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


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.  Dreadstar †  21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Source tracking table
Started 19:14, 14 July 2007

Content deleted per discussion below. -- Dreadstar †  19:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC) *One item is identified as redundant content, and is not included in this table. ''**Content that needs to be rewritten should be immediately removed from the article until rewritten per source. One item is sourced, but should be in the body and not in the lead (pseudoscience).''

Statements about quantum physics
1. Essential aspects of quantum mechanics are bypassed in the movie. However, few of the scientists involved are actually professional physicists doing research in quantum mechanics, and one of those that does do such research, David Albert, has complained that his views were deliberately misrepresented.

Comments item 1
Redundant. Repeated several times in the article. Remove all but one instance. Dreadstar †  22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

2: The movie also fails to explain precisely how the theory of quantum mechanics actually proves any of the mystical or religious teachings found in the film. Statements from physicists are made which are then intercut with statements from medical doctors, people who have created their own religion, and others. No logical argument connecting the findings of quantum mechanics with the movie's core message is offered.

Comments item 2
''With some rewording, this could be supported by the comment from Albert: "The film makers are apparently convinced that such a collapse would straightforwardly resuscitate the old metaphysics of God and spirit and so fourth, but they offer no reasons whatsoever for thinking that, and I cannot imagine what such a reason might be". However this is currently being disputed on the basis that it was sent to a blog. Perhaps Albert could be contacted directly.1Z 14:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably the only helpful information from a direct contact with Albert would be if he could direct us to a reliable source for the content. Policy discussion moved here:Item 2. Dreadstar  †  07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

3: Most of the film's appeals to quantum mechanics are wildly inconsistent with what physicists have discovered from quantum mechanics. The idea that the measurement (observing capacities) of conscious observers creates reality is implied to be a widely held position in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. However, the movie's interpretation of this position is far from what most physicists actually believe.


 * So you are saying the problem is establishing whether Albert really said what is being claimed, not his status as an expert? 1Z 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if the entirety of #3's content is a statement from him. (e.g. does he actually state that "the movie's interpretation of this position is far from what most physicists actually believe".  If so, then we can attribute that quote in the body of the article.    Dreadstar  †  06:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote is in the letter as quoted in the blog you don't like. We could contact him and get him to put the same material on his faculty web page. 1Z 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments item 3

 * Material from Consciousness causes collapse adn quantum mind could be used here. 1Z 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We need citations and references per WP:CITE and WP:RS, not merely links to other Wikipedia articles. Dreadstar  †  17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those articles contain citations and references.1Z 18:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, pull out the relevant ones and bring them here. Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

4: Some of the film's experts, particularly Amit Goswami, repeatedly refer to the process of measurement and observation in quantum mechanics and speculate about the relation between consciousness and the material world. They claim, for example, that human beings have the capability to create their own reality; Dr. Miceal Ledwith even asserts that human beings have the capability of walking on water. Evidence is not offered.

Comments item 4

 * ''Victor Stenger and others have criticized Goswami's printed claims. We have yet to see whether making the the same claims in a move rather than a book sets everything back to square one. 1Z 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's related to the movie and from a WP:RS, it may be acceptable. Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have an appropriate source in mind for this content? Dreadstar †  07:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

5: In contrast, physicists do not believe this ability to freely choose the future to be true in anything other than a metaphorical sense. The facts of measurement and observation are far more prosaic. Specifically, if a system is in a state described by a wave function, the measurement process affects the state in a non-deterministic, but statistically predictable way. In particular, after a measurement is applied, the state description by a single wave function may be destroyed, being replaced by a statistical ensemble of wave functions.

Comments item 5

 * I am not sure that is accurate. It might be worhwhile to point out that some interpretations of QM dispense with collapse altogether, so afortiori, they dispense with consciousness-induced collapse. 1Z 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources please. Dreadstar  †  18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Price 1Z 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Relation to the movie? Per WP:NOR? Seems odd, movie:2004, source:1995. Dreadstar  †  19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The source supports the comment: "some interpretations of QM dispense with collapse altogether (etc)". The movie purports to be a documentary, it is not dealing with some fictional universe where things are different.1Z 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The source violates WP:NOR. The relevant policy discussion continued here: Item 5 policy discussion.  We need to find another source that will meet WP:RS.  Dreadstar  †  06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

6: The nature of measurement operations in quantum physics can be described using various mathematical formalisms such as the relative state formulation or its equivalent form the many-worlds interpretation. Noted physicists such as David Deutsch do take this interpretation quite literally.

