Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Archive 9

Can't follow the above discussion
Where are we going on this? The best new proposal was this:

It needs a little work, but not a great deal. It is much closer to what the film is actually claiming (that thought can influence the world in ways that science (aka 'orthodox science' or 'mainstream science') does not accept. The other proposed versions have variations on the vague and meaningless 'connection between science and spirituality'.  I like including 'New Age'.  Imagine I'm flicking through the world of the internet and I want to find out exactly what this film is, in 5 seconds.  The 'New Age' bit gets me right there.  It seems to me this is exactly what the film is.  Middle-aged hippies with cactus trees in the background, lots of 'Eastern' influence, Magick (Ramtha), mysticism dressed up as science, the absence, mostly, of Christian belief &c &c.  The Rationalist (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a good track R, but the problem will come in when the next two paragraphs are discussed (or insisted upon). If we'd agree that your proposal could serve as the entire lead, without further embelishment (at least for now), then I think that some very minor tweaks would make most of us very happy. Thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not mine! I think it was by Really2012back. The Rationalist (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)  Re the following bits, I think we agreed to leave it be, bad as it was.  The Rationalist (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That is a fine replacement for the first paragraph of the lead, not for the entire lead.Kww (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2008 (UaTC)

So thats 4 people in agreement - one against. Shall continue with the rest of the introduction?

Exactly what are the major issues with:

"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]

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) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really not much. I think it is pretty close to the middle: for every editor that thinks the NPOV is a bit more negative than that, you will find one that thinks the NPOV is a bit more positive. It could use a citation for "unusual, grass-roots marketing methods" and "winning independent film awards".Kww (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting these together, with footnotes omitted for now, and with a bit of editing to reduce the clunkiness (e.g. 'attempts to use' = use)

Needs a third paragraph to capture the criticism of the film, but how is it up to here? The Rationalist (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Put on the existing final paragraph, and I'm happy enough.Kww (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks ok to me, depending on the third paragraph. How about changing "rationalize or support" to "attempt to support"?Rracecarr (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy also - with the leasd that is. Really2012back (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Certian New Age beliefs"...Rationalist, you description of New Age is the cliche driven view. Exactly my point. Why should the reader come to this article under the topic New Age rather than as a movie . This skews the information. Note "certain" is a weasel word. Below is a version I could support...slightly copy edited with removal of New Age section.

"What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a film made in 2004, followed by an extended DVD release in 2006, combining documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to rationalize or support beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life."

Its reads well olive but who's beliefs? We need to clarify this and i think that "new age" does this best. Its not an "insult" or a "derogatory" term - to some it would be a positive. It is also accurate. The extreme reality modifying fews of the observer "argued" for in "What the bleep" would only be found in the "New Age" community. The descriptor is, I am afraid, accurate. Really2012back (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit: certain is a weasel word? In what way? It woul;d either be that or what? Really2012back (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't say that only New Age people responded in this way to the movie .... thats a huge assumption on our part. I personally know people who are extremely conservative who found the movie interesting. That may be one of the phenomena connected with this movie . People who normally would not think in this way, rightly or wrongly began to think in slightly alternate ways. I don't think we need to discuss that . In the context of this lead its not important . What is important is that we cannot not make assumptions. Just make it as neutral as possible. If we use "pigeon-hole" type words we are not being accurate and are making assumptions.
 * Certain is indefinite as are words like many some . I would leave out the whole section as I said.(olive (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
 * The proposed opening is not saying that only New AGe people respond in this way. It is saying that the movie sets out certain New Age beliefs.  On the use of 'certain', try leaving it out. Left out, the sentence implies that all or most new age beliefs are in question. With 'certain', only certain or particular ones, which is correct.  So 'certain' has to stay - wouldn't make sense without it. The Rationalist (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On the connection between New Age and some of the ideas expressed in the film there's a very good site here which contains the following beautiful quote:

The Rationalist (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I just noticed this excellent site mentions the Wikipedia article, quoting the sentence "this film has received widespread criticism from the scientific community; physicists, in particular, claim that the film grossly misrepresents the meaning of various principles of quantum mechanics, and is in fact pseudoscience." Why was that sentence ever removed?  It's perfect.  Why does it take a year of argument to get back to exactly where we were?  Amazing.  The Rationalist (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, anyway we know that it is impossible to reach total conciseness and so far only one editor is unhappy with a small part of the lead - which is a vast improvement over previouse versions. The majority are in favor so lets go ahead. Rationalist? Your far better with what WIKI calls HTML then me, would you like to box up the whole opening section here for any last minute edits - grammar, etc - before we have it inserted? Really2012back (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit: um..just in case, I would like to point out I'm an agnostic - I'm just hedging my bets incase one of you lot - out there - is right. Thought I would make that position statement clear. Really2012back (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would request that if this is going to be a formal agreement on the lead suitable enough to ask for a lift in protection that a formal consensus be asked for.This will just make it easier in the future if there are questions about consensus.Thanks(olive (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC))


 * We also need to agree on the final 'criticism' part, which we haven't discussed. I propose we just stick in the old quantum mysticism bit, awful as it is, and have done with it.  then everyone has to agree, i think.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean a "vote" olive? I'm sure that can be arranged by someone with the wiki HTML knowledge. Really2012back (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would comment that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that polling is not a substitute for discussion. I see no "consensus" developing here since between 8pm last night and now, nor would that even be possible. Are we really going to go down this path again? WNDL42 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would add that if there is an agreement, then a formal consensus will be necessary to substantiate the agreement(olive (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Alternatively, one could leave it in the rather silly state it is now. :-) Really2012back (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but polling is explicly not a means of establishing consensus, from the first paragraph of WP:PNSD.


 * Now, may I suggest that if we think that we can move in a consensus direction, that we revert to this, where we had an undisputed consensus of nine in favor and one against. WNDL42 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a general consensus to agree to mediation, not for any particular version of the lead. No one is proposing polling to establish consensus, only to confirm one that many of us sense is there.Kww (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for consensus is in the circumstances an effort to really clarify what is going on here, whether the consensus is binding or not, and I agree its not the best. As one editor in this discussion a few minutes ago, I found we were moving very quickly towards an agreement I didn't agree with. Consensus forces clarity in the circumstances. I am also not willing to go to the admin. and ask for a protection to be lifted if we do not have a very clear agreement. I have no need to go to consensus of agreement is clearly reached by all involved editors. I suggest we take a look at Wndl's suggested version and compare it to what we have now.(olive (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

The consensus that was developing included the term "new age" to now put up a version that doesn't simply muddies the waters. Heb an article is protected it does not need the agreement of all editors - this is unlikely to happen in any article - just the majority. Really2012back (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Version A:
What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a film made in 2004, followed by an extended DVD release in 2006, combining documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support  beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

The film 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.

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]

Agree

 * Not perfect, but close enough.Kww (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with this version(olive (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Agree if the grammar is corrected, and if we can agree to get 'rationalise' back in . The Rationalist (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No complaints here. Dlabtot (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (please consider this comment stricken): As a second choice, I can live with this if the other one is rejected. Woonpton (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

 * Sorry, we have to have 'New Age'. Can live with no 'rationalise'.  The Rationalist (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:I have no strong feeling for or against new age. It is sourceable.Kww (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could agree with fairly minor changes, but "beliefs that see" would definitely need rewording. Rracecarr (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree: Whos "beliefs". However, as this article has been stalled for so long will agree to it if all else fails. Really2012back (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Version A editable version (For minor copy editing)
What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a film made in 2004, followed by an extended DVD release in 2006, combining documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative connecting science, particularly Quantum Physics, and New Age spirituality. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

The film was conceived and its production funded by William Arntz, who co-directed the film along with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.[3] A moderately low-budget independent production, the movie 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.

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]

Above: i would be happier with either the original version that we had started to get some agreement on apart from Olive - IE: "and a narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support new age beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world. (Indeed, why was this not the version put up here for discussion anyway.?)

Or if new age is such an issue:"...and a narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support a set of mystical beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world..."

However, again I think we need to define "who's" beliefs -. it is actually unfair to say this are similar to those of Capra - author of an often contested argument. For example in "The Tao of Physics" while stating he found a link between quantum physics and "eastern" religious thought (if philosophical Taoism can be considered a religion which I actually doubt)he never said that thought defines reality - at least in a physical sense. I have not read the Dancing Wu Wu Masters but belief that this also makes no such claim. So who's beliefs are we talking about. No offense to anyone - seriously - but the closet thing would be TM and even here it is not thought that influences reality but mediation - who's effects could not be be altered by negative intent of the mediators for example - as I understand it. I feel that if we can clear this up we can move forward quickly. However, failing that - and as "new age" is proving so problematic for some, perhaps "mystical" or "paranormal" would be better. Really2012back (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit: While answering a question elsewhere i think I actually found the answer to my question above - according to Geoff Gilpin's essay critical of quantum mysticism he states that the idea that consciousness creates reality comes from Maharishi Yogi - founder of TM http://www.geoffgilpin.com/pdfs/Quantum-Failure.pdf. It would thus be possible to re-edit the sentence above to say something like:

"... narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support a set of mystical beliefs, such as those held by the founder of the TM movement that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world..." Seems a bit much but does give the reader a better idea of where this is coming from perhaps.Thoughts? Really2012back (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that quote, Really; it puts things in perspective for me.Woonpton (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

in bold ..... any better?.... minor copy editing that doesn't change meaning.

