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

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

theme and refutation

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

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

I haven't seen the film and thus don't now whether it's safe to change "theme" to "proposition" or similar, or whether to leave "theme" as is and go after "refuted". -- Hoary (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Proposition" would work well enough.—Kww(talk) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow the source perhaps? [1] Dreadstar ☥ 17:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

very special effects

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

I'm so sorry to see that go. It was sourced and all. -- Hoary (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary, but I'm not sure how much expertise is required to make the comparison: I've only had one colonoscopy, and I feel qualified.—Kww(talk) 21:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"that meditation can reduce violent crime rates"

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

"Academic reaction" section is actually a criticisms section

The part titled as academic reaction is actually a thinly disguised criticism section with POV largely from Fundamentalist Materialist POV. It is also very long considering it is one-sided and lacking in POV from other academic fields. I'm not surprised as wikipedia has become an attack site for hard-core materialists, asserting that their POV is a "neutral" POV (and no doubt - in line with dogmatic mentality - convinced that it is NPOV). 121.73.7.84 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is little reliable commentary which is not criticism. Although I agree with the materialist point of view, if you can find reliable commentary which is not from a materialist point of view, it can be added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hagelin.org

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

Frankly, I'm not sure we should even bother trying to source it, because it doesn't particularly matter. I suspect it's being mentioned in an attempt to bolster credibility, but it doesn't really have much effect in that direction. For now, I'm removing it. Please do not restore it without first discussing the reliable source here. Dylan Flaherty 17:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

okay thats very reasonable. thank you again for your time and patience is cepxlaining your decisions to me. happy editing!! User:Smith Jones 18:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"avatar"

We're told that Marlee Matlin portrays Amanda, a deaf photographer who acts as the viewer's avatar as she experiences her life from startlingly new and different perspectives, in which "avatar" is linked to Wiktionary, which glosses it as:

1. In Hinduism the incarnation of a deity, particularly Vishnu.
2. The physical embodiment of an idea or concept; a personification.
3. (computing) A digital representation or handle of a person or being; often, it can take on any of various forms, as a participant chooses.

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of image

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

As for the image itself, I am also, obviously, aware that it is a generic image of a glass of water. I do not pretend it is a glass "as seen in the movie". You are free to brush up on the relevant image policies; WP:IMAGES (especially "choice and placement") or related discussions that emerged from Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations. In this case, we are illustrating the claims from the movie made by Masaru Emoto.-Tesseract²(talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The image summarizes nothing, it is a generic photo of a glass of water that has no relation to the subject of this article whatsoever. Further, the caption on that image went well beyond anything the image itself might represent, even claims by Masaru Emoto, becoming a WP:COATRACK for everyhing from the 10 percent myth to 'representing ideas' about various claims in the movie. It's inappropriate all the way around, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with the very guideline you quote from, Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement, where it says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." This image is not relevant to the article and it certainly isn't "significantly and directly related to the article's topic". If you really think the image and caption meet policy and guideline, then find consensus for your changes instead of trying to edit war them in. Dreadstar ☥ 23:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Further, you'll need to provide sources that the image does as you claim, "illustrating the claims from the movie," otherwise it's purely WP:OR. Certainly doesn't look like anything here and if it did, then it would belong in Emoto's article, where it would indeed be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Dreadstar ☥ 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Thanks for your support in the search for a better image. I'm glad it's (mostly) obvious that POV accusations don't make sense here. The article now contains the picture of an actual ice crystal.-Tesseract²(talk) 01:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you've replaced a generic image of a glass of water with a generic image of a snowflake, which also has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, and does not "significantly and directly related to the article's topic." And the caption still goes way beyond what the image purports to illustrate, and have provided no reliable sources which show that the snowflake represents anything in the film, much less what the caption states. It certainly doesn't "illustrate the claims," it's a pretty decoration, nothing more. Please remove it. Dreadstar ☥ 01:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I granted you had a minor case in that the glass of water didn't quite suffice. At this point I am not sure how productive this is. Really, if anyone else has an opinion on this, please share. Consensus would put an end to this either way.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A generic picture of a snowflake is no better than a generic picture of a waterglass. Find an image that actually relates to the claims, or don't include an image. Don't go through a library of various H20 related images playing a game of "it isn't a reversion because I found a different unrelated picture of water." You've edit-warred an addition into the article. That violates our edit-warring policy and WP:BURDEN, which requires you to obtain consensus for additions that have been contested.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The image and caption in question, for the record. The film is largely criticized for mis-representing ideas from quantum physics to justify various claims(e.g. that water's crystalization can be influenced directly by thoughts, or the ten percent myth)