Proposed source Item 6
http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/Frontiers.html

Comments item 6
Proposed source violates WP:NOR, as it does not relate to the movie. Dreadstar †  19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

7: Physicist Heinz Pagels, in The Cosmic Code, writes: "Some recent popularizers of Bell's work when confronted with Bell's inequality have gone on to claim that telepathy is verified or the mystical notion that all parts of the universe are instantaneously interconnected is vindicated. Others assert that this implies communication faster than the speed of light. That is rubbish; the quantum theory and Bell's inequality imply nothing of this kind. Individuals who make such claims have substituted a wish-fulfilling fantasy for understanding. If we closely examine Bell's experiment we will see a bit of sleight of hand by the God that plays dice which rules out actual nonlocal influences. Just as we think we have captured a really weird beast &mdash; like acausal influences &mdash; it slips out of our grasp. The slippery property of quantum reality is again manifested."

Quantum physics proposed source

 * Australian Broadcasting Company Article

"The Effect of the Observer 'Quantum physics calculates only possibilities... Who/what chooses among these possibilities to bring the actual event of experience? Consciousness must be involved. The observer can’t be ignored.' Amit Goswami (PhD) in What the Bleep Do We Know?
 * Relevant content from proposed source:

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle argues that its impossible to track the momentum and position of a subatomic particle. Not exactly, Amit. The observer effect of quantum physics isn't about people or reality. It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's about the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles. Gripping stuff, but nothing to do with our daily lives.

Heisenberg basically says you can't get a really accurate fix on both the position and the momentum of a subatomic particle - say an electron - at the same time. You can be accurate in one or the other, but not in both. (It's all to do with photons of light from your measuring instrument hitting the poor electron and knocking it for six). It's actually the machine that's the observer, not the human who's jotting down results."

"Particles Popping Into & Out of Existence 'Physical reality is absolutely rock solid, yet it only comes into existence when it bumps up against another piece of physical reality - like us, or a rock.' Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (psychiatrist, PhD candidate in physics), in What the Bleep Do We Know?

The bits and pieces of matter that make up sub-atomic particles (protons, neutrons and electrons) don't exist in any handy, measurable way unless they're interacting with one another. Once they do bump into each other they form their regular little selves.

But this only applies to sub-atomic particles - a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It's there. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too.

And it certainly doesn't depend on an observer to make this happen. As long as a sub-atomic particle is interacting with another sub-atomic particle, they'll both exist regardless of where you are or what you're doing. (Physicists should take part of the blame for this confusion. When they use the word 'observe', they actually mean 'interact with', not look at or think about.)"

"'Particles appear and disappear - where do they go when they're not here? One possible answer: they go to an alternative universe where people are asking the same question: 'where'd they go?'' Fred Alan Wolf, PhD in What the Bleep Do We Know?

They don't go anywhere, Fred. Quantum physics doesn't need them to. Particles are fluctuations - the rules of physics say it's perfectly fine for them to exist at some time and/or place and to be non-existent at another time and/or place."

Item 1

 * N/A. Redundant content removal.

Item 2

 * Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar †  23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Item 3

 * Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar †  23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Item 4

 * Proposed source mentions consciousness in relation to QP, but does not support the content as it is currently written. Would need to be rewritten to match the source's contents. Dreadstar  †  23:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Item 5

 * Proposed source mentions measurement and observation in relation to QP, but does not support the content as it is currently written. Would need to be rewritten to match the source's contents. Dreadstar  †  23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Item 6

 * Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar †  23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Item 7

 * Proposed source does not appear to address this item. Dreadstar †  23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

 * What the Bleep Do We Know!?  (also written What tнe⃗ #$*! D⃗ө ωΣ (k)πow!? and What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?) is a controversial 2004 film that combines documentary interviews and a fictional narrative to posit a connection between science and spirituality based upon the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment of JZ Knight/Ramtha, of whom the three directors are devotees.


 * The source does not seem to support the claim being made. Please read through the Salon.com article and find the statement that clearly says that the film was based upon the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment"  If it's there, I missed it.