Agree

 * The changes are fine with me.Kww (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (please consider following comment stricken) I'm okay with this. Woonpton (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Me 3. Rracecarr (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree
Disagree. Yes it does try to connect them but to what purpose? Its is clear that the film has only oner agenda: to attempt to "prove" that thought directly influences and creates "reality".

I will repeat that the films "argument" is that thought "creates" or modifies "reality" without any other process in between. This is the entire basis of the movie. This, to me, is the major point and needs to be stated at the beginning. There are many "new age" beliefs - and indeed many of which I personally would agree with. There are equally many forms of "spirituality". Indeed, spirituality may be a mistaken term anyway. Exactly which branch of spirituality states that thought directly affects reality? Non that I know off except for things like Chaos magic, Ceremonial Magick, etc. But even here, "tools" are required - to be simplistic Sigils in the case of Chaos Magick and and intricate ceremonies in Ceremonial Magick - The Golden dawn rituals for example. And even here "thought" would be an incorrect term - it would actually be "Will" ala Crowley and perhaps more "academically" - if stretching a point - Arthur Schopenhauer. Really2012back (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm confused why are we all struggling with this. Are there really people here that believe thought directly creates their reality - and not in a psychological sense? Indeed, if there is - and someone wants to confirm this is the case - I personally will leave the article. The matter would then become a religious one for me and thats not an area I like to become involved in. Really2012back (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree mostly for the arguments that Really2012 is putting forward. The central idea of the movie is that Amanda can take control of her life not for any fundamentally psychological reasons, but because she can influence reality in an unmediated way. That is the whole point of the claims that by thought we can change the behaviour of sub-atomic processes even when they take place in a locked safe and even when the process took place in the past. That is fundamental, why do we want to miss it out? Why are we going back to the wishy-washy 'connection between science and spirituality' stuff? The Rationalist (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree (I've changed my mind)  This morning I woke up thinking to myself, why am I participating in a process of making meaningless mush, contributing to yet another mediocre and misleading Wikipedia article? If this is the best we can do, then I don't want any part of it. So I was glad when I came downstairs and read Really's and Rationalist's comments. I can't make my strikeout feature work (in fact none of the editing icons at the top of the editing space work for me, unless they work in an nonintuitive way that I haven't grasped yet) but I would like to withdraw my agreement with both of the comments, in line with Really's and Rationalist's objections. Woonpton (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentThe words connecting spirituality and science references the Bleep discussions about itself, and is a general way of introducing this topic. This is a lead. The article itself, could contain multiple clarifications of this general wording and viewpoint. Rather than wishy washy please see this a a general view that will be expanded into more specific details later. Really, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is only one in a long line of thinkers /teachers who discusses consciousness/mind/ thought/ awareness influnces reality. To attribiute this idea to him would be be discredit thousands of years of human thought within certain traditions.

Guys for heaven's sake if you don't like this, please try to fix it/edit it so that once again this process is not stalemated. You have multiple ediotrs who are willing to compromise .... Please in that spirit  edit so that we can proceed, and please realize that this is an effort to find agreement between all editors .... My heart begins to fail me in this....(olive (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I think that's what we are trying to do Olive. If you will forgive me for saying so, they only time it seems to get "difficult" is when those ideas do not agree with yours. Agreement was certainly developing - then the re-edit was inserted with-out the major part of the first draft with which that agreement was developing. I have to agree with Woonpton. The major argument of the movie is that thought directly effects reality. This must be mentioned, while making it clear this is not a mainstream scientific idea - as the film seems to suggest - but is coming from elsewhere.

I do not wish to get into the a TM debate but would be keen to hear of these thousands of years of thinkers who believe that thought directly alters reality - at the whim of the thinker? A few names and schools would be nice. The notion that this was unusual to TM comes from one of its own former graduates.

I shall now propose a third alternative - and separate it. Lets us see how we develop. Really2012back (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really,the change I made came after concerns other editors had with the initial version which was as you failed to notice, in place in the beginning . Those edits were a direct response to the concerns of those editors. Please, if you are going to accuse be accurate. Note also that I am compromising on any version as are other editors according to their statements. None of these are my versions or versions that I support completely.  Second any discussion of TM in this lead is a red herring and no I will not discuss because it has no place in the discussion . This discussion page has been characterized by numerous "side trails" and this is not what the talk page is for.  It is for discussion about the article. TM is not mentioned in the movie so we don't need to discuss it, nor is a discussion of philosophical thought that concern reality as a creation of the internal psyche rather than an external world or reality needed to write this lead. Your accusations are misconstrued and offensive because they are so completely inaccurate, and given the number of hours I have spent on this article attempting to bring us to agreement not appreciated.(olive (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
 * TM is mentioned in the film, but only in a fairly narrow way (the Washington D.C. violence study). To portray it as a central theme of the film doesn't seem reasonable to me.Kww (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and in actuality the DC study was not done on the TM program but on the TM Sidhi program a different meditative technique, but thanks for the clarification Kww.(olive (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Olive: I was not accusing you of anything - I was simply responding. I think you will find that after bringing TM up I then dropped it. However, to clarify, as you are more then well aware, TM is not only mentioned regarding the DC study but one of the few "physicists" that the producers were able to drag out to support their "thory" was Haglin, who is not only a TMer, but professor of physics at MUM university - TMs very own university, head of the natural law party (Tms political wing) former TM presidential candidate (who suggest all candidates should have a "brain scan" to confirm if they were suitable to become president and in a recent interview said that yogic flying was valid with people floating into the air 6000 feet (he went on to say that this was easily possible once you realized that Newtons theory of gravity was "out of date" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHwhGUo90jw ) As to the TM Sidhi program not being TM? Well, i think most people would disagree but would be happy to continue this in the TM article. But as I have decided to leave that - on religious grounds - let us continue to try to get this article moving forward.Really2012back (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Really given the amount of time I've spent on this article, usually at some junction point when agreement is possible because in part I and other editors compromise our or my principles in attempts to establish a collaborative environment this is an insult, and untrue...... "it seems to get difficult is when those ideas do not agree with yours." Normally I would ignore it but today ..... just fed up with being insulted.(olive (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

*Sigh* Olive it was not an insult, it was fact. re-read. at least four editors had agreed on the new intro - you then said you did not - which was perfectly reasonable. I then suggested putting it to a vote and asked for someone to do the wiki style thing. This, you did, but instead of putting the version up that had begun to gain agreement, you placed only one - the one without the rather innocent term "new age". This may have been a ginuine mistake - such things happen - but it lead to confusion. When this lead to editors voting against "your" version - without "new age" and those - as people have said a tad "wishy washy" you replied with your comment above regarding being tired and wishing people would co-operate. Thats what people are trying to do olive. Comments such as:"My heart begins to fail me in this" do not help., etc and putting things "in Bold" equally do not help. Prior to this development was taking place. If you and other people are not happy because that development does not clearly state the clear intent of the film that is hardly anyone else's fault. If, using WIKI guidelines - which you are more then familiar - you believe that the movie does not argue a world view that places human thought at the center of direct creation and manipulation of reality and that this idea is not central to the movie then please supply the evidence and argument and we will have no need to discuss it further. If this idea is central to the movie then it most be included in the intro. To exclude it would be like not mentioning, in an introduction to Christianity, or Hinduism, or Taoism for example that they were religions. Or stating that the Cult Of Ramtha - or what ever its called - is not the philosophy of a channeled philosopher from Mu Mu or wherever. If you feel insulted then apologies but knowing that you come from an academic back-round it surprises me. This is the nature of debate - even the most civilized. However, equally note that editors who had been working togeather - and gaining slow agreement may be insulted by an editor coming half way through the process and accusing them of not doing so - simply when they do not immediatly agree with said editor.Really2012back (talk)

I will reiterate none of those versions were mine, Really. You may characterize the comments and discussions as you wish. I consider that characterization to absolutely not to be what I was doing, and so inaccurate. I have said all I can on the matter.(olive (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Your nobout right Olive - i think it has simply been "one of those days - this article is exhusting to put it mildly. Apologies.Really2012back (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that TM is only one part of the movie where these claims are made. Again, see my  transcripts of the movie for reference purposes.  Stuart Hameroff, Dean Radin, Lynne McTaggart all make different versions of the claim that thought can affect reality in paranormal ways.  Note also that the main scientific objection to the movie is NOT the claims themselves.  It's the support that science is supposed to give to these claims, and the fact that the 'experts' are all accredited as such in the end titles.  So, can we leave TM out of it?  It's not to do with mysticism or religion.  The problem is when these are rationalised by appeals to bad science that there is a problem.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree

