Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • King, Mike (2008). "What the Bleep and Indigo". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 162–165. ISBN 0786439882.

removal of individuals in movie[edit]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

Revert[edit]

@Jman2311: The claim of "public government disclosure" is a conspiracy theory in itself. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F&oldid=1195556020"