Comments
How about

"Knight's role as the voice of Ramtha is the most striking -- but hardly the only -- omission of the film, which could easily be interpreted as a full-blown infomercial for Ramtha."

Salon review (page 2 para4.) 1Z 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's too weak to support the claim that the movie was based on Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, especially in the lead section. We can certainly use that quote in the body of the article, but it won't fly for the content it is currently being cited for, in the section the content is currently in.  Good start, tho! Please sign your comments here. Dreadstar  †  17:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was produced by Ramtha, it echoes beliefs endorsed by Ramtha. What more do you need? Bennie Noakes 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RS saying it was based on Ramtha. Dreadstar  †  02:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not personally attached to the "based on" claim, as the movie seemed a hodge-podge to me.1Z 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too. Dreadstar  †  18:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to read through it. In my opinion, this source says it more directly. Bennie Noakes 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems just as oblique to me, and definitely too weak for the lead section. We'd also need to look into www.wweek.com to see if is a WP:RS, with sufficient editorial oversight and fact-checking for the content of it's articles.Dreadstar  †  06:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather replace the whole lead with "What the Bleep Do We Know" is a 2004 film that "draws heavily on the role of the observer in quantum physics. Unfortunately, it also completely misunderstands it." I think it summarizes what this movie is, why it is controversial, and that the Australian Broadcasting Company's Science department qualifies as a reliable source. (http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/bleep/) Kww 01:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's too much of an WP:NPOV issue with that lead. Dreadstar  †  02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Accusations of fraud, intentional deceit, or buffoonery would be non-neutral. On any objective basis, the movie is crap.Kww 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those accusations, if properly worded, can be included in the body of the article as long as they are properly sourced, attributed, and do not violate WP:UNDUE.
 * As for the proposed wording for the intro, WP:LEAD states:


 * The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources
 * "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article."


 * A statement such as "Unfortunately, it also completely misunderstands it.", is not a brief description of the movie's notable controversies, and it is a clear "tease". It also violates NPOV, because it is clearly a biased statement, and it also appears as though Wikipedia is making a judgement that it "misunderstands" Quantum Physics.


 * Bottom line, it's inappropriate for the lead, and probably anywhere else in the article unless properly sourced and attributed as a quote. Dreadstar  †  04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

 * ''In the second paragraph:
 * The film has received widespread criticism from the scientific community. Physicists, in particular, say that the film misrepresents the meaning of various principles of quantum mechanics and is pseudoscience.


 * We need to source:
 * 1) "widespread criticism from the scientific community." - There is no current reference
 * 2) Physicists, in particular, say that the film misrepresents the meaning of various principles of quantum mechanics and is pseudoscience. Current ref is a letter to the editor, which is no RS, and to include the "pseudoscience" label in the lead, it needs to be shown to be a 'notable controversy' per WP:LEAD.

Widespread criticism (#1)
Sourced criticisms are mentioned throughout the article body. 1Z 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable source that states that fact. To say "widespread" or "physicists in particular", we need a source that says that.  Dreadstar  †  02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in lead (#2)
''Simon Singh calls it pseudoscience here: [http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1484925,00.html. Guardian]'' 1Z 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes he does, and we can use the Guardian as an attributed reference for Singh's statement in the body of the article - great find! To include it in the lead section we would need to show that it is a notable and important controversy per WP:LEAD. The lead is a brief, concise overview of the article, and I believe it is sufficient to state that there is controversy over it's scientific content, and then provide detailed content in the body of the article per NPOV and undue weight.  So we're good with a reference for "pseudoscience" in the article, just not in the lead section.  Dreadstar  †  00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is now moot because the Guardian can be used as a source for the pseudoscience statement. Dreadstar †  00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian source is sufficient to add attributed content to the body of the ariticle, but not necessarily the lead section per WP:LEAD. The policy/source discussion has been moved to Pseudoscience in lead. Dreadstar †  06:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead unless it's a major controversy. Otherwise it seems to violate undue weight. I do think it's appropriate to include in the body of the article. TimidGuy 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Brain use
At the beginning of the movie, it is stated that humans only use 10% of their brains. This is incorrect: while the majority of the brain may not be active at any one moment, all of it is essential for normal function.

