Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Glaring Omissions in this Unthoughtful Article

Clearly this article presents ID as an incorrect theory, and goes on and on and on attempting to support that end. By using quotes and references of other critics, the article effectively creates its own voice while simultaneously pretending to be merely citing third party sources. In short, this article attempts to have its cake, and eat it too. Let me state that I am a staunch believer in Darwinian evolution, generally a skeptical theist, and a nuclear engineer.

This article, however, attempts to pin intelligent design down as basically Darwin's ill-equipped opponent, while in reality ID covers topics far beyond the scope of evolution (an area where I oppose ID theory). For example, the physical constants of the universe - the force of gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the various electromagnetic forces - all appear to be at the exact right levels as to permit a universe abundant in hydrogen and carbon, capable of producing heavy atoms, and in which planetary bodies form and rotate around one another (among many other things). The average person does not appreciate how miniscule an error the physical constants had in creating a habitable universe (in essence they have no room for error). The research done to this end has been extremely extensive, with some of the world’s most powerful super-computer simulations also concluding that end. Gravity, for example, seems to be at the exact right level to allow for the longest possible gradual expansion of the universe before reaching its critical point of exponentially increasing expansion. If it had been different, the universe could easily have never expanded after the big bang, having instantly imploded in on itself. The same goes for the nuclear forces - the fact that these forces are at a degree in which atoms form at all as a result of nuclear bonding appears by any measure to be miraculous, at least to anyone who cares weather or not they were born. Why isn't the universe merely a sea of chaotic subatomic plasma? Or merely one all-encompassing black hole? Or one of an infinite number of other uninhabitable realities?

Now, you could argue that the above paragraph has little to do with the movie and is more of an argument for or against parts of ID. However, if you take that stance, then you must also apply it to the points where the present article presents ID as an evolutionist-only argument and then cites sources from the Scientific American (and others) putting it down. This is the straw man fallacy and obviously has no place on Wikipedia. One example is when the article states that “John Rennie describes intelligent design as ‘a notion which firmly states that at one or more unspecified times in the past, an unidentified designer who might or might not be God somehow created whole organisms, or maybe just cells, or maybe just certain parts of cells—they're still deciding and will get back to you on that.’” This is clearly a straw man and a mischaracterization of ID in which the article’s writer attempts to appear unbiased by producing a quote that fits his/her views and then providing a source to it, as if that makes it an intellectually responsible inclusion. I strongly urge a complete overhaul of this loaded article and a re-characterization of ID theory to include more than merely evolutionary theories.

Finally, I would like to address the article’s claims that ID does not lead to additional hypotheses, or additional testable theories, etc. This is not only a loaded statement, but another straw man, and one in which the article uses intellectually unscrupulous quotes to further support its own dogma. Suppose we live a universe that has been fine-tuned by some intelligence, presumably “God,” and that the most fundamental physical realities of science is determined to support that end. It is a small and close-minded individual who does not believe that this would completely change the face of science itself, and the very way we look at nature. The universe would suddenly take on a whole new meaning, in which physical matters, metaphysical matters, philosophical scruples over purpose, objective considerations on “good” and “evil,” and countless other “unscientific” and “scientific” musings would converge into one umbrella discipline seeking nothing but truth, in addition to “God’s” purpose, meaning, and intent, and how best to live within the intelligently molded universe. Further suppose for a moment that the universe is teaming with intelligent life, and that at some point in mankind’s journey that becomes plainly clear. How would this rock the scientific boat? Suppose now that these other advanced intelligences were spiritually oriented, respected the sanctity of intelligent life, had no interest in harming us, and were focused on attaining fraternity and brotherhood with other intelligent races. How would that rock the scientific boat? They may sound ridiculous to some, but these thought experiments are necessary in order to understand where these mega-theories concerning religion and science fit into the larger picture of life, and to say that their truth or untruth is of no consequence – that is to say, produces no new hypotheses – is utterly absurd. I beg that this wikipedia article be revised by some new editor(s) to reflect either an open-minded outlook on reality, or one that does not straw man ID into the ground. Thank you. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to familiariaze yourself with intelligent design prior to giving a sermon on it. Having a fundamental understanding of what constitutes science would be just as helpful. Also the talk page is where we discuss how to imporve the article, not a place to share your worldview. Thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to share what part of the article indicated that I am unfamiliar with intelligent design instead of offering this nebulous offhanded remark suggesting I am somehow deficient as to its meaning. I presume your choice of the loaded word "sermon" to describe my post is meant as yet another off-handed attack. Instead of using such miring terminology, why not specifically state where you believe my post diverges from what it ought to be? I'm quite sure I made it clear in what ways I wanted the article improved, but I have little doubt that you did not carefully read my post in its entirety. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not a place for us to debate worldviews or even sloppy thinking. Nor are we here to correct people's mistaken perceptions. Blogs are great for that. You might try www.uncommondescent.com or www.pandasthumb.org or even After the Bar Closes] Best of luck to you! Angry Christian (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"why not specifically state where you believe my post diverges from what it ought to be?" Starting with "Clearly" and ending with "Thank you". ID is a Fairy tale and anti-science, end of discussion. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian is correct. You argue, for example, that "the article’s claims that ID does not lead to additional hypotheses". In fact, the article does not claim this. Rather it quotes reliable sources who claim this, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Please understand the distinction. Another example is the quote by John Rennie, which indeed is an accurate description of ID. How is it inaccurate, let alone a Straw Man? And how have you concluded that this stemmed from intent on the part of the editor who added it? Rennie is qualified to speak about the film, and so the inclusion of that quote is valid. Nightscream (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To angry Christian: Yet wikipedia is a place for snobbish remarks such as "sloppy thinking" and "mistaken perceptions?" Would your only response to my post be on concerning whatever you believe my worldview to be? If so, that is very odd. In an article that does its best to undermine ID, I find it odd that the talk page somehow bans discussion regarding its validity, while no other articles in wikipedia enjoy such immunity. To Nightscream: If you read my initial paragraph, I clearly state that the article consistently uses third party quotes to develop its own voice in its opposition to ID (having its cake and eating it too). If the article offered reasonable quotes in support of ID with anywhere near the frequency of the negatives, then I would have no problem with it, but it does not. You are correct that an encyclopedia must quote sources, but quoting other men's words in a selective manner and passing them off as truth without their logical refute is not what an encyclopedia does. I fully explained why John Rennie's description of ID is inaccurate, had you read my whole post, I explain that ID encompasses more than evolution, which ironically Wikipedia's own ID page makes clear. I go on to explain one aspect of ID that has nothing to do with evolution. Do you understand why this is a straw man? (Thank you nightscream for positing a real argument, I appreciate that.) 76.177.211.28 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No more food!