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

I cannot apologize for failing to find the image that you guys would think fits that section at this point. There has been no real discussion, and no real suggestions offered on your sides. Would a supremely relevant image be an actual picture of thoughts changing water? Or maybe an authentic magic ice crystal? In the end you are free to ignore the image policies and repeat "irrelevant" or even "POV" without qualifications. This is the right of consensus. I am, of course, disappointed that the consensus has so far been that simply deleting everything can been deemed an acceptable compromise. I do think Wikipedia loses.-Tesseract²(talk) 14:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It has to illustrate or explain the claims referenced in the caption. It doesn't have to be a picture of reality. Certainly, somewhere in the world, one of the people that believes in this stuff drew a picture of what they believe in.

The best way to avoid getting your contribution deleted is to discuss it before you put it in. The normal flow is what is called WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss. You made a bold effort, and it was reverted because of disagreement. You then discuss it before putting in back in. You don't just keep throwing it back in and then discussing the fact that someone removed it the first time.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lede section

Dreadstar claims that it is WP:OR to use the definition of quantum mysticism this way: [2].

I strongly disagree. I welcome his analysis here.

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

Parked Content:

Original:

...and a narrative that describes the spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness.

Proposed:

... and a narrative to describe a purported spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness (quantum mysticism)

To add the content you are suggesting you would need sources that explicitly support these statements, and you need to summarize the sources and not selectively extract content to make a point which creates a POV. Do we have a source that references What the Bleep and specifically says consciousness in What The Bleep is quantum mysticism. Do we have a source that refs What the Bleep and specifically says there is a spiritiual connection that is purported. I hope that explains the concerns with your edits. (olive (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

I had not noticed this edit with a misleading edit summary, and think we should go back. The anonymous editor is quite right: the current version of the lead implies that there is a spiritual connection between quantum physics and consciousness, and this film describes it. This film cannot "describe" such a connection, because it doesn't exist.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's source what we have to add whatever that may be rather than depend on our opinions.(olive (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

I'm busy tonight but will check in later.(olive (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

What would you have as a source, Littleolive? The change was made long after the one we so painstakingly pounded out as a compromise. The question is the correct verb, which isn't something you are going to find a source for. "Posits" is fairly neutral on the topic of whether the film is right or wrong: it could be taking that position correctly or incorrectly, and "posits" would still describe it. "Describe" is not neutral, as it presumes the existence of the connection.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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

(ec) First, the wording anon propooses juxtaposes "consciousness" with "quantum mysticism" in parentheses as if the the two are the same when they are not, and which is not per sources (OR). Second, anon doesn't have consensus for the change they propose. I do agree that 'posits' should be restored, it was indeed put there by hard-fought consensus, but I don't see 'posit' in any version proposed by anon. The wording of the lead should be as it is here - although I don't believe we need the references repeated in the lede per WP:LEAD, the refs in the body of the article are sufficient. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As for this, that content has nothing to do with the subject of this article and is purely POV, cherry-picked content that does nothing but add bias, and I believe is a violation of WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 23:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the older "posits a relationship" wording. Hopefully that will address the primary concern of the anonymous editor. "Quantum mysticism" does appear in the lead, but it's not such an obvious or important term that it absolutely has to appear in the lead sentence.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Next time do your homework before you support an anon's inappropriate edit. Dreadstar ☥ 01:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the words at the end of the lead are about the spiritual connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness, I moved them up. That is part and parcel of quantum mysticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.90.74 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus for your edit, and I believe you're a sock of a banned editor. Dreadstar ☥ 03:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, but feel free to file a case on WP:SPI where your allegations will be shown to be false. I can prove my identity and I was never User:VanishedUser314159 nor User:ScienceApologist. As for your contention that the edit lacks consensus, the edit seems to be legitimate as a content description of the film. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'm working on SPI now, you're an obvious sock and you have no consensus for your edits. Dreadstar ☥ 04:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Critics

There is not a positive review of the film? Obviously the film especulates about philosophical ideas abduced from quantum mechanics, but considering it "pseudocience" is exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.128.89 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "pseudoscience" is a fairly polite and restrained description of the contents of this film.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

removal of individuals in movie

These are the individuals who speak in the movie. The movie is the definitive source for those in the movie. If you want to remove unsourced content about these individuals and that information is not in the movie fine, but removing the section when the definitive source is the movie doesn't make sense. Whatever the opinion is of the movie if its a Wikipedia artcile we have to describe it properly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC))