 * Again, no big issues with this one.Kww (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy Really2012back (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Offending section
Olive: before starting yet another section lets see how things go on version c above. lets give people time to respond first please rather then confuse the issue with more choices. I think this is where things have gone undune before. thanks Really2012back (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an article about a MOVIE
why not leave the sources for analysis to the proper field, the movie reviewers. The science reviews shold be included as well, but they are a distinct minority, and should be given the appropriate weight. I'm sure this suggestion will be controversial, since it will undercut the desires to use this article as a POV vehicle, but what the hey....that's Hollywood! Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thats not a bad idea Bood, and indeed one I first had when I first came to it - you will find my comments regarding that somewhere here. But alas no one went with it and to be honest the more I have thought about it i agree with them. However, I do wonder why we are all bothering sometimes. This thing is already fading form peoples memories I would suspect, especially anyone who tried it and still isn't, flying, irrisistable to the opposite/same sex, a multimillionaire despite continued wishing, etc. Mind you, bet the producers and ramtha made a few dollars - although exactly what a 35,000 year old Atlantian would do with it is debatable. :-)Really2012back (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Duh that link was not a review it was copied from the press release. 'Artful filmic dance' indeed. Try this for a proper review from the BBC.   The Rationalist (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rationalist (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, perhaps we should leave it to the reviewers after all - i would vote for inclusion of that.Really2012back (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS [edit conflict] On whether we should just leave this alone, I thought about that too. However 1.  If you Google 'What the bleep' you get a whole load of promotional stuff - this movie was sold via the internet.  There is nothing credible on the first page of Google hits except this article, which is part of the reason it has become a battleground.  There have been accusations that Wikipedia itself has been infiltrated, hence this page is seen as the Checkpoint Charlie of the battle between New Age and Science.  The Rationalist (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed I did try in one of my first edits here to write an introduction more in line with the truth. It got shot down in 8 minutes.  You have to remember there is a huge amount of money in the new age industry.  The film made a lot of money, and Ramtha himself has a large mansion with Cadillacs.  It not inconceivable that they are paying people to mess around with this article.  The Rationalist (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationalist, your example of an intro is precisely the sort of wild POV pushing I was talking about. And the link I provided is a link to DOZENS of reviews, if you would slow down and actually read what someone else posts before dive-bombing in with an opinion you've voiced dozens of times. But in any case, I give up--this talk page is longer than all of last year's film scripts combined, and is a waste of time to participate in. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is the 'POV pushing'? Every sentence is true.  It HAS provoked a storm of controversy for its misrepresentation of mysticism as science.  It DOES mix clips presenting scientific facts in an educational or documentary manner (including interviews with genuine experts), together with philosophical interpretations of these facts by non-experts, as well as claims, presented in the same documentary style, that are not factual at all. And so on.  Where exactly are you coming from?  The Rationalist (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)  PS if you are going to give up that would be a wonderful thing, because all your contributions to this page have been a complete waste of our time.  The Rationalist (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Insults are not productive, Rationalist, and speak for yourself on this matter. Every editor has the right to speak, and all comments shed light no matter how small the light might be. Boodles has a strong awareness of policy which is useful in this discussion(olive (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Edit conflict...I apologize Rationalist if my comment seems harsh . I find the Wikipedia environment right now to be somewhat toxic and I guess I have lost patience . We all need to be more tolerant me included.(olive (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC))


 * And I apologise for losing my cool for a second. Let's try and get this article right.  The Rationalist (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that R can respond for her/himself however, that is a tad unfair. After a good start and a polite reply by R, i personally felt that Boodles comment and response was insulting, or at least over-reacting - I quote:

Rationalist, your example of an intro is precisely the sort of wild POV pushing I was talking about. And the link I provided is a link to DOZENS of reviews, if you would slow down and actually read what someone else posts before dive-bombing in with an opinion you've voiced dozens of times. But in any case, I give up--this talk page is longer than all of last year's film scripts combined, and is a waste of time to participate in."

21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Really2012back (talk)


 * I stand by that description, and in addition, I'm through with "Rationalist"'s insinuations that I am a "paid" "infiltrator" on this page (or any page). Not very rational, not very polite, and certainly not something this article is worth me sticking around for. Seeee ya. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Rationalist: Its odd really,having read your introduction, if this was a "real" published encyclopedia your introduction would have been accepted. Odd really.The thing that worries me about WIKI is that undergraduate students refer to it all the time - despite been told not to. This is why i can come across as a tad obsessive about the reflection of accuracy in any article that uses "science" to support its argument. i have no difficulty with "new age" beliefs, far from it, it is only when they miss use science to support their essentially spiritual arguments. This is even more so when they are profiting from it. Really2012back (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments removed from this page
Yesterday, after olive said that her objection to "new age" was only in response to other editors' objections, I looked back through the discussion and found that the actual evidence pointed otherwise: the proposal was made, several editors quickly agreed with the proposal, one with a minor edit suggestion (that had nothing to do with "new age") and then olive raised her objection. I don't object to olive's objection (in fact in my voting later I tried to accommodate her objection) but I do object to inaccurate descriptions of fact. I wrote out a transcript of the relevant discussion for the record, but before I submitted it, I thought about it, decided I didn't want to add to the rancor on the page even by setting the record straight, and took a break.

Today I came back and found that the inaccurate statement had been repeated at least once, if not twice, and decided that rancor or not, the record needed to be set straight. Unfortunately I hadn't saved my previous transcript, so went back to the discussion to copy it out again, but found that, oddly, yesterday's discussion didn't read the same as it did yesterday. Some of the comments just weren't there any more. My memory is pretty good for things like this, especially after I had copied out these comments in order the day before, so I went to the history page, and just glancing down it, saw an edit summary that read "removed 'edit warring' conversation..."

I didn't go farther and check exact diffs to see which comments were removed; that's not the issue here, nor is the issue whether the removal of comments affects the question of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement I was disputing. The issue (and if I could make this sentence bold, or blue, it would be so, because this sentence needs strong emphasis) the issue is that someone removed comments from this page.

The person who removed comments from this page has been told before, on this page and on an administrative action he brought last week, that removing other people's comments is not okay, so I can't see any mitigating circumstance, like ignorance of the rule, that would excuse or justify this behavior. I've reached the end of my rope. I can work with disagreement (and BTW, I really resent comments that don't appreciate that we're all trying to work together here to reach a compromise) but I can't work in a situation where history is altered by removal of comments from the talk page. This not acceptable. Woonpton (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Woonpton my comments about New Age are my own and my own objections, and I never at anytime said that those concerns were from other editors . I did add this: "connecting science, particularly Quantum Physics, and New Age spirituality." to the version in place in the consensus discussion despite my concerns with this phrase. Please note that I added New Age not edited it out.   My comment was  that I added these edits as a response because of other editor's concerns . However I'm not surprised this mistake was made; the whole discussion is such a muddle.


 * If I remember correctly the material removed was done in good faith to prevent escalation of an otherwise already volatile situation . I thought both parties behaved very well given the circumstances and both seemed to agree to the removal of each other's comments . This article is a cesspool of bad feeling and frustration and I if there is going to be progress .... what an interesting idea... it will have to be with the consent of all editors to assume the very best faith they can. If thats the situation you are talking about.(olive (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC))


 * It was utterly clear to me that Littleolive's removal of her own edit was in 100% good faith and was done at the request of another editor, clear from her edit summary. Woonpton, why the rant? WNDL42 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * and actually that may be another instance .... I'm not sure what you are referencing here Woonptoon so forgive me if I'm being dense . I also removed material I had added at the request of Really who felt it was too soon to continue with that part of the discussion . I don' think there were any personal comments on that removal but maybe. If so I apologize and those comments can be returned.(olive (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

All, Olive removed her comments - not really a a comment but a new section which i felt at that time might confuse things - and thanks to Olive for doing so. However, this is not what Woonpton is talking about. Instead, it seems s/he is talking about a series of comments regarding the articles newest edits - these were important to the development of the work here and I have to agree should not have been deleted. It was this in part, that lead to the confusion between me and olive. Comments simply should not be deleted - there is no need to do so. If discussion becomes "heated" on occasion then this is simply part of any debate - no matter the good intentions of those present - it maybe regrettable but as i am assuming we are all adults something that i am sure we can cope with on occasion. Its odd indeed, that in truth the comments deleted were not actually that "heated" and made no sense to be deleted but instead lead to confusion later on. there have been far worse things said on this page - and between individual editors when discussing other editors then anything here. Things such as science "facist", etc, etc. So, can we attempt to get back to the agreement that we had nearly achieved before it went wrong. Really2012back (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm trying to get caught up after taking some family time over the weekend, so, Really2012, can you e-mail or post (talk page) me the diff that you think woonpton is talking about? Only thing I can find is this irritated rant, and the editor self reverted (quite nicely, I thought) and left a comment about it's removal.


 * Meanwhile, perhaps Woonpton will remove or endorse removal of this section...as it does nothing other than accuse someone-who-we-don't-know-who-it-is of something-or-another-which-we-don't-know-what-it-is. Woonpton? WNDL42 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Woon personally so can only assume he means this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&diff=195201260&oldid=195190869. I was not even aware that even more had been removed :-/. perhaps we should simply leave this here where it is. There is far to much removal of comments as it is it seems. I would however, like to see some progress being made on the article itself - would be nice :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Really2012back (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

edit: By the way - due to the way it was removed it completly changes the context of my comment just after. Really2012back (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (3rd edit conflict) I was about to post the very same diff but you got their first. In fairness, I can see why it was removed.  And perhaps we should get on with agreeing a suitable lead, yes.  The Rationalist (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Did we all give up?
Discussion on this page seems to have completely come to a halt. Everyone need a few more days off, or is it time to get started again?Kww (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be around later today KWW.... see if we can give it another chance.(olive (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

I gave up - felt that my contributions were heating - rather help resolve - an already heated issue. Good luck :-) Really2012back (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Compressing discussion towards agreement
Version A - in place in article now

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.[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 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]

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]

Version B

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a film made in 2004, followed by an extended DVD release in 2006, combining documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative connecting science, particularly Quantum Physics, and New Age spirituality. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

The film was conceived and its production funded by William Arntz, who co-directed the film along with Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente, students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.[3] A moderately low-budget independent production, the movie 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.