One last comment, you might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia as well. In the meantime can someone slap the "Don't Feed the Troll" tag here and then let's move on and wish our friend well? Angry Christian (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, as requested. One parting thought – as Judge Jones wisely said, ID may be true, but it's a religious view and not science. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dave, I'll copy that tag so I don't misplace it again. Angry Christian (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that I'm being silenced by a group who have not even taken the time to read what I posted. Hopefully a decent editor outside this groupthink circle will stumble accross it before it gets buried too far down the page. Since the movie came out only yesterday, and google brings up wikipedia's article high in the search list, this article's likely aim of quelling the movie's ticket sales (since I can come up with no other motive for this odd behavior that is so unlike this community) will already be accomplished at that point, won't it? Best to you, angrychristian. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm always amused when people talk ad nauseam about how they are being "silenced". Anyways, you aren't being "silenced", you're being told why your comments are both misplaced and wrong. There's a difference. -- HiEv 22:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Interesting, and where was I told why? One comment from nightscream, which I refuted. Yet again you did not read the above post nor the following discussion. I understand it is more expedient to avoid reading something when you can just as easily presume its content, but that should not be the habit of an editor, professional or otherwise. Interestingly enough, many of the below discussions contain experienced editors that largely agree with what I've said. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Yet again you did not read the above post nor the following discussion." Did God design your psychic powers or did they evolve? You want my motives they are very simple; the promotion of Knowledge, ID is the exact opposite. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How is ID the exact opposite? We should just present the facts and let readers decide what is true and what is false. ID is not the exact opposite of knowledge; ignorance is. Now, is that what you're calling us? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually want me to answer that? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I beleive that was the implication of my post. In other words, yes. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

self removed. Told you you did not want me answer that.^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is borderline unbelievable. In the very first paragraph of my post, I state that I am a believer in Darwinian evolution. ID, however, goes BEYOND evolution, there are parts of ID that have NOTHING to do with evolution. I then go on to describe one example. Hypno, read what I wrote, at least up to the final paragraph, before presuming my beliefs. That goes for everyone else stumbling in on this. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"ID, however, goes BEYOND evolution" With the same watchmakers' arguement, i have no problem with ID being taught in theology classes, science classes is another matter. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be taught in science classes because scientific data supports our claims! RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "where was I told why?" Among other comments about why your comments were misplaced, Angry Christian said, "this is not a place for us to debate worldviews", and that is why your comments are misplaced here. You're debating about ID and evolution, which is off-topic here. As the top of the page notes, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article" and "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Details about why you are wrong about ID are also off-topic here, but links were given, so everyone should stop debating this here, and get back to discussing how to improve the article. As for "yet again you did not read...", I did read and also this is the first time we've talked so you're way off base there. (Note: Section rightly archived while I was composing this comment.) -- HiEv 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The watchmaker argument is clear nonsense and has nothing to do with what I've said. That the universe exists is hard to refute. That it allows for the creation, and in fact common creation, of atoms, of heavy elements, of all elements in hospitable proportion, with no fundamental force outstripping the others, for the Big Bang to not implode or become a gelatinous plasma of subatomic particles, is a fascinating observation. It is also a part of ID theory. If this article is going to be used as a soap box to attack evolutionary ID theory, it ought to first admit that ID theory consists of more than evolutionary implications. Please do not devolve into a debate on evolution when that has nothing to do with my post nor my critique of the article in its present state. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"of all elements in hospitable proportion" Classic watchmaker arguement. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

