, proposed by Penrose in his 1994 book Shadows of the Mind], superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometries. When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to a sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state, thus preventing “multiple universes.” In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum classical reduction occurs and one or the other is chosen. Thus consciousness may involve self-perturbations of space-time geometry. Hameroff was one of the subjects interviewed in the 2004 independent documentary film What the Bleep Do We Know? That film... exploited the notion that quantum mechanics tells us we make out own reality (see Reality Check September, 2007)..."

Hameroff replies here to clarify that Orch-OR states that "consciousness is collapse" of the QWF, also stated in "Bleep". I hope that helps.WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)