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]


 * Just for the record, this version is not the version that's in place in the article now, so I would recommend striking that phrase for accuracy's sake. I'm not advocating bringing back the lead that's in place now for discussion, only for not misrepresenting Version A above as the lead that's in place in the article now.  Thanks. Woonpton (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoot .... I copied the lead version but changed the heading and changed pages and didn't recopy .... very sorry everyone. I'll add the lead version and thanks Woonpton.....(olive (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Version C

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (also written What t?e #$*! D? ?? (k) ?ow!? and What the #$*! Do We Know!?) is a film made in 2004, followed by an extended DVD release in 2006, combining documentary-style interviews, computer-animated graphics, and a narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world. The plot follows the story of a fictional deaf photographer as she struggles with her life.

The film 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.

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]


 * Tortured wording. How about replacing the bolded phrase with using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support the new age belief that human thoughts directly create or modify the physical world.? Rracecarr (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - good concise wording, summarises exactly the point of the film, neat, elegant. I go with that.  The Rationalist (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments towards Consensus:

First

Any chance we could deal with this contentious section first first


 * I have placed above two versions of the lead .... (one is in place now in the article), and have highlighted the most contentious section.... these are just examples of different versions.


 * If we could agree on the contentious section and put it in place we could possibly have the article unprotected, and could resume work on the rest of the article.


 * If we could agree to not edit war and perhaps even agree on a 1RR rule we could also continue working on the lead if need be


 * If we could we agree to discuss just the article and not the many side line topics that have come up we could possibly agree on the lead and on the article, and again have protection lifted

Second

Any chance we could deal with this contentious section second


 * I think Pseudoscience and metaphysical have caused some editors concerns . Are there other words or wordings for this

Finally


 * This is an attempt to compress this discussion and hopefully all will realize its not attempt to include or exclude but to compress so we have a workable format


 * If you agree to a version please say so in a few words.If not included a reworded version below


 * Could all suggestions be included below, and include actual rewording, and short comments if needed ... and lets not touch the versions above since the last time we did that disaster.


 * We are trying to get agreement here .... otherwise our hands are really tied in terms of working on the article itself .... we need the article to be unprotected for progress to occur


 * I would think that if we don't come to some consensus soon a mediation will be in order.(olive (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


 * The best way for this to get some consensus would be for you to f-- off. Just stop wasting our time and trying our patience, as you have tried, and exhausted mine.  You have no intention of coming to any reasonable agreement about this article, with this persistent trolling.  The Rationalist (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What? This article has been the site of numerous discussions that have very little to do with this article and I have attempted to compress the major concerns of the editors involved and to come to some kind of agreement so the article can be unlocked . This is a discussion . You will note that I have compromised my position on the lead multiple times . I have no idea why you feel its appropriate to use foul language to talk about trolling .... what are you talking about? ..... Do you see a agreement on anything in this article . As long as the article is protected we can't move on ..... what are you doing?(olive (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Comments on contentious section B

 * Could agree to the lead for now, but would prefer more general wording than what is in place such as:


 * Instead of:            connecting science, particularly Quantum Physics, and New Age spirituality

would prefer:          connecting Science and spirituality(olive (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I hear what you are saying, but I think it's a losing battle. You and I could agree, every editor looking on could agree, and New Age would be back in the article within a week of being unprotected. It's in too many sources too keep out. I won't insist on it keeping it, but some new editor's going to look at the article, and put it right back in.Kww (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm not attached. Write a version of the contentious sentence  I guess we just need to agree on something and I will compromise for sure.


 * well how about:

Connecting Science and New Age spirituality.(olive (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I could live with that.Kww (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Science is too vague. The movie tries to make the claim that it is particularly quantum physics that is making the connection. By keeping it vague we are misleading the reader into thinking that there is more to the connections than just quantum quackery. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with SA on this. I'm a little surprised "new age" is acceptable to olive today when it wasn't last week; is it because then the phrase was used to describe the movie, and now it's describing the spirituality described in the movie?  I still don't understand why the term is unacceptable when applied to the film,  but if it's acceptable in the present usage, how about "a narrative connecting quantum physics and new age spirituality"  ? I could go with that as long as it's pointed out clearly in the lead, either with a qualifier that specifies that the connection is a purported connection or an attempt to make a connection, or/and by leaving the third sentence of the lead as it is as present, making clear that the film's representations of the connection are not well received among scientists.Woonpton (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything 'connecting' something with something is a copout, unless you are specific about what the connection is. Specifically, the main theme of the film is that we can improve our lives by using certain occult powers of the mind, supposedly given to us by quantum physics, to change the material world.  That is the connection asserted throughout the film that is what should go in the lead.  See Racecarr's version above, if you can find it.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I changed the heading of this section from "A" to "B" since the comments above are to the lead that was first called "A" but is now called "B;" I was finding it confusing as labeled. Woonpton (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me spell this out.  "Connecting Science and New Age spirituality" is rubbish, because it is true of a wide range of things which the film is never saying.  Be specific.  The film is saying (a) that the human mind has all sorts of powers over the material world, such as telekinesis, the power to alter the past &c (b) these powers are commonly regarded as new age/paranormal/occult/supernatural &c (c) that the existence of such powers is supported by science.    THESE THREE FACTS NEED TO GO INTO THE LEAD.  HAVE I SPELLED THIS OUT ENOUGH?


 * While not very good, the quote below captures these facts best:


 * Why this resistance to the truth going into an encyclopedia? The Rationalist (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationalist you do not own this article . If you want to discuss your version and get an agreement from other editors do so. Start making changes and edits and contribute the whats going on please, and stop assuming bad faith . I am amazed at your response to this. Truth is not encyclopedic Verifibaility is. Collaborate and find what is verifiable... get agreement and then we can unprotect What are you doing\? (olive (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
 * This is bullshit. Try looking up 'verifiability' and you will see it has quite a lot to do with truth.  Stop wasting my time.  The Rationalist (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to find a few reliable sources that contain a phrasing similar to support new age beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world. They won't use the exact words, but you are somewhere in the middle of a number of descriptions. Once you have that, you can modify the sentence to correspond to them very closely, and then cite the description. That way, there isn't an argument about the accuracy of the description.Kww (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. First step: a reliable source according to which the film is claiming that thought can modify the world directly


 * Dean Radin's assertions about telekinesis at the end of the film. (I have already mentioned this)
 * Lynne McTaggart's assertions about how the mind can alter what is in the past
 * The claim that thoughts expressed in messages can affect water molecules.

I can get precise references to these, but presumably someone will object that we cannot use parts of the film itself as a reliable source?

If this is acceptable, the next step would be reliable sources that show that these claims are 'New Age'. But one step at a time. The Rationalist (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PS On reaching agreement with other editors, Olive, you are the only one who seems to be disagreeing. Hence my lack of patience with what looks like TROLLING. The Rationalist (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you reread the discussion . Non of these versions are mine, and I have compromised in multiple places during the months of this ongoing discussion, because my first priority is to edit the article, and is not to make or prove any kind of point, or to have "my" version in the article.(olive (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC))


 * NO you re read the discussion. You came in today with 'Connecting Science and New Age spirituality' as a suggestion which has been much discussed and rejected. This constant ground-shifting, back-tracking and thorough misuse and misreading of Wikipedia policy is TROLLING plain and simple.  Got that? The Rationalist (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes
These are the quotes I had in mind:

The Rationalist (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll defend Olive a bit. She comes from a perspective very different from mine or yours, but she shows the ability to compromise, and tends to respect well-sourced statements. Very different from some of our tendentious editors. Compare her to Wndl42, for example, and I think you will see a major difference.
 * As for your sources, that isn't what I meant. Don't find sources that you would describe as support new age beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world, find sources that say support new age beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world or something similar. The goal is to be able to demonstrate that multiple reliable sources agree with your assessment of the film. Like I said, your description seems pretty middle-of-the-road to me, so finding a few supporting sources that use similar phrasing shouldn't be an overwhelming task.Kww (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what are you talking about? First, I said above I was going to move one step at a time.  First step, produce reliable sources, in this cases QUOTATIONS FROM THE FILM that are evidence of claims about thought affecting reality in all sorts of unorthodox ways. Two (which I haven't done yet), produce reliable sources that these claims are 'New Age'.  I have sources, but I am going one step at a time.  I think you are suggesting that we can only cut and paste from reliable sources.  Wrong, that isn't policy at all.  The Rationalist (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationalist:However you decide to approach finding information and sources you must use relaible verifuable sources, WP:Reliable, and WP:Verifiablity, the lead's synatx and construction must comply with WP:Weight, WP:Lead,there can be no WP: OR and there must be agreement from the other editors before the version can be considered viable, and believe me, I am the least of your problems - there are many editors to consider here. Thats the beauty of collaboration. You might want to recheck these policies. I reread them multiple times myself.(olive (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Duh I am using transcripts from the film itself. These are reliable and verifiable.  We have already discussed the relevance of WP:Weight.  What is your point, other than trying my patience?  Take some time to read carefully what I am saying, and stop repeating the bleeding obvious.  The Rationalist (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008