76, I indeed read your entire post, and I do not see where you corrected Rennie's (albeit somewhat sarcastic) definition of ID as it pertains to the film. You mention WP's ID article. But this article isn't supposed to explain ID, or the POV of its proponents, except in relation to the film (a point I direct to both you and Hypnosadist, which is most certainly not the "end" of the discussion). Rennie's quote references the film, which is why it's pertinent. I also read the entire article, and do not see a dearth of balanced quotes from ID proponents. Indeed, since the film itself is pro-ID and anti-evolution, and the article details its contents at length, I think the ID POV is well represented. I also do not see how the phrases "sloppy thinking" or "mistaken perceptions" constitute "snobbery" in the context in which Angry Christian used them. You also mention that WP "bans discussion" here. That is false. The issue is that Talk Page are restricted to discussion on the topic of the article, which is a perfectly appropriate rule, and not a "ban". If you want to discuss ID, there are numerous places on the Net to do so, but WP isn't it, unless it's the WP article on ID that doesn't represent ID accurately. You were told this above, so I'm not sure why you asked where it was that you were told "why" your arguments were misplaced. You also say that you're being silenced. How so? You're posting here, aren't you? We're responding to you directly and in detail rather than deleting or vandalizing your posts, aren't we? Lastly, although it's not required, I humbly request, as a suggestion, that you create a username account. It's free, takes mere seconds, and makes it easier for others to address you than with "76.177.211.28". :-)

To Hypnosadist: Regarding your "ignorent/stupid/lieing at worst mentally ill" comment: Please cease such uncivil comments to others immediately. And to you, RC-0722 and 76.177, please try to restrict your discussion to this article. If you want to discuss EvC, please take it elsewhere, such as here. I'm the moderator of the Political Musings boards at Nitcentral, and as long as you keep it civil (it's a family-friendly site), you have an invitation from me. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I said they didn't want me to answer that question. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry people find my views offensive but now you know how offensive i find ID/Creationist views. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer nightscream but i have no time for a dialogue with the deaf as Archbishop Tutu would say. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, I'm pushed for time but I'll create an account name in the near future. I'll try to respond concisely because I feel this discussion may get out of hand in length as tends to occur on the net. First, there is no such thing as a definition of one thing as it pertains to something else. A definition is a definition is a definition. The ID WP page offers a reasonable definition of ID, for example. That this article deems that such a definition as Rennie's is fit for public consumption by not even bothering to correct it or comment on it troubles me. Rennie is probably one of the most politically and publicly interested persons that could be chosen to define Intelligent Design, and this article acts as though this isn't the case and that his definition is suitable. This further exacerbates the issue. That the article plainly attacks ID, when it should be discussing the film itself, does not bother me so much as the fact that it does so without explaining what ID actually is. Can you at least understand why this would bother me? It appears intellectually dishonest to do so and I hope that at least you will attempt to see why I would say so. If you don't see how "sloppy thinking" etc. is snobbish then I have to wonder at how honest you are being with me here. I'll leave it at that. Instead of saying "silenced" etc I should have added "attempted" or "hopeful" to the beginning, you are correct. So far you have been fairly civil, which I appreciate. And you are right, this shouldn't be the place to discuss ID, the problem, however, is that whoever wrote the article has decided that the article is an appropriate place to discuss it, and since I'm talking about the article, and the article discusses it, then I am free to discuss it here. The article should focus on the film, but as long as it delves into ID so much as it does, it is fair game. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Nightscream, I've created an account and this is it. Also, I've already had to bring this article back form deletion, so to suggest that it hasn't been deleted is a bit silly. Eagle Dustoff (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "deleted", it was archived. See Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 4 where it was moved because most of this discussion is almost entirely off-topic, as was explained to you earlier. Please restrict yourself on this talk page to comments on how to improve the article, and remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thank you. -- HiEv 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out to Hypno that this has nothing to do with the watchmaker argument, so please stop bringing it up. We do not need to go into a discussion of the validity of ID, I do not think. The watchmaker argument, as stated by WP, is: 1 - The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer. 2 - As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer. As you can see, I am not talking about complexity in any shape or form, I'm talking merely about the nature of various laws of physics. The watchmaker argument is grounded in a discussion over complexity requiring intelligence, but complexity has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about when I offered an example of ID outside of evolution. Eagle Dustoff (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Eagle, thanks for creating an account. As to this comment: "There is no such thing as a definition of one thing as it pertains to something else", perhaps you misunderstand the point I was making. An article on this film isn't supposed to define ID. It is only supposed to contain info that pertains to that film. Because Rennie mentioned the film in the quote in question, it's a reasonable inclusion, because reaction to the film by people considered experts in the field in question is valid. But uncontextualized definitions, inserted because an editor upset with either the film or reaction to it, is not, because it would violate WP: NPOV and WP: POINT. The article only deems Rennie's comment "fit for public consumption" because it is an opinion expressed in reaction to the article's topic by a reliable source. It is not because WP deems it a reasonable or accurate definition of the term, because that is outside the scope of Wikipedia's purview. Indeed, the fact t hat numerous critics claim that the film itself doesn't define either evolution or ID further makes an attempt to define those things outside our scope as editors. Why should we or the article define these things if the movie or its critics don't? That's what the reader has wikilinks for. As far as the accusation that the article attacks ID itself, can you provide examples? I did not think that "sloppy thinking" or "mistaken perceptions" were intended by Angry Christian to be snobbish because I thought he was referring to third parties that you feared would be incorrectly influenced by what you asserted as the article's inaccuracies. I could be wrong, though. Christian, can you clarify? If you were indeed directing those comments at Eagle, I would caution you not to use such language, as it violates WP: Civility. As for the Talk Page blanking, it was wrong, and I'm going to issue a warning to Mackan79, but it appears that his motive was something other than to "silence" you, in part because he deleted everyone's comments, and not just yours.Nightscream (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of this was unclear? Moving on...
[this unsigned picture & comment was added 04:04-04::04, 22 April 2008 by User:Skittle}

