Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?/Sandbox policy discussion/Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 † 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is to contain discussions of policy that were previously happening on the bleep sandbox page. Source presentation and discussion sandbox.

Statements about quantum physics

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. Dreadstar † 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He is an expert himself and he was involved in the movie. In fact, he is probably the best-qualifed individual in the movie. What qualifies as reliable in your book? You seem to be setting the bar incredibly high. 1Z 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not setting any bar, Wikipedia Policy is the bar-setter. Not sure what you expect to get from Albert, but emails to and from you, phone conversations, faxes, anything not published in a reliable source is not content that can be included in Wikipedia.

If you doubt anything I've put forth, please feel free to check with other editors on the relevant policy or guideline talk page, put in for a WP:3O, or any other steps according to the Wikipedia Policy on Resolving disputes. I'm very experienced with the policies I've mentioned here, but, heck, I could be wrong. Please doublecheck me, and set your mind at ease! Heck, I've doublechecked myself in that fashion. And please, assume good faith. Dreadstar † 19:35, 17 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)

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)

I am still far from convinced by the "related to the movie" requirement. It does not seem to be followed elsewhere on WP. 1Z 19:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your position, may I recommend following what I've outlined in this post. Just because other articles "do something" or "don't do something," doesn't necessarily mean this article should or shouldn't do it. We follow the applicable policies and guidelines, not what has been done in other articles. This page is not the right place to discuss this, it is for presenting sources. Dreadstar † 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments item 5

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)

Please review WP:NOR. Dreadstar † 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it still doesn't offer clear support to you interpretation. But here's a funny thing: In a footnote it says: Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. But the crankery is going on in WTB itself.

Fine. I've done my very best to present details and evidence backing my view of WP:NOR, provided supporting comments by a veteran Administrator, and created this sandbox so we could source. I'm done arguing with you. Take it up the chain if you like, but please confine your edits here to sourcing and not policy. I will probably refactor this page to fit it's purpose and move policy comments to appropriate pages. Dreadstar † 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I've been editing Wikipedia for about 2 years now, and this is the first time I've heard of this interpretation of "original research" before. Could be a new thing, though. Bennie Noakes 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy issue has not been closeed. 1Z 14:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this page is not for discussing the policy issues. Policy issues need to be discussed either on the Sandbox policy discussion page, the article's main talk page, or other relevant pages. Dreadstar † 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus at Synthesis dispute. Separating sourcing issues form policy issues would involve ceasing to reject sources that do not meet the disputed policy. 1Z 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is separating the two. The Bleep sandbox is for presenting and discussing new sources for the OR, not for disputing whether or not policy applies to the existing article's content that has been copied there and identified as OR. This does not preclude discussing whether or not a newly presented source meets policy.

There is a distinct differce between the two orders of dispute re: policy as it applies to the live article's sources and content, and the discussion of sources and policy vis-a-vis newly presented sources. I hope this clarifies matters! Dreadstar † 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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: 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)

I can't find any specific reference to "letter to the editor" on WP:RS. Please specify where you got this guideline from. 1Z 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's similar to a blog entry. Dreadstar † 17:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly a communication from a relevant and notable figure which is quoted on a blog-like web site. 1Z 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are largely not accepted as sources. It looks as though you're quoting something from a policy or guideline, if so can you point out where it's from? Thanks! Dreadstar † 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not Albert's blog. The material being referenced was not written by the blogger.1Z 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It would actually be better coming from Albert's own blog, if he has one - although even that would be questionable. Review WP:V. Dreadstar † 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and websites of authoritative figues are mentioned as acceptable.1Z 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In some circumstances, yes. But I don't see how that applies here. In that particular policy, it states:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article.".."caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so"

The current source is not Albert's own site, it is a blog that purports to be publishing a comment from Albert.

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

Factual errors section

• For these corrections to be included, we need to find a source who had made these corrections in relation to the film i.e. a film review that said what this section is saying.
• None of the sources included below contain the information required per the above, new and proper sources need to be found for each claim.

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. [1]

References