Proposed source

 * Australian Broadcasting Company Article

"Where The Bleep They're Wrong About Our Minds Perceiving Reality 'Your mind can't tell the difference between what it sees and what it remembers' Dr Joseph Dispenza (Chiropractor ) in What the Bleep Do We Know?
 * Relevant content from proposed source:

Scans reveal brain activity differs when seeing an object as opposed to when one reminisces.

Dr Dispenza claims (correctly) in the movie that brain scans - PET (Positron Emission Tomography) and Functional MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) - show that the same part of your brain lights up whether you're looking at something or just remembering it. But it's quite a leap to say the brain doesn't know the difference between vision and memory."

"The brain wasn't born yesterday. Given a few contextual clues, like whether the eyelids are open or shut, it can work out whether it's seeing something or remembering it. And there's the matter of scale - the brain lights up in scans much more brightly when you're seeing something than when you're reminiscing.

'Our brain receives 400 billion bits/second of information, but we're only aware of 2000 bits/second. Reality is happening in our brain all the time - we're receiving it but it's not being integrated.' Andrew B Newberg, (MD, Radiologist), in What the Bleep Do We Know?"

"The figures are a bit rubbery, but the idea that we're only 'aware' of a fraction of our brain's activity is both correct and a huge relief.

What could be worse than being aware of every tiny detail that your brain handles - from phosphate levels to heart rate and hair growth. It'd be like being the CEO of a massive company and having to listen to what every single employee was doing every minute of every day. Staff meetings are tedious enough - give me a conscious mind with a decent filter device any day.

The only problem with Andrew Newberg's statement is that it suggests our subconscious brains are doing really interesting stuff and we're somehow missing out; if only we could harness that other zillion gigabits or so we'd be masters of our destinies. If it's true, no one's been able to measure it or see the effects."

Proposed source comments

 * Source does not appear to support the content. The source mentions that we are only aware of a small percentage of what our brain is processing, and it is a 'rubbery' figure, at that...no definite percentages.  It's apples and oranges.  Dreadstar  †  10:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Water content of the human body
The movie states humans are "90% water" when in fact newborns have around 78% body water, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55%.

Proposed source

 * None.

3. Invisible ships
The movie also relates a story about Native Americans being unable to see Christopher Columbus' ships. However, there is no mention of this in any of the journals of those voyages, and the oral traditions of the local population were lost in the following 150 years of Spanish rule. The story in the film may be a garbled and mis-interpreted version of an incident described in Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Episode XIII describes an oral retelling of how the Tlingit encountered the La Pérouse expedition in the 1780s. The Tlingit were afraid to look directly at the ships at first, because they imagined that the ship and its sails were manifestations of Raven, who might turn them to stone. One of their party was an old man who was nearly blind, who decided to take a canoe in closer, and eventually understood the vessels and their crew for what they were.

Fortean Times proposal
(Entire article is on this subject, I won't copy it here for copyright and spacing concerns. Dreadstar  †  05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed source: Fortean Times''

Fortean Times comments

 * After reviewing the FT article, it does not support the content as written. There is no mention of Carl Sagan, or Cosmos, Episode XIII in the FT, no mention of the blind man or raven.


 * None of this is in the FT proposed source:
 * The story in the film may be a garbled and mis-interpreted version of an incident described in Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Episode XIII describes an oral retelling of how the Tlingit encountered the La Pérouse expedition in the 1780s. The Tlingit were afraid to look directly at the ships at first, because they imagined that the ship and its sails were manifestations of Raven, who might turn them to stone. One of their party was an old man who was nearly blind, who decided to take a canoe in closer, and eventually understood the vessels and their crew for what they were.


 * There is also no mention of:
 * "However, there is no mention of this in any of the journals of those voyages, and the oral traditions of the local population were lost in the following 150 years of Spanish rule."

Dreadstar †  10:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ABC content proposal

 * Proposed source:Australian Broadcasting Company

"'We only see what we believe is possible -Native American Indians on Caribbean Islands couldn't see Columbus's ships [sitting on the horizon] because they were beyond their knowledge' Dr. Candace Pert (former scientist, current new-age guru) in What the Bleep Do We Know?
 * Relevant content from proposed source:

It's hard to say where Candace Pert got the low-down on what the Native American Indians did or didn't see when Columbus and the gang hit the horizon. Columbus certainly didn't speak the language, and the locals didn't keep written records. Only the Shaman knows, and we're about 500 years too late to ask him.