Only one of them had a reliable source. Most had no source at all. One is a completely non-notable chiroquacktor, apparently listed as part of his practice- building. Remember, this is a movie packed from beginning to end with bullshit, and those included in the movie roughly divide into three: cranks, charlatans, and people whose words are edited tot he point of being misleading. So why did you revert unsourced puffery back in? Guy (Help!) 23:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

We have to note who spoke in the movie. Very simple. Our opinion of them has nothing to do with whether they were speakers in the movie. To remove them as puffery is a POV. I don't care who they were or are, they spoke in the movie and the movie is the definitive source for whether they were part of this movie or not. Let's not confuse an article on a movie and an opinion of the movie. I agree as I implied above, that if content about those "speakers" is not present in the movie it should be sourced or removed per BLP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC))

No we don't (WP:IINFO), and if we do discuss any of them then we should rely exclusively on those who are considered significant by reliable independent sources. Unsourced material can and should be removed form articles if challenged. I am challenging it. Demonstrate significance, do this by reference to independent sources, easy. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This is kind of strange. They speak in the movie; how more significant can you get. Feel free to challenge and even delete. Its hard to discuss when the policies are being skewed as you are skewing them and when logic is being tossed out the door. (Littleolive oil (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC))

07:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Movie content and synopsis does not require independent sourcing. I believe this is covered by WP:FILMPLOT and WP:FILMCAST. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Everything requires sourcing, if it's likely to be challenged. Local agreement of editors with a common interest does not trump WP:5P. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think that there's merit in mentioning some of the people in the article, but with several caveats. First the people mentioned as featured should be limited to those with articles on Wikipedia, as this is fairly standard with many documentary-style film articles. Secondly, the people should really only be listed if they were extensively featured in the film. If they were only mentioned once for about 1-2 minutes, there's really not a whole lot of reason to heavily feature them in the article. Thirdly, the aforementioned people should be mentioned in the synopsis section, where their contributions can be placed into context. I can see where concerns of puffery came into play, as the featured section goes into the persons' backgrounds and largely doesn't mention how that background is important to the film. Someone could have an extensive and impressive background, but that doesn't always mean that their statements are being made based on their backgrounds, if that makes any sense. To put it in a better explanation, let's say that former President Bill Clinton participated in a documentary about cats and talked about himself as a cat owner (Socks the cat). It's worthwhile to somewhat extensively talk about him being a President in this case since he had Socks while he was in the White House. However at the same time former President George Bush talks about his cat, which he acquired in the last 2-3 years. Him being a President is irrelevant to his cat ownership and while we could put down the term President in front of his name, his being a President does not directly pertain to his opinion on cats. An example taken directly from the article itself would be Fred Alan Wolf, as there's little need to mention his recent book, his film, and each place he's taught - especially since Spirit Space was released four years after WtBDWK. Not only is this redundant to his article (and potentially irrelevant) but it does come across as a little promotional. So basically my recommendation is to merge the list to the synopsis section and only mention their background as it would pertain to the film. It could be done in list format, but it should be something like this:

• Fred Alan Wolf, a theoretical physicist, who spoke about (insert topic here). (I would recommend being more specific on the type of physicist, as like what I've put here.)
• Dean Radin, Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, was interviewed on the topic of (insert topic here).
• JZ Knight, a spiritual teacher who is also identified in the narrative portions as the spirit "Ramtha" that Knight is allegedly channelling. (This is ideally how all interviewees should be listed.)

Another benefit of this is that if any of the interviewed persons later claimed that their statements were taken out of context, this would be an excellent place to include those claims. If they stood by their statements, this could be included as well. However a separate section is somewhat problematic, especially with the way that their pedigrees are presented, since it could potentially be construed as someone trying to make the film appear less controversial. But especially I have to emphasize that there should be a mention of what they discuss to give context. Ideally though, I'd say that it'd be best if the list could be whittled down even further to only include the names of people specifically highlighted in secondary RS about the film, to keep the section from being too lengthy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. My problem is with the resume-padding effect of a list of people some of whom are cranks who look like legitimate researchers (e.g. Radin) and some who are legitimate but misrepresented. Context is everything, your proposal includes context, hence no problem. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree per my cmt above,"I agree as I implied above, that if content about those "speakers" is not present in the movie it should be sourced or removed per BLP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070804000747/http://www.cinefex.com/weeklyupdate/mailings/40_10192004/web.html to http://www.cinefex.com/weeklyupdate/mailings/40_10192004/web.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)