It's fairly clear that the page is biased against the movie it is dedicated too. Just skimming over the article, the tone towards the movie is extremely negative, because it piles on criticism after criticism. It would simply be a lot better if all of the criticism were located under a single "Criticisms" or "Controversies" subtopic, instead being strung throughout the article over and over again. Isn't this what is normally done in similar situations? 129.110.116.65 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Errors in need of correction

The current page claims legal trouble over "Imagine," yet there has been no lawsuit or cease and desist--and was the song even used in the final version of the movie?

It also claims that no license was obtained for The Killers song, but this is not true--a license was obtained, though under false pretenses by using a description of the project that failed to mention evolution or intelligent design. The Killers allegedly attempted to revoke the permission, but too late.

The copyright/plagiarism section is out-of-date. The final version of the film omitted the footage that was copied from XVIVO's film.

The Rotten Tomatoes freshness rating is out-of-date. Last I looked, they have 2 positive reviews of 22. One of the positive reviews is from Christianity Today, and it is not entirely a positive review. Lippard (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cordelia Dean's anti-ID POV comes first.

"Overview" opens with Dean's point of view that ID = creationism. To any reader with any knowledge of the controversy, it is the tipoff that the rest of article reflects an anti-ID bias. Shouldn't the "overview" at least present the producers view of the controversy before presenting the anti-ID Dean etal. view. patsw (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

how is ID not creationism? Of course Wikipedia gives more weight to the "anti-ID view": the reason being that ID is bogus (WP:DUE). dab (𒁳) 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Due doesn't say that. However, it is more or less irrelevant, since the majority viewpoint is quite clear (and it isn't even just a majority but a vast majority. See for example Kitzmiller v. Dover). Wikipedia cares about verifiability not truth. In this case, the verifiable reliable sources are quite explicit. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who are such frantic editors and want a nice "clean" article, this is what happens when you remove background and contextural sources. We had of course 10 or 20 sources in the article at one time that showed overwhelming support for this statement of Cornelia Dean. But assorted driveby editors, frantic to make the article only about the film and not about ID, or make it less cluttered or remove footnotes, or reduce the amount of COATRACKing, took this material out. And over and over and over, experience shows that this leads to the kind of ridiculous statement as we see above. So, just try to learn a bit.--Filll (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What does support (make that "overwhelming support") for Dean's anti-ID advocacy by an anti-ID editing cabal have to do with making a good Wikipedia article on the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Why does Dean's POV come first in the "Overview"? patsw (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not an answer to my question. What does support (make that "overwhelming support") for Dean's anti-ID advocacy by an anti-ID editing cabal have to do with making a good Wikipedia article on the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Why does Dean's POV come first in the "Overview"? patsw (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It comes first because of the principles of WP:NPOV under which Wikipedia operates.--Filll (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to assert that the neutral point of view on intelligent design (as Dean claims) is that it is the same as creationism, as principle of the Wikipedia, then I did not get the memo. Also, So, just try to learn a bit is incivil, condescending, and bullying.

What does support (make that "overwhelming support") for Dean's anti-ID advocacy by an anti-ID editing cabal have to do with making a good Wikipedia article on the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? Why does Dean's POV come first in the "Overview"? patsw (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting from WP:VPP, but I think you're misreading what is meant by "overwhelming support"; it's not the overwhelming support of Wikipedia editors, but rather of the scientific community. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who want to join a meta-discussion on whether equating intelligent design with creationism is a point of view or a principle, I have started one on WP:VPP.

The unwarranted abuse of WP:CIVIL that is in this phrase "So, just try to learn a bit is incivil, condescending, and bullying" is decidedly inappropriate and continued similar argumentation might be subject to administrative sanction.--Filll (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's not an abuse, because it was incivil, condescending and bullying for you to have written "So, just try to learn a bit", at least as I understand those words. I think it was appropriate for me to point it out in order to assist you in avoiding your own administrative sanction. I don't see an upside for you in bringing it up again, even defending "So, just try to learn a bit" as civil, collaborative, and friendly in the best Wikipedia spirit, rather than just moving on; I have no interest in a feud or answering a threat with a threat.
• If your intent in writing "So, just try to learn a bit" was to to be civil, collaborative, and friendly in the best Wikipedia spirit, please accept my sincere apology as it was a misunderstanding, even though I have close to 3,000 edits since 2004, I'm sure I have much to learn. patsw (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see evidence of some confusion here. But you are welcome to continue to argue that the New York Times does not constitute a reliable source. I have had enough. Cheers! --Filll (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe what used to be in the lead of this section was the explicit definition of intelligent design as defined on the Expelled website. It went something like:

"The film promotes intelligent design — the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes. On their website they define intelligent design as "blah blah blah"

And a souce was given. Note they use the Discovery Institute's definition. Anyhow, THEN the article weighed in on the science, educational and legal opinions. It was very NPOV and educational for that matter. It informed the reader. Why did we remove that? Angry Christian (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That earlier version is here, AC. I agree it's significantly better, though it would still be improved by taking entirely from sources about the movie. But certainly it's a step back to something better. Mackan79 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote that I consider the New York Times to be an unreliable source. I have often used it in my own edits. I only question why Cordelia Dean's anti-ID POV comes first in the "Overview" discussing the context of the film. I have learned a bit and know why the normal Wikipedia editing policies don't apply in articles where editors are advocates for something such as Darwinism that currently has achieved scientific consensus. patsw (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiight. Not particularly compelling frankly, and I think I have been properly put on notice that it is unproductive to engage with you in dialogue. Thanks for your input. --Filll (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it is not encyclopedic to criticize something that is never even defined. The article (this section is no exception) should provide details on what Ben Stein is promoting and then give voice to others. In this case Ben has a specific definition of ID and that should be in the lead of this section. And THEN have members from education, science, law, etc weigh in on what Ben's peddling. This is an intelligent design movie so it makes good sense to shed some light on their take on intelligent design. Angry Christian (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire first paragraph of this section does not even have a single quote or cite from Ben and company and instead launches into the discovery institute. The way it reads now the intro simply alleges Ben and Co. are promoting ID. Can anyone justify why Ben's definition of ID is not appropriate for the section that makes a case he's promoting ID? If you cannot then I'll add that back into the article, or someone else can. Angry Christian (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is Ben's definition of ID? Since he's a primary source, ideally we need a secondary source commenting on his definition. As I recall, he complains about ID proponentsists being persecuted without ever saying what ID means. See the Scientific American review, iirc. Of course it's stated above that something resembling the DI's "definition" appeared fleetingly on the Exposed main page, but we don't have a reliable source for that, and the "definition" is a masterpiece of incoherent spin. Find a good source and we can put it in the context of the majority scientific view of what it means.. dave souza, talk 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave you'll find the previous version with the expelled definition here (as well as the source) And yes, I think we should provide Expelled's definition and then have secondary sources comment on it. I have no idea why this was removed in the first place. Angry Christian (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I just checked the link and they have moved some stuff on that page, their definition is no longer there. As you can see in the previous version it is verbatim the DI's definition except they add a qualifier. Odd since I'm the one who found it in the first place. Damn this means I have to go dipsy dumpster diving at the expelled site to find it again. I'd rather have a root canal. Angry Christian (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I did a google search of their site and it appears they have deleted the definition of ID they previously published. So all bets are off on including their definition. That said we should still quote as best we can what exactly been is calling ID before we criticize him for doing so. The lead sentence to me is dreadfully POV since ben doesn't offer anything in the entire first paragraph. Angry Christian (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The NCSE page on ID in the film describes various contradictory or inconsistent definitions being used, depending on who's talking. Needs a bit more consideration, perhaps we can condense something out of that. Filll refers below to some possible sources, but care has to be taken with primary sources as they seem to be going out of their way to avoid being pinned down on a definition. .. dave souza, talk 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I believe Stein and/or the film company give their definition in several of the dozens of interviews we have, and in the blog on the subject and in assorted promotional material. Definitions are also provided in some of the reviews of the film, because just as we should, they want to provide context so that the reader can understand the topic.--Filll (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Like a turd in the U-bend

Nature editor says that intelligent design is "like a turd in the u-bend, it just won't go away" [1].--Filll (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Must we discuss every new review? Saksjn (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's face it, we cannot describe more than a tiny fraction of the reviews and articles out there. And we have room for even less material for that in our article. But this one I thought was particularly notable and somewhat humorous. --Filll (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Humorous, yes, notable, why? Saksjn (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This review does nothing but trash the premise of the film. It doesn't talk about the content of the film at all. Saksjn (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The content and premise are different. Huh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Premise was a bad word. A better description would have been to say the film trashes the events surrounding the film. The review still doesn't even mention anything in the film. I wonder if the writer even saw the film. Saksjn (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this is a reliable source. He has written a scathing review. So...--Filll (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But if the review doesn't even talk about the content of the film, why do we need it? Saksjn (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NCSE expelled exposed site links Christine Comer case