But she is right about us not seeing things in front of our eyes if we're not looking for them. A classic experiment on visual processing involves asking people to watch a video of 6 people passing a basketball, and press a button every time a particular team has possession. Invariably only about half the people tested ever notice a woman in a gorilla suit walking across the middle of the screen during the game. We're such a shallow people."

ABC comments

 * The source does not appear to support the content. Dreadstar  †  10:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Synaptic cleft animation
The animated sequence showing electrical signals moving directly across a synaptic cleft is not entirely incorrect but may be misleading. Signals are carried between neurons chemically via neurotransmitters; signals are propagated electrically only within individual neurons and via gap junctions.

Proposed source

 * None.

5. Number of amino acids
It is also claimed in the movie that 20 amino acids are created in the human body. However, only 12 can be synthesized by humans; the remaining 8 amino acids are essential and must be acquired through food consumption or dietary supplementation.

Proposed source

 * None.

Controversial studies

 * The following two sections need to be sourced as well, as with the above sections. None of the references in the section relate to the movie.
 * The hado.net source does not back up the claim it is used for, however if this related Wayback Machine link shown to be a WP:RS, it can be used as reference for the Bleep Article. 

Transcendental Meditation study
As described in the film, the study involved using 4,000 people in June and July of 1993 to practice the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi programs to attempt to reduce violent crime in Washington, D.C. (which has one of the highest per-capita homicide rates in the United States). By counting the number of homicides, rapes, and assaults (HRA), the study came to the conclusion that group practice of the TM-Sidhi program reduced the violent crime rate, HRA, by 23%. Based on the numbers reported in the study, the HRA crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 1988–1992. The HRA crime rate showed a decline around the middle of the two month period where the TM-Sidhi program was practiced and remained relatively low (by 1993 standards) for several months afterward, though the decline was small enough that the reduced HRA crime rate was still about 10–15% higher than average at that time of year.

The results of the TM-Sidhi study were first reported in 1994 by the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, part of the Maharishi University of Management founded by Maharishi Mahesh. The study was published in 1999 in the peer-reviewed journal Social Indicators Research.

This experiment in meditation won John Hagelin the 1994 Ig Nobel Prize for Peace, an award for work "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced." (This award is also billed as being granted to work that "Makes people laugh, then makes them think")

Proposed source

 * Australian Broadcasting Company Article

"The Effect of Meditation on Violent Crime in Washington, DC. Attempting to reduce violent crimes via meditation in the real world produced results that stated otherwise.
 * Relevant content from proposed source:

John Hagelin, PhD, describes a study he did in Washington in 1992. 4000 volunteers regularly meditated to achieve a 25% drop in violent crime by the end of summer. He claims the drop was achieved. But Hagelin's use of the term 'achieved' for the drop in crime is a bit strong. He announced in 1994 (one year after the study) that violent crime had decreased 18%. You might think that meant there were 18% fewer violent crimes than in the previous year, but the decrease was actually relative to his predicted increase based on some fancy statistical footwork. Regular indicators of violent crime told a different story - the number of murders actually went up."

General TM Comments
This experiment in meditation won John Hagelin the 1994 Ig Nobel Prize for Peace, an award for work "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced.

This is an unfair statement. "The first Ig Nobels were awarded in 1991, at that time for discoveries "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced." They were not referred to as such post 1991. Hagelin received his reward in 94'. I suggest it is inaccurate and biased and should be removed. Kevinpedia 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Another “proof” of the power of thought presented in the film is the so-called “Maharishi Effect.” In 1993, 4,000 meditators gathered in Washington, D.C. under the direction of physicist John Hagelin. Hagelin predicted in advance that the meditations would drive down the violent crime rate in the city by 25 percent that summer. Despite the fact that the murder rate actually rose, Hagelin announced a year later that his analysis proved that the violent crime rate fell just as he had predicted. In his recent book he states that the meditators “function essentially as a ‘washing machine’ for the entire society.”