(UTC)


 * You might want to consider civility.(olive (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I will when you stop trying my patience. The Rationalist (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that you can only cut and paste from reliable sources. I am suggesting that it is the single safest way to avoid having people accuse you of violating WP:SYNTH or other variations of WP:OR. This article is a battleground, and unassailable positions are few and far between.Kww (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationalist, you are quote farming the film selectively, and your posts here are no more relevant than [ http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/what-the-bleep-do-we-know-script.html "Drew's script-o-rama" was]. Now, since your attempts at citing transcripts have repeatedly crashed and burned in embarassing flames, Olive's point is well made no matter how much you attack it by repeatedly asserting that (a) your "work" qualifies as a reliable source (it does not), or that (b) your "patience" is being tried. If you lack the patience for civil discourse, then that is your problem, not ours, right? WNDL42 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * THIS IS F--ING UNBELIEVABLE. SO I AM NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY ASSERTION BASED DIRECTLY ON WHAT THE FILM SAYS????  And I am NOT quote-farming.  Quite obviously not.  The whole point of the film is that she can get out of the mess by using the power of her mind to control reality.  Why not watch the film?   The Rationalist (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially, no, you aren't. You're right, that's the point of the film. But you drawing that conclusion is original research on your part. Quoting and summarizing others that reached the same conclusion is not. The Hollywood Reporter says "The film offers the theory that you can make your own reality", the Winnipeg Sun says "We like WTBDYK, a film about creating your own reality via thought", What is Enlightenment at wie.org says "In fact, the idea that you create your own reality is the New Age notion lying at the heart of What the Bleep, the fundamental concept upon which all its other ideas thrive." The distributor says "This movie is about individual thinking. Individual control over your future -- and your own reality." Like I said, your desired sentence can be sourced.Kww (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I thought someone would say that, but what about WP:DCBO? The Rationalist (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)  [edit] I mean, if something is both true and patently obvious, and when it seems both sides know this, that's when I start to get angry.  It seems to me the other side of this debate privately think (and even publicly admit in one or two instances) that the film is a pile of crap.  They are obfuscating and ground-shifting just to make short-tempered people like me hopping made and swearing &c.  The Rationalist (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A policy best honoured in the breech. What is obvious to you is obviously not obvious to others, or we wouldn't be in the position we are in. This battle has gone on for so long that I'm taking a very mechanical position on things ... whatever is in the lead has to be so well sourced that it is undeniable by a reasonable participant on either side.
 * On that other part, there is some of that. I can assure you that Olive is not the source. She has been consistent in asking for a few things, and compromises when you can point out that your position is better sourced than hers. MartinPhi can be irritating as all hell, but has been pretty consistent in drawing a few lines that he won't allow to be crossed and being reasonable if you don't try to cross them (essentially, he thinks "tosh", "balderdash", "nonsense", etc. are too loaded for the lead, and won't permit statements along the lines of "WTB is crap"[1][2] as opposed to "WTB is referred to as crap[1][2]""). Even the one that infuriates me the most doesn't jump positions ... he just clings tenaciously to a few untenable ones, and ignores all counters.Kww (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote farming
What I mean by "quote farming" is that (in this example) Lynne McTaggart's long exposition about the fact that we cannot "control" our destinies (in which she uses the Superbowl competitors as one of a number of examples) is excluded from Rationalist's example, and so the following constructions for the lead are based on an incomplete and out-of-context quotation leading to a faulty conclusion. Also, Joseph Dispenza is quite clear that there is no such "direct control" over the material world, as in Jeffrey Satinover's "kicking a rock" sequence, etc. In fact, I cannot recall a single statement from the film that implies direct and unmitigated personal control or manipulation of material objects. WNDL42 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Modifying reality by thought" (arbitrary break)

 * Sure, though not all of it is a pile of crap, a lot of it is. Kww does a good job of saying my positions, which is about the first time someone who's on the "other side" has done so, ever.  I find that some of the skeptical people on this article are, unusually, not being wikilawyers, but being sincere.  We once had a consensus, put it in, and then a certain person, as usual, came in and busted it.  I do admire the way Kww has dealt with this thing. I originally thought he was another who couldn't be dealt with. Since Rationalist does in fact seem to be a person of good faith -and I say that based on his tendency to yell but not to slimily wikilawyer his way to his POV-, I'd just say that if you meet the wrong editor, you're gonna get zapped.  There is any amount of material up above which could get you blocked bigtime.  In addition, you aren't getting much done yelling all over the place.  And you really ought to be nice to olive.  After all, olive didn't report you, and if she had you'd be blocked right now.


 * It looks like we're still talking about the lead. I don't have a problem with the current one, except that the mention of the school of enlightenment 1) may not be justified, and 2) is put in a way that it is a non sequitur to the rest of the sentence, and thus comes across as an obvious POV push.  I would be better to put it in another place.  I have heard that the school is just a Buddhist school with a channeller in charge, and not some sort of cult really?  Also, "misrepresenting science" and "containing pseudoscience" are the same thing.... choose one.


 * Version B above is better. "Quantum physics" ought to be specifically stated.  I do however preemptively draw the line at things like "quantum quackery."  In the lead at least.  Rationalist's version "a narrative using ideas extracted from quantum physics to support new age beliefs that see individual thought as the direct creator or modifier of the physical world." isn't bad either, but probably too detailed.  It's true that the film is a good source for the article.  If (and I didn't read that....) Rationalist is trying to present some sort of OR, that would be bad.


 * I rather think that there are several versions which do not raise any real red flags (they aren't derogatory except in an attributed sense, they aren't biased in terms of WEIGHT, they present the facts). I think people should consider settling.  The version B looks like the closest to a compromise from a fairly detailed scan of the sections above.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi martinphi, I'm not getting involved in this but for one point - and you make some very good points by the way - if i had to side with any "religion" (which it might argued it isn't by some/many/most anyway)it would be Zen Buddhism and I can assure you that having looked at the ramtha school and its teachings it certainly isn't Buddhism. If you can find some evidence to support this I would be intrigued. But it is no more "Buddhism" then Capras book is about "Taoism". I actually find this "high-jacking" of certain thought by some groups as disagreeable as I do their miss-interpreting of "science" but there you go. Really2012back (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WNDL told me that. Perhaps I misunderstood then. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I also ask (this is direct at everyone not Martin) - just so I can get a better understanding - why certain people dislike a lead that states that the film says you can alter reality directly by thought? It's "obvious" that this is what the film is saying - it makes it clear throughout, yet people want to change it to connect spirituality with science or whatever. Personally, I'm not bothered but curious as why stating the films central thesis - which it doesn't hide and indeed, make implicit - is so "controversial"?Really2012back (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From my side I have no concern with the information if its sourced and it is, but concerns with putting specific information in the lead that may belong in the main body of the article . This is just a mechanical, technical point that has to do with writing the introduction to a larger body of information . I suspect that  fixations on the lead has also led us to forget there is a whole article here that can include a lot of information and even more than it contains now. I can't speak for anyone else.(olive (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Thank you for the reply Olive - I feel that this might be helpful in gaining agreement. Just my thoughts, but as this is the main "sticking" point, perhaps if we can be clear on everyones "motives" rather then assumed motives, it might generate greater understanding and help move forward. I might be wrong but I suspect that the two sides in this might be thinking - to generalize:


 * Sorry but I didn't find Olive's reply helpful. Perhaps I didn't understand.  Why would stating the film's central thesis, assuming we agreed what it was, belong in in the main body of the article, not the intro?  Note we have already been to this place.   The Rationalist (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Pro" movie: They simply want to ridicule the ideas expressed in the movie by concentrating on this aspect - rather then the link between, if any, quantum physics and "eastern" "mysticism" and the scintific data to support it. (Which we can see from your reply Olive is obviously untrue)

"Anti" movie: They want to avoid this issue, as they think it will be used to ridicule the "Scientific data" in the movie.

I'm not convinced that these are conscious thoughts but think, looking back through the discussion, that they do exist. If we can "really" clarify any "motives" then this may help understanding between both "sides".

For my point of view, I have a less then small interest in mysticism - of many kinds, but including "eastern" and western as arising out of Christian/Judaic tradition - so I am far from "anti" mysticism - or at least a discussion of it. To me the films main thesis is that reality is subjective in a direct way and once this is understood can be altered directly by thought alone. From here it uses ideas in "quantum physics" to suggest how this takes place. In general, it is quiet unusual in that it actually doesn't seem to use any branch of mysticism or religious thought to support its argument - excluding rather vague appearances by "Ramtha". For example, Capra believed he found similarities in quantum physics and Taoist and Hindu thought. Wu Wu masters in Taoism, TM in Vedic thought, Ceremonial magic in Cabala/Hebrew mysticisms, etc, etc. Indeed, thinking about it I am not convinced that linking to mysticism, new age thought is correct - its premise is relatively "original" and that is that quantum physics "teaches" that reality is completely controlled by the observer and can be manipulated accordingly.