The NCSE site has linked Expelled to Christine Comer and included a video: [2]. Do we mention this? Sounds appropriate to me.--Filll (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it is of her teaching, a concise summary would be useful, as a contrast to Expelled's claims about her 'persecution'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Caroline Crocker?Filll (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eep -- so I was. Comer is a more delicate issue, as the point is that she (and people in a similar situation to her) are not in the film. We really need a WP:RS to explicitly state that -- the fact that a video of her is on an NCSE site entitled 'Expelled Exposed' isn't really enough of a connection. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A video based on Expelled's trailer? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we need a WP:RS to state that it is based upon (and presumably is thus a parody and/or rebuttal of) the trailer (a Scienceblogs would probably do for this very minor point -- it doesn't have to be the NYT). Otherwise the WP:SYNTH-police will almost certainly nab us. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So if Comer isn't even in expelled, why do we need to mention this? Saksjn (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate because (1) reliable sources connect the two (2) it is a real provable documented example of discrimination and consequences associated with ID, just the opposite case than the film wants to make instead of the spurious madeup cases presented in the film, where the filmmakers are lying.--Filll (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

DI Campaigns

Why do the DI campaigns need to be mentioned. If you have a good reason I'll likely agree. Saksjn (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's another attempt by DI to push ID? And I don't think we have to convince you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the DI several times without ever explicitly mentioning their role. This seems a rather important omission. What role, if any, did they play in the making of this movie? Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the filming company and the DI are complementary but not too closely related:

• Discovery Institute fellows appear in the movie; no regular creationists appear

• Filming was done at the Discover Institute for the film

• The Discovery Institute has interviewed the producers repeatedly since at least last August if not before, over and over and then posted the interviews

• The Discovery Institute has written article after article promoting the movie.

Claims that the Discovery Institute is funding this movie appear to be completely nonsensical.--Filll (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be an original research issue here. I don't see any direct connection between them and no reliable secondary source has made a strong connection between the two. There might be cause to mention the DI's reactions and responses since it is the hub of the ID movement, but we should be careful. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are sourcing issues here, but nothing that I've seen described as presented in the film to date has not been lifted straight out of the DI playbook. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still no reliable secondary source that proves that expelled is a DI campaign. Simply assuming that it is because of similar strategies is original research in its fullest extent. Saksjn (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Soapbox

This article is being used as a soapbox by people who want to push an anti ID POV. It is confused, and focuses on the ID movement constantly. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me what continues to be overlooked is the extent this needs to be seen as an article about a movie, not about ID. In this context, WP:SYN is clear that any discussion in the article needs to be specifically about the film. I'd like to think of an exception, but I don't think there are any; if content relies on a source that is not about the film, then it shouldn't be here, end of story. If that were fixed, I think the steady stream of disgruntled readers would stop coming through, at least at the current rate. Mackan79 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008

(UTC)

I beg to differ. After 1.5 years of experience on articles similar to this such as intelligent design and creationism and irreducible complexity and Discovery Institute, the only way that this article would not be constantly attacked by anti-science zealots as we tried to build it would be if it were a religious recruiting tract telling all readers they would go to hell if they did not believe in Jesus. At least that is my impression.--Filll (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've edited in a lot of contentious areas as well, Filll, for a similar period of time. I've also seen the "if we didn't" argument, and disagree that it's the right way to go about things. This was argued forcefully by one editor on Cult, that the article had to start with 17 dictionary definitions or else someone would come and insert something incorrect about what is or isn't a cult. Is this a way to write an article? I think there are more than enough science-minded editors here to keep others from coming in and rewriting the article to support ID, without having to resort to general sources. Criticism of the movie, specifically, should be the focus, not other types, and with so much of it I don't know why we don't simply rely on it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah in your four thousand some odd edits in over 2 years time? I see. You are free to try to lecture the rest of us. But somehow your arguments are not really informed by much experience and are not really particularly compelling. But thanks anyway.--Filll (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please pardon if I won't compete with you over experience. The issue is WP:SYN, which is one part of a fundamental Wikipedia policy. I think it would be helpful if people discussed this issue, as it is currently a significant problem with the article. Mackan79 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiiiight. The issue is, this has been repeatedly addressed and dismissed. I do not believe you have consensus. But feel free to continue. I do not find it particularly compelling.--Filll (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'all mean the film isn't about ID? Reliable source for that? .. dave souza, talk 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the film is about ID, or at least focuses on it primarily. However, this article is about the film, just as Sicko is about that film and not about the health care industry. To include independent paragraphs and commentary in that article on the health care industry would be the same problem. This comes directly from WP:SYN: "...if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." People have been disregarding it here, but I think there is wide agreement for this across Wikipedia, and that this is why so many people are arriving to complain. If it would be settled, I think the article would be improved a great deal. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"if content relies on a source that is not about the film, then it shouldn't be here, end of story." WRONG! Per WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Shoemaker's_Holiday. Here's the relevant section from Wikipedia's official policy:

The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:

• Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."
• Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