As with Emoto’s work, there has been no replication by other scientists, no control groups, and no publications in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals to confirm the Maharishi Effect.
 * Kevinpedia 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is too much detail in several of the entries in the Featured individuals section. Some of it appears to be POV-pushing.  Those entries should be short, and the links to their respective articles provide easy access to more detail on each individual.  Some of what's in there may be OR as well, but I'm primarily focusing on major OR in this sandbox.


 * As for the information itself, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Dreadstar  †  18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ig Nobel statement "Cannot, should not be reproduced" is not verifiable or truth. It was not applicable at the time of the award. Using the prior terminology is just mean spirited, like saying the "Employee of the month" was given an archaic title "Best slave award." But hey, I'm really glad to see you cleaning up this page, so no biggie if you disagree. Just trying to keep it honest. Kevinpedia 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with you. I believe the mentioning of the ignoble prize in this article is pov-pushing - especially the way it's worded.  Thanks for the support!  Dreadstar  †  18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe that exact phrasing shouldn't be used, but don't you think the award should be mentioned? With a short explanation of what the award is? Bennie Noakes 18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; but in his own article. I don't see the relevance to the Bleep article. The link to his own article serves to frame the entry, which should be very short and concise.  This is an article on the movie not on the individuals who participated in the movie.  His "winning" the ignoble prize isn't relevant to the movie, and seems to be included to advance a certain perspective. Dreadstar  †  18:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that either of the critical passages noted above are reliable sources. They have their facts wrong and they don't cite any sources for their information. For example, the DC study and other Maharishi Effect studies have indeed been published in peer-reviewed journals, including Yale University's Journal of Conflict resolution. Neither of these critics apparently understands how crime rate is studied and the use of time series analysis. It's also obvious that they didn't read the published study. TimidGuy 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Water crystals
Masaru Emoto's work (The Hidden Messages in Water) plays a prominent role in a scene set in a light-rail tunnel, where the main character happens upon a presentation of displays showing images of water crystals. In the movie, "before" and "after" photographs of water are presented as evidence that specific words written on pieces of paper and affixed to different containers of water have the power to transform the water into being able to freeze into beautiful crystalline shapes instead of ugly crystalline shapes.

Emoto's work is criticised for being more artistic than scientific. His doctoral certification is on alternative medicine from an unaccredited institution. His work has never been subjected to peer review, and he does not utilize double blind methodology. Emoto also claims that polluted water does not crystallize. Depending on the properties of the pollutant, heavily polluted water will still form crystals, though the crystals may contain more crystallographic defects than pure water would. These changes in the way the crystals form can be readily explained using basic chemistry and physics. James Randi has characterized Emoto's work as nonsense, pseudoscience and quackery.

Proposed source

 * Australian Broadcasting Company Article

"The power of thoughts on water 'If thoughts can do that to water, imagine what our thoughts can do to us' observed a fan of Dr Masaru Emoto in the movie.
 * Relevant content from proposed source:

Dr Emoto takes photos of crystals formed in freezing water. According to his books, water exposed to loving words shows brilliant and attractive patterns, while water exposed to negative thoughts forms incomplete patterns. These photos may well be art - they're sure as hell not science.

If you wanted to study the impact of spoken, drawn or written sentiments on the formation of crystals in freezing water, you'd have to do a slightly more rigorous study. For starters you'd have to take a lot of samples from different parts of each ice specimen. And you'd do the study without knowing what had been 'said' to the water specimens, so your subjective opinions wouldn't colour the results."

OR and detail

 * OR in Featured individuals section. Some of the content is also too detailed for this article and needs to be pared into appropriately sized summaries.  The links to each subject's individual articles provides a window to further detail.

1.Candace Pert wrote the book Molecules of Emotion in 1997 (foreword written by Deepak Chopra) where she espoused views very similar to those of the film. Some aspects of the film appeared to be based on her book. For example, the first ten minutes of the movie can be summarized by a quote from pages 146–148 of Molecules of Emotion where she writes:
 * There is no objective reality! ... Emotions are constantly regulating what we experience as "reality." The decision about what sensory information travels to your brain and what gets filtered depends on what signals the receptors are receiving from the peptides ... For example, when the tall European ships first approached the early Native Americans, it was such an "impossible" vision in their reality that their highly filtered perceptions couldn't register what was happening, and they literally failed to "see" the ships.