Thus for me this is very important to include in the heading. Really2012back (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ?? Not sure of your point here. I just want to see a concise summary of the main theme of the film (the paranormal connection between consciousness and the physical world), and something about why this has proved controversial (because the paranormal claims are supposed to be supported by science).  It really is that simple.  The Rationalist (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I now understand your 'pro' and 'anti' movie points. It would help to include quote marks or something to make it clear that these are the thoughts of the pro and anti about each other, rather than characterising the pro and anti themselves, which absurdly reverses your meaning. The Rationalist (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PPS As to my own motives, I want to remove the 'connection between quantum science and spirituality' bit, because I for one believe there are connections between the two - but not in any way that scientists would want to disagree with. Whereas the movie asserts a connection that I find implausible.  And yes, I do think the 'pro' side are resisting this because, when you state the central thesis of the movie in a few plain words, it does make it seem ridiculous.  But whereas I am happy to state my motive, you never get a reason from the other side.  They blather on about Wiki policy and this and that, and that, incidentally, is what makes me lose my rag.  The Rationalist (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is identifying this belief as a "new age" belief, as opposed to some other adjective. I'm not sure that you can reliably tie the belief that "people create their own reality" to "new age".Kww (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we can certainly tie it to quantum flapdoodle. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We have quantum mysticism in the lead already, and I'm sure you can tie it there. The issue is really one of being able to source the precise semantics of the sentence. There's very strong sourcing for new age, and pretty good sourcing for create your own reality. There just doesn't seem to be a real strong ability to link the two together.Kww (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I share kww's concern about sourcing, though I agree with Rationalist and Really that the central idea of the film really should be in the lead and spelled out clearly rather than buried in generalities like " a connection between science and spirituality."  Aside from kww's concern about sourcing the central idea as a "new age" idea, I'm not sure it's  a new age idea entirely, since academic poststructuralists, many of whom I assume don't subscribe to a new age spirituality, also hold the belief that findings in quantum mechanics somehow support the belief that there is no reality other than what we each individually create, or construct.  And there's a lot of pop-psych blather out there that's not directly connected to new age, that also holds that we "create our own reality."  I think the poststructuralists (Rationalist would probably be more knowledgeable in this area than I am) don't go so far as to claim that one can actually alter physical reality by thought processes, but they do go well into quantum "flapdoodle" to support their positions.


 * On a separate topic, my best friend follows Buddhist practice and I'm sure he wouldn't agree that what Ramtha preaches is a form of Buddhism.Woonpton (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the academic post-structuralist would - although with all schools of philosophy/literature there are variations between thinkers - do not take things quiet that literally. I always understood it as a sort of "intellectualizing" of taoist thought, perhaps the litery worlds version of interactionism's extreme ends - ie phenomenology. Might be wrong though, only person with a foot in that school that \i have read directly might be Foucault - and Eco of course but there we're are talking linguistics anyway, I think. Olive will know better I would suspect as literature is her field, Again, agree with the ramtha/Buddhism thing - Even I'm a tad offended - but not by martin of course :-). So, to the leads, from what I have read, it seems that we are all keenishy on a version that includes the reality manipulation via expalianable via quantum physics, so how to word it? "  and a fictional narrative connecting Quantum Physics and consciousness.  The film suggests that consciousness can influence the the world of everyday objects through quantum mechanical means." —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no Buddhism about it, at all, and it's purely New Age (which is characteristically hard to describe because it's a roll-your-own philosophy). Ramtha, JZ Knight, channeling, these are all New Age topics. There's plenty of secondary sources linking this film to New Age, but it's important to remember that hardly anyone self-describes as New Age because it's so often criticized, and yet they still share New Age philosophies. Rejecting labels itself is characteristic of New Age, but that's the umbrella term it's all lumped under. If no one wants to call it New Age (typical when it comes to New Age topics), that's fine, but it's not in any way, shape, or form Buddhism. The film (for those who've seen it) is completely about "you create your own reality and everything is interconnected, oh and btw science proves this". That's part pseudoscience, part psychology, and whole lot of metaphysical philosophy (ie. New Age), but not mysticism. Pinning it down to a wikilink, it's quantum mysticism through and through. That's all you need to call it, because that term umbrellas everything about the film. Quantum mysticism is the idea that there are metaphorical similarities between quantum physics and mystical ideas, but this is only metaphorical and not actual mysticism. If you're trying to pin down what philosophy is expressed in the film, it's "egoic atheistic-pantheism". That's a mouthful, so I don't recommend putting it in the article -- quantum mysticism will do. But that's exactly what it is. Everything is connected [pantheism] replacing the collective god [atheism] with yourself as the creator [egotism]. While pantheism is an actual mystical concept, bending the universe to your will is not. The reason that's not actual mysticism is because the goal of actual mysticism is to achieve nonduality, where there's not a "you" to create anything. Where quantum mysticism seeks to provide a mental basis for mysticism, actual mysticism seeks to transcend the mental altogether. A Buddhist would tell you that by definition, nirvana is liberation from anything quantum physics covers (maya). The film is just New Age (broadly) and quantum mysticism (narrowly). -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All points well taken. But I'm afraid I got us off the track by questioning whether the ideas in the film are specific to new age or original to the film,  per Really: "its premise is relatively "original" and that is that quantum physics "teaches" that reality is completely controlled by the observer and can be manipulated accordingly." I wasn't intending to broaden the discussion to try to identify the influences on new age thought,  since new age thought is a smorgasbord of  ideas plucked from dozens of religions and traditions,  but only to say that I'm not sure these ideas are original to new age or to the movie.


 * I put in an arbitrary break because I thought the section was getting too long. Woonpton (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with that. There's no novel ideas in the movie (quantum mysticism has been around since the 1970s). While the film may have been cutting edge on computer graphics (dubious since it "borrowed" shots from The Matrix movie), the metaphysical ideas aren't new at all. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: The Rationalist has objected to the word "metaphysical" being used in this way, and I agree with his objection, but I know what you mean by it.Woonpton (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Metaphysical = mystical/paranormal/new age &c.  19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rationalist (talk • contribs)

Two good articles


 * Common Sense in Quantum Physics
 * "Quantum" and New Age Victor Stenger

that make the connection between New Age, creating your own reality and quantum mysticism. The WP article Pantheism is also very good on the connection. Note there is now substantial agreement on changing the vague 'connection' bit to the 'creating your own reality' bit. I suggest, as a gesture to the other side, that we adopt Martinphi's wording, as discussed on his talk page. The 'New Age' bit I am not so fussed about, for now. The Rationalist (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, as long as "consciousness" doesn't open up a new can of worms.Woonpton (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are referring to .. and a fictional narrative connecting Quantum Physics and consciousness. The film suggests that consciousness can influence the the world of everyday objects through quantum mechanical means, then I have no objection.Kww (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That was what I was referring to, anyway, but maybe we'd better be sure we're all talking about the same wording.Woonpton (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, once I stare at it, I do have an old, long-standing objection. How about .. and a narrative connecting Quantum Physics and consciousness. The film suggests that consciousness can influence the the world of everyday objects through quantum mechanical means instead?Kww (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point; I skipped right over that. ("fictional" is redundant, I think we agreed some days ago) Woonpton (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for those articles, Rationalist.Woonpton (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the question
We were working toward consensus on wording to the effect that the film suggests that physical reality can be modified by thought. The present wording, suggested by Martinphi and modified by removing the redundant word "fictional" now reads: ''.. and a narrative connecting Quantum Physics and consciousness. The film suggests that consciousness can influence the the world of everyday objects through quantum mechanical means.''

So far I think Martinphi, The Rationalist, Woonp, and kww are on board with this wording. Have I missed anyone who has already expressed agreement? Really, it seems consistent with what you were suggesting above, but I haven't seen you weigh in on this exact phrasing. Is this okay with you? WNDL? olive? Woonpton (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Woonpton, thought I had commented - it's fine with me Really2012back (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Woonpton thanks for the help focusing the discussion.

(a) In the context of Orch-OR and my endless viewings of the film, I'm having trouble with "the world of everyday objects". I would be very happy with ''.. and a narrative that posits a connection between Quantum Physics and consciousness. The film suggests that individual and group consciousness can influence the material world through quantum mechanical means.'' (b) I'll say again that I need to see an entire lead so I can see it in larger context. WNDL42 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the same thing to me. Assuming no one disagrees with Wnd wording, can we produce the full lead and hopefully get agreement on it? As this is the closist we have got so far to agreement perhaps starting - yet another - section below with just that one lead?


 * Okay, so far so good. I may have missed a turn somewhere, but my understanding from the past is we had consensus with the lead as it exists now except for replacing that one part, which we have just done with the part we've just finished.  So now the lead reads, and please correct me if your understanding is different:


 * I don't seem to have the use of the formatting tools, so if someone could put that in a box, it would be great.


 * The part we added will need to be sourced, maybe to the articles the Rationalist brought up? I didn't notice if they came from reliable sources or not, but if I remember right, someone has already established that the material won't be difficult to source.


 * So if we're okay with that lead, then maybe we can start working on the article. One thing I don't understand is, if the lead is a summary of the article, why not write the lead last, instead of first?  When writing research papers,  we don't write the abstract first and then write the paper; you write the paper, and then the abstract is easy.  Maybe part of the difficulty is that we've been trying to do it cart before horse?Woonpton (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you woonpton completely, but it seems for historical reasons it has gone this way. I was also under the impression that the rest of the lead had been a greed but i suppose it does no harm to See it all together.

I am happy with that and i assume everyone else is based on previous discussion? Haven't heard from Olive for a while so perhaps she is busy RL? Anyway, if we now all agree here hopefully we can get our unlock and move forward. :-) Really2012back (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, with the full proposal now in view,


 * (a) Saying that the film has been criticized for "containing pseudoscience" is like saying "Bleep Blankets Inc. is a manufacturer of bedding...it's products have been criticized for containing anthrax". (b) Ever since Keilana was rebuffed here, it has been and remains my opinion that this group cannot reach anything approaching a meaningful consensus outside of mediation. So...there's my vote, call it a "no" if you want. WNDL42 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One disagreeing editor is not an unusual situation at all. Consensus doesn't require unanimous agreement to text, it only requires an agreement that the defect isn't so serious that an editor will feel compelled to modify the text.Kww (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If the blanket contains anthrax, then there should be a warning on the label that says so. That third sentence has been there for weeks, and has been discussed and discussed and discussed.  A couple of weeks ago, we decided, I thought, with olive at the lead, that we could all live with the lead as it is now in place except for that one phrase, which we just fixed.  I just brought back the rest of the lead so we could see the new material in context, and I will not be happy if we start fighting over the rest of the lead again. At any rate,   I agreed with the wording that says the film posits that physical reality is influenced by thought, as long as there was material somewhere in the lead that made it clear that the idea is without scientific foundation. A lead that described the film on its own terms without proper balance would be POV.   Woonpton (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Woonpton, re: "made it clear that the idea is without scientific foundation.", I'm curious is you caught the extensive discussion of the Roger Penrose-Stuart Hameroff "Orch-OR" model of consciousness. Saying "without scientific foundation" is probably too strong a chearcterization. WNDL42 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a tad bored - this is the first time the pseudoscience objection has been raised and I too thought this had been agreed. However, as it has been said it is impossible to get everyone to agree on all of it - but the majority has. Can we get this put in the lead then and start working on the rest ASAP. Really2012back (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really2012, every lead I have proposed has used the word "pseudoscience"; I've never, not once, said the word cannot be in the lead. The current construction and framing uses the word inappropriately. I've said so many times, so it shouldn't be the first time you've heard it. WNDL42 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that you've raised the objection multiple times. I'm unaware of anyone agreeing with you.Kww (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So, Wndl, although it seems we have enough consensus to move forward anyway - in the interest of fairness - how would you frame the word pseudoscience? Really2012back (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been three days since MartinPhi posted here, and five days since Little olive oil posted here, so my first thought was that they should weigh in. On the other hand, chasing editors off the topic is one way to get a consensus. Going through this talk page history to try to make heads or tails of discussion is hard work. In the process I find that not only was Loo asked to "f--k off, I discover that I have a third invitation from KWW to do likewise. I must admit some of the mentalities in play here leave me unable to comprehend what a "consensus" could possibly look like.


 * So...KWW, I bow to your will and I'm outta here. Enjoy! WNDL42 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I cry "foul" on this one. Did I show poor judgement? Yep. Did I retract the comment 4 minutes later without invitation or prodding? Yep.Kww (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fyi, I took a moment to count up previous lead proposals and there were at least nine (before I quit counting) that used "pseudoscience" in an encyclopedic fashion, i.e. without saying "containing pseudoscience", including two of my own. WNDL42 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the lead that I just formatted as a quotation, per Kww: "Consensus doesn't require unanimous agreement to text, it only requires an agreement that the defect isn't so serious that an editor will feel compelled to modify the text." As I said before, I don't like the placement of the Ramtha school thing, and I think you should choose either "misrepresenting science" or "containing pseudoscience." These are mainly just bad writing though, even if the Ramtha thing is something of a POV push as stated- even though having that in the lead seems necessary to me (I saw that it looked like promotion for Ramtha just watching the film). As far as using the word pseudoscience, it doesn't matter whether or not it is right, it only matters whether that is a significant and notable criticism in the sources, and I think that it is significant enough. I haven't read every single word here, so maybe I'm missing something. But basically, we aren't out for perfection. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Martin that "misrepresenting science" and "containing pseudoscience" say essentially the same thing and we don't need both. I do remember that objection before, but then the discussion got hijacked somewhere else and we never got to resolve the question. I'm fine with removing "containing pseudoscience" since it seems to be such a problem; as I said when I first came in here, I'd prefer not to use the label anyway in favor of spelling out the instances in which science is misused and misrepresented in the film, but I was told that would make the article too long. I'm fine with expressing that by "misrepresenting science," how do others feel about that? By the way, Martin, thanks for formatting.Woonpton (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Misrepresenting science and containing pseudoscience are different, and that's the reason that the two phrases have overlapping, but distinct, citations. The movie has been accused of misrepresentations and distortions to support a specific religious and philosophical agenda ... that's misrepresenting science in polite phrasing. It has also been accused of containing pseudoscience, which is a much more passive assertion. A filmmaker could, without any ill intent, include pseudoscience in a film because he had failed to detect the poor foundation of the things he had included.Kww (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point is well taken. I was trying to accommodate Martin's objection, but I do see the distinction between them and how both apply, and I can think of specific examples of both in the film, as well as quantum mysticism. So I guess maybe we should leave well enough alone, and go with the present lead as it is?Woonpton (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bleep/Ramtha/Buddha?

 * MartinPhi (as you brought it up) wrt Buddhism, no I didn't say RSE was "just a buddhist school with a channeler in charge" nor anything like it.


 * What I said was that many buddhists study and teach at RSE, and that we don't know whether >>all<< students of RSE believe that JZKnight is channeling "Ramtha". Among the Buddhists who teach there is (was) Khempo Yurmed Tinly Rinpoche, also featured in the film. I previously posted reliable sources that Arntz is a buddhist, here is Time magazine commenting...on "Zen" and "Ramtha", but of course these are just to add support for the main point about Khempo Yurmed Tinly...

"In 2000, Khempo was selected to represent the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism at the United Nations Millennium World Peace Summit.".


 * I think I'd posted about four or five other reliable sources discussing buddhism and bleep back when I first mentioned this, although I must admit I Really2012back (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)don't have a "best friend who follows Buddhist practice" to speculate upon, and the statement "A Buddhist would tell you that by definition, nirvana is liberation from anything quantum physics covers..." is flatly contradicted by the Dalai Lama himself in his book "The Universe in a Single Atom".


 * Other relevant sources here and here, and on the Dalai Lama and Quantum physics here, if someone wants to discuss additional sources. WNDL42 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just like the Pope isn't Jesus Christ, the Dalai Lama isn't Buddha. "Nirvana is liberation from anything quantum physics covers" is not contradicted at all by the Dalai Lama (who has always had an interest in science) exploring whether science and spirituality can talk the same language. The Dalai Lama has also supported research into neuroplasticity, but that doesn't mean that he believes the brain is the seat of consciousness or that the effects of meditation are purely related to physical changes in the brain. In fact, he "opposes physical explanations for consciousness, invoking instead the existence of some kind of irreducible mind stuff, an idea rejected long ago by mainstream science." The Dalai Lama is somewhat a pioneer when it comes to trying to bridge science and spirituality, but Buddhists will tell you that "nirvana is liberation from anything quantum physics covers". In fact, I quoted them earlier on this talk page but it's been archived. Here it is again:


 * ...even the founding fathers of quantum physics/mechanics—Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Sir Arthur Eddington, et al.—who were all self-proclaimed mystics, strongly rejected the notion that mysticism and physics were describing the same realm. The attempt to unify them is, in the words of Planck, “founded on a misunderstanding, or, more precisely, on a confusion of the images of religion with scientific statements. Needless to say, the result makes no sense at all.” Eddington was even more explicit: “We should suspect an intention to reduce God to a system of differential equations. That fiasco at any rate must be avoided. However much the ramifications of physics may be extended by further scientific discovery, they cannot from their very nature [impinge upon] the background in which they have their being.”


 * And there's the crux of the confusion. Quantum physics deals with the abstract, symbolic analysis of the physical world—space, time, matter, and energy—even down to the subtlest level, the quantum vacuum. Mysticism deals with the direct apprehension of the transcendent Source of all those things. The former is a mathematical system involving intensive intellectual study, and the latter is a spiritual discipline involving the transcendence of the intellectual mind altogether. It's apparently only a very loose interpretation of physics, and a looser interpretation of mysticism, that allows for their surprising convergence—and opens the door to the even wilder idea that by drinking some of this quantum mystical brew, you'll be able to create your own reality.