 * Another point in the movie can be well summarized by page 285, where she writes:


 * The tendency to ignore emotions is oldthink, a remnant of the still-reigning paradigm that keeps us focused on the material level of health, the physicality of it. But the emotions are a key element in the self-care because they allow us to enter into the bodymind's conversation.  By getting in touch with our emotions, both by listening to them and by directing them through the psychosomatic network, we gain access to the healing wisdom that is everyone's natural biological right.

Superfluous content

 * There is too much detail in these entries. Much of this detail can be in the article pertaining to the subject, but it is not appropriate for inclusion in this article. Each summary should briefly introduce the individual, with the Wikilinks providing easy access to further details in their respective articles.

1. John Hagelin was the head of the 1993 Transcendental Meditation project in Washington, D.C. (The Washington TM study was mentioned in the film, but Hagelin was never identified as one of its authors.) He was awarded an Ig Nobel Prize, which honors achievements that "first make people laugh, and then make them think," for this project. He is chairman of the Physics Department at Maharishi International University in Fairfield, Iowa. The University was founded by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the Indian guru who vaulted to fame after becoming the spiritual advisor to the Beatles.

2. David Albert, a philosopher of physics and professor at Columbia University, speaks frequently throughout the movie. While it may appear as though he supports the ideas that are presented in the movie, according to a Popular Science article, he is "outraged at the final product." The article states that Albert granted the filmmakers a near-four hour interview about quantum mechanics being unrelated to consciousness or spirituality. His interview was then edited and incorporated into the film in a way that he claims misrepresented his views. In the article, Albert also expresses his feelings of gullibility after having been "taken" by the filmmakers. Although Albert is listed as a scientist taking part in the sequel to What the Bleep, called "Down the Rabbit Hole", this sequel is a "director's cut", composed of extra footage from the filming of the first movie.

Experts section OR

 * The Experts section contains OR.

The filmmakers assembled a panel to make their point by discussing some facts, many opinions, and imaginative examples.  The most severe criticism of this film is that the ideas and theories presented are based upon the beliefs of JZ Knighthttp://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5860, a medium who claims to channel a "Lemurian" warrior Ramtha who raised an army and fought against the Atlantians over 35,000 years ago.


 * Problem sentence: "The most severe criticism of this film is that the ideas and theories presented are based upon the beliefs of JZ Knight"

Comments
The criticism is made in the Salon articlem, if that is the problem.1Z 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide the exact quote that states the film is based upon the beliefs of Knight, and that it is the "most severe criticism" of the film. Dreadstar  †  17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "The film presents JZ Knight, a medium who claims to channel a "Lemurian" warrior Ramtha who raised an army and fought against the Atlantians over 35,000 years ago. , as a credible commentator on quantum physics." Certainly neutral in phrasing, and sufficiently damning in the eyes of anyone with two neurons that can fire in sequence. Kww 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since your proposed wording doesn't include much of the OR, it's much better than what is currently there. Two things I see; one being the statement: "..presents Knight...as a credible commentator on quantum physics".   Since the statement seems to cast doubt, it should be attributed to the source.  (e.g. According to source x, The film presents JZ Knight...as a credible commentator on quantum physics.")


 * One other issue is the usage of the word "claims" which violates WP:WTA; so if we replace that with something similar to: "a medium who states that she can."


 * I would be cautious about characterizing or searching for phrasing that is "sufficiently damning", we need to be fully in compliance with WP:NPOV. Dreadstar †  20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, how about "The film presents JZ Knight, a medium who states that she channels a "Lemurian" warrior Ramtha who raised an army and fought against the Atlantians over 35,000 years ago. , as a commentator on quantum physics." All judgmental words removed, I think. I truly struggle with NPOV on this, because the movie really is so far on the fringe of whacko crackpottery that giving any statement in it any credence violates WP:Undue Weight.Kww 21:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can support that version. I totally understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate your efforts to set that aside and work towards a neutral version that will hopefully be acceptable to everyone!  I believe someone objected to the double-quotation marks around 'Lemurian', which, {while a hypothetical place and should be appropriately identified as such) may be appropriately framed by the link itself, or possibly by including wording such as 'mythical' or 'hypothetical'.  The link may be sufficient, we want to avoid hitting our readers over the head with it.  Dreadstar  †  21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)