 * That's Buddhists telling you that "nirvana is liberation from anything quantum physics covers". The Dalai Lama believes that science and spirituality can speak the same language, as I'm sure many Buddhists do, but that doesn't make science Buddhism, nor Buddhism science. Buddhists believe in a "Source" beyond a physical level. The Dalai Lama does as well. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nealparr, I was responding to an incorrect generalization -- "A Buddhist would tell you...", which attempts to speak for Buddhists with a single voice. You have well and fully and at great length refuted an argument I didn't make. I merely said that the statement, now repeated as "Buddhists will tell you that "nirvana is liberation from anything quantum physics covers", is fallacious. Note that you (above) haven't quoted a single Buddhist (the book reviewer from the New York times doesn't count) to support your opinion that "A Buddhist would tell you...". I am not attempting to speak for all Buddhists, I am merely refuting your attempts to do so. WNDL42 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote entirely. I linked directly to an article in What Is Enlightenment? magazine. The NY Times article was just for what the Dalai Lama believes (consciousness isn't physical). You're also mischaracterizing why I wrote it. My first comment above was responding to the questions on this talk page about whether the ideas expressed in the film are Buddhism. I said they're not, and that a Buddhist will tell you that. Then you commented that your source "flatly contradicted" what I was saying, so my second comment was about how your source doesn't, because it doesn't. A Buddhist will tell you that nirvana is liberation from anything quantum physics covers. Buddhists will discuss physics with you because that's the nature of the physical world, but Buddhists believe that the ultimate ground of being is beyond physical and that nirvana is liberation from everything maya, including physical. There is a single voice on that because it's a core Buddhist belief.-- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it fully, complemented you for bringing it, and presented additional refs from the same article -- see below. WNDL42 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, "Director William Arntz reports that the spiritual influences in his life include metaphysics, Rudolf Steiner, the Theosophists, Carlos Castaneda, Rama, various forms of Buddhism, and Ramtha. Director Betsy Chasse has attended SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship classes - founded by Paramahansa Yogananda). Mark Vicente says he “arrived on the planet as a Christian; performed a brief stint as a New-Ager” - until he realized that the latter was: “a bit like being a Democrat - well intentioned, politically correct but lacking balls.” He then became a student of Ramtha." full review here

Umm, so do you agree or not agree with the sentences under discussion?Woonpton (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, woopton, we seem to be going off track again with this - although an interesting discussion. By the way, the Dalai Lama doesn't speak for all Buddhists - despite the media's thoughts to the opposite - but hey ho - who cares :-). (comment by Really2012back)


 * Really2012,


 * (a) "going off track" happens whenever someone mischaracterizes another editor's comments. This can be done unintentionally (which is why I addressed my comment to start this section (above) to MartinPhi, or it can be done intentionally -- to create a Straw man argument as a diversionary or smoke screen tactic -- as was the case with Orch-OR and the Benjamin Libet - Stuart Hameroff - Roger Penrose "discussion".


 * (b) Like I said above, I am not saying (nor has anyone here said) that the Dalai Lama or Khempo Yurmed Tinly Rinpoche "speak for all Buddhists". Nor am I saying that the media's thoughts to that effect (if indeed that is what the media thinks) are relevant.


 * Rather, I made a clear, simple and well supported refutation of some personal opinions expressed here on behalf of all Buddhists, in doing so I cited two notable examples of two notable Buddhists (one of whom is in the film obtw) that quite notably contradict those personal opinions. Is a reliably sourced refutation of an unsourced personal opinion here somehow not appropriate?


 * Now, may I suggest, as the Dalai Lama's book is titled (in full) "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science And Spirituality", that we accept that at least SOME notable Buddhists...in addition to Khempo Yurmed Tinly Rinpoche do, in fact, see the connection? Or shall we dig into these sources? I have both Dalai Lama books sitting here on my shelf if we all agree we need to discuss the interviews between the Dalai Lama and his close personal friend David Bohm, if any will find the discussion of other-than-non-buddhist-book-reviewers relevant. (?)


 * As a final note, I observe that somehow, mysteriously, again the main point I raised about Khempo Yurmed Tinly Rinpoche and his role at RSE and his own opinions expressed in the film have somehow escaped the attention of everyone who commented here, and this section has grown into an incomprensible mess as a direct result. If any are interested, this is why I and others have become so frustrated with the discourse here...endless straw men, smoke screens and personal attacks. If we are going to make a Stone soup, let's at least throw good food in the pot.


 * Now, may we please circle back to here and talk to the points actually raised? WNDL42 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Woonpton, I will comment on the sentence in discussion for the lead in the appropriate section... WNDL42 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wndl the reason that Khempo Yurmed Tinly Rinpoche has not been discussed is because it is not in the lead and has never been discussed to be in the leads that we have discussed. While this maybe relevant later when we turn to the article at the moment it is irrelevant. I don't think anyone was creating strawmen, smokescreens or committing personal attacks - please assume good faith. I'm a Buddhist and love everyone :-) Really2012back (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NealParr, thanks for posting the link to Tom Huston's movie review of Bleep in "What is Enilghtenment" Magazine. While I don't (as I said) agree with either the argument you describe, nor do I agree that it says anything absolute about what Buddhists (as a group) believe, I do think Huston makes some good points, but also a key mistake:


 * "“Suppose we ask, Is the moon there when we are not looking at it?” writes Goswami in his 1993 treatise, The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. “To the extent that the moon is ultimately a quantum object (being composed entirely of quantum objects), we must say no. . . . Between observations, the moon also exists as a possibility form in transcendent potentia.”

So far so good, but had Huston read Goswami in context, and noticed that Goswami says "Is the moon there when we are not looking at it?” and not "Is the moon there when we are ''I am not looking at it?”, then Huston would have understood Goswami's further comment (also removed from context). This is what I was trying to get at in the earlier discussion on Orch-OR and Gaia theory consciousness...the all-inclusive "we" is the critically important distinction that keeps getting missed...as Huston did. Anyway, I really like Huston's conclusion:

"So maybe the widespread popularity of quantum mysticism, and its latest offspring, What the Bleep, is pointing not just to our cultural propensity to be enamored by the amazing insights and innovations of science but to our innate fear of scientific materialism, which seeks, by definition, to squelch soul or spirit wherever it finds it. That we should even feel the need to overcome the doubt of the scientific materialist worldview indicates how all-pervasive it actually is, and how thoroughly steeped in it most of us are. In fact, the very need to base our belief in the transcendental Divine on the findings of science seems indicative of the strange spiritual desert in which we currently find ourselves, and in which humanity possibly has been lost since modern science first arose to trump religion centuries ago. Having left the world of myth, dogma, and superstition behind, we leapt into the wider embrace of science, logic, and rationality. But the scientific paradigm also has its limits, and despite the insistence of those who claim otherwise, perhaps what humanity needs now is a higher worldview: one that understands the miracles of science to be merely the modern expression of an ever-evolving Mystery, which only reveals—each time it is glimpsed—how little we really do know."

Thanks again Nealparr WNDL42 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

talking of the moon:

Gutei raised his finger whenever he was asked a question about Zen. A boy attendant began to imitate him in this way. When anyone asked the boy what his master had preached about, the boy would raise his finger.

Gutei heard about the boy's mischief. He seized him and cut off his finger. The boy cried and ran away. Gutei called and stopped him. When the boy turned his head to Gutei, Gutei raised up his own finger. In that instant the boy was enlightened. :-)

So, wndl - are you happy with the revised lead? :-)Really2012back (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've commented in the relevant section.


 * I like your post about severing fingers. I lament the lack of a Zen master here, because I am certain that the first raised fingers to be severed would be the middle fingers. WNDL42 (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Really2012, the previous examples I've cited make it increasingly difficult to assume good faith when my arguments and points are repeatedly mischaracterized in this fashion. I will stop pointing it out when it stops happening. Intentional or not, it is a very unhelpful distraction. If those who are doing it are unaware that they are doing it, then my continuing to point it out is meant to correct the problem, irrespective of whether there is good faith involved or not. WNDL42 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Other sources for physical reality is a "thought"
A prime example of this is the juxtaposition of scientists such as Dr. William Tiller, Ph.D. professor emeritus of Stanford, and the channeled assertions of Ramtha, the “35,000 year old warrior” who appeared in the kitchen of JZ Knight in 1977. The musings of Tiller as a scientist who is exploring our understanding of consciousness is woven in such a way that he seems to support the assertions of Ramtha, as channeled by Ms. Knight: that we are all gods, and that there is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong. This leads to the assertion that it is religion that has harmed humanity with its moral teachings.

But having noted that the film is destructively misleading, it presents some interesting observations by weaving together ancient philosophy, quantum physics and implied spirituality. For example, when it is asserted that the universe and its “matter” really functions more as a “thought,” the film agrees with ancient and Biblical teachings. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535-475 B.C.) said, “The universe is generated not according to time, but according to thought.” Physicist James Jeans (1877-1946) said, “The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a machine.”  This observation that all creation resembles a thought agrees with the Biblical explanation that creation was “spoken into existence” by God. It is God’s thought that became physical. The ancient Greeks called this the “Logos” or “word” and it is this concept that the Gospel of John uses to explain that this “Logos” became “Flesh” in Jesus Christ so that we could know God “in the flesh.”

The driving force behind this film is the desire to know the great mystery of our existence: Why are we here? What is our purpose? What is real and how do we know it? Looking at a world that implies a spiritual presence who creates and sustains it, the scientists are left without ultimate answers, and simply say it is a “mystery.” This is a true and humble confession.

But when the filmmakers begin the film by saying, “In the beginning was the void,” that is an assertion that goes beyond scientific evidence or implication. It is also very different from the Bible’s explanation that “In the beginning was the Word [Logos]. And the Word was with God and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) If we begin with nothing, it is easy to end with nothing. But if we begin with God as the Eternal Thought, who spoke everything and everyone into existence, we end in a place of wanting to know this God whose thoughts we inhabit...One of the directors, William Artnz, is a Buddhist."

From "Cinema In Focus" WNDL42 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)