It is thus incorrect to characterize ID as pseudoscience in Wikipedia articles, and incorrect to apply policies that are based on such a characterization. We all know that ID has a following within the scientific community. It matters not whether that following is tiny or large, for the purpose of Wikipedia's definition of "pseudoscience." The fact that ID has a following in the scientific community means that means it is not pseudoscience. NCdave (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that is nonsense. ID is not an "alternative theoretical formulation", and it does not have "a following within the scientific community", nuch less "a substantial following". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The following for ID in the scientific community is vanishingly small. And mainly these people are producing complete nonsense and their claims are easily refuted as garbage. --Filll (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, assuming I were a new reader to this page, I wouldn't know who was telling the truth because none of you provide foundation for your claims. NCdave, is there evidence to show ID has a following in the scientific community? Filll and Stephan Shulz, do you have the vice versa? Personally I don't know either way, but it would be helpful if half the claims that were made on this talk page had some sort of foundational backing. The way it is, all I've seen are a lot of blatantly vague generalities. Raecoli (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Raecoli, you know, we had dozens of sources for that in this article. And guess what? People like yourself showed up, and complained bitterly that it makes the article ugly or whatever and declare that they have to "clean it up" and cut it down blah blah blah. And soon we have no sources. And then people come and say, well you have no sources and then spew more nonsense because they doubt everything that has no source (especially if they have some sort of ideological axe to grind).

You cannot have it both ways; you cannot demand sources and demand that the sources be removed at the same time. I have noted this several times here on this talk page. And I get VERY tired of driveby editors essentially destroying the article, then complaining that the article is a mess after they have destroyed it. I have rewritten it top to bottom twice; I have edited the article twice as much as anyone else. I am the one responsible for its high google ranking. And I do not feel like trying to clean it up again so you guys can ruin it again in a few hours. I will wait until things have died down and then maybe I will consider it. But frankly, this sort of complaint gets extremely annoying.--Filll (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I'm trying to get along here, but the way you keep making these comments makes me wonder how familiar you are with policies and guidelines such as WP:NOR, WP:CIV, WP:BITE, and WP:OWN. I think you may underestimate a. other editors and b. the extent of Wikipedia culture that has grown up over several years. You've clearly done a lot for this article and others, and are clearly trying to keep it in shape, but one can only go it alone for so long on a Wiki without listening to others, not all of whom are partisans or going to ruin the article. Mackan79 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Filll, you're way out of line. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's compare editing records, shall we GusChiggins21? And what pray tell am I out of line on? On insisting that we follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR by stating what is in our sources? Interesting...--Filll (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's compare penis size! Your misuse of NPOV to push an atheist POV doesn't mean youre right. NEUTRAL point of view, not MAJORITY point of view. Furthermore your premise for misusing NPOV, namely that the majority agrees with you, is totally off base. Almost no one who isn't a scientist or atheist supports the "NPOV" you're pushing. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a good source, and there's a few polls floating around - one's linked in the article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we define pseudoscience -- I have no problem calling ID pseudoscience or not science at all -- but the real issue is that this is an article about a film, not about ID. It can't possibly be meant that any time a film mentions something that is regarded as pseudoscience, Wikipedia steps in and informs the public as much. The point is that an article about ID itself, or some aspect of it, should always give appropriate weight to the predominant view. Applying this to a movie requires us to include criticism of the movie, including to the extent it criticizes any argument in the movie, but can't require or allow us to go beyond that without violating NOR. Mackan79 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that as appropriate when discussing a propoganda piece, where every review we have is mainly discussing the science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but then why are we relying on external sources? What this should mean is that we rely on those sources and report what they say. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

why are we relying on external sources? This is what Wikipedia does. It relies on external sources. What this should mean is that we rely on those sources and report what they say. And that is what we do. So?--Filll (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the vagueness, the question is why use sources not about the movie, when sources that discuss the movie fully cover the controversy. I admit this is more my defense of the NOR policy than anything else, which I provide so I won't look like the "synth police," and because I think it's a matter of article quality as much as it is policy. With respect, I think this also derives somewhat from science editors working on a movie article, which needs a different approach to make a good article. Mackan79 (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the premise of the film is about science. Try as you might, you can't really separate one from the other, can you now. Odd nature (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The requirement for defining pseudoscience for our purposes is set out in NPOV: Pseudoscience, and as for calling it pseudoscience in the article, we need a reliable source using that term. Of course we can just call it junk science thanks to Fox...... dave souza, talk 23:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And why is this even a point of discussion. The movie is about Intelligent design. Period. Case closed. The fat lady has already sung and is now drinking a beer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Until you demonstrate that you've read the WP:NPOV policy and understand [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight|the clause] that requires that articles should represent all significant published viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each and are not requried togive minority views as much or as detailed a description as majority views, there's little in your comment here for us to consider. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is arguing around and around the mulberry bush with the same issues over and over in slightly different guises. It is like a bad example of WP:BAIT. And tedious with all kinds of spurious accusations being bandied about of supposed violations of this or that. Really it is not nice to do that. And frankly, it is inadvisable to try to game the system. --Filll (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful in my view if either of you would address the issue of WP:NOR. As I've tried to explain, the problem with this view on WP:NPOV is that it forgets what this article is actually about. In terms of the system, my understanding is that WP:NOR is "non-negotiable," which means that at some point we need to figure out how to make this article comply with the policy, and in which case I believe we'll also have a better article and people will stop complaining. I imagine it looks like I'm baiting, because I'm trying to respond civilly about this issue even when people are throwing insults this way and that, but the problem is if we're all just throwing insults at each other, nothing gets done. My question in any case is how we can get the article in compliance with WP:NOR, and make a better article that also complies with WP:NPOV. If it keeps dragging out we can try again to seek outside input, but since it seems entirely clear to me that this will help and make a better article, I don't know why people don't just make a little effort to consider the problem that person after person keeps raising. Mackan79 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, you have failed to quote the relevant section from Wikipedia's official policy. Here it is:

Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

ID is analogous to astrology, according to ID proponent Michael Behe in the Kitzmiller trial. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to get involved here but I must point out an error in Orangemarlin's comment. The film is not about ID, it's about incidents in which several scientists have been discriminated against for their belief in it. It is also about the alleged societal ills caused by evolution.Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the film is about the very thin premise of discrimination against ID among academia, it is about ID, it is about linking evolution with abortion and euthanasia and the Holocaust and Nazis and Communism and atheism, it is about free speech and so on. In fact, if the controversies continue, I suspect we are almost ready for a fork.--Filll (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow we'll get to see what exactly is in the film. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really hilarious the justifications that are being used for using this article as a soapbox. So, because scientists have some level of consensus about ID, that means we can rail against it in an article about a documentary? Even though we don't evaluate the content of other documentaries in their articles? And even though almost no one outside of scientists and atheists DOESN'T believe in a design theory? Grow some intellectual integrity, guys. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong, Gus. Many deists and theists that aren't scientists, including Christians and Jews -- conservative ones too -- believe that ID is unscientific nonsense. Many of those people have real faith in God, not a faith that is incomplete without science giving it legitimacy. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image?

I know this article is pretty long, but would the following image be useful under the "Promotion" heading: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmechtley/2393138401/sizes/l/? I linked the large size, but the original is still higher res. I just think it might add a little to the article. Thoughts? --Ali'i 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

License CC by SA, so that's ok. What does it portend? Does "rent-a-fence" refer to those chaps who sell on stolen goods? ... dave souza, talk 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking of a caption like, "A promotional poster for the film". I know, creative, eh? I just think this article is a little bare. You know, give it some flava. I'd say add the picture of Ben Stein from his article page, but it is slightly blurry. --Ali'i 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A word of caution. You know how sensitive these folks are about copyright, and if we use the photo as a picture of the poster then it becomes a derivative work, hence subject to their copyright. However it's ok if it's a picture of a fence which incidentally has the poster on it. Perhaps a caption about security arrangements? .. dave souza, talk 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we simply add the jpg image that expelled has available on its website. It's not replaceable, so we could you that as reasoning to use it. Saksjn (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given how dangerous and litigious these people are, I would strongly advise against using any image associated with them whatsoever.--Filll (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Filll on this, if a free image of Stien is available then us that but nothing thats not Free. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ted Haggard

Ted Haggard is introducing Ben Stein in the preview clip ? confused Apelike (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

When? Where?--Filll (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

noticed him in the preview - introducing Ben Stein during a lecture Apelike (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Some sections need re-writes...

Ok, the "Promotion of..." section is like a cut and paste of the Itellegent Design article. The section, and other sections within the page, should discuss the documentary and the sections mentioned, NOT a seperate topic. For instance, the "Promotion of..." section should be discussing that the movie promotes Intellegent design, not what scientists or whatnot believe in relation to the topic of discussion, that belongs on the article about Intellegent design. Think of it this way: talk about the movie and it's impact/controversy/acclaim or whatever, not the subject itself. This is not the article on Intellegent Design, but it sure does read like it. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have to admit it is a bit hard to follow and a bit incoherent, and basically does not make any sense. I beg to differ with your gratuitous claims in this instance. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks IronCrow, you should know Filll's view isn't universally held, and actually we're discussing this above under the "soapbox" heading. Your comments would be welcome, though I think we're pretty much aware of the issues. Mackan79 (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy which governs content is WP:NPOV. It requires articles to cover all notable and verifiable viewpoints fairly and proportionately. The scientific community's response to ID is relevant, notable and verifiable. And since ID is a minority viewpoint, the "undue weight" clause is particularly relevant to this article: It states "article(s) should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." This article is about a film that makes specific claims about science and the scientific community while promoting a notion, ID, held a very, very small minority in that community. As you can read, the above policy requires that the view of the scientific community be covered, and in the proportion to which it is held. Which means that this article is actually giving the ID more coverage than they warrant... FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FM, the problem is you're ignoring WP:NOR and specifically WP:SYN. Per that policy, this article compares views about the film. It shouldn't compare views about topics discussed in the film, other than to the extent these comprise views about the film. Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FM's right that the majority expert views have to be properly represented, and propertly sourced explanatory material about these views is appropriate. Trying to divorce the film from its use, content and context fails ridiculously. More reliable source material is now available, and such references should be added. .. dave souza, talk 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If we follow WP:NOR, our article will be exactly as divorced and ridiculous as the reliable sources that discuss the movie -- which is of course as you've said, not bad at all. What I'm disagreeing with is the attempt to go well beyond this. Again, I think this would be of very clear benefit the article, if people would be a little more open to outside advice. Mackan79 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I am afraid that comment belies a lack of appreciation for what Wikipedia is and how it operates. If things are in reliable sources, we can and should put them in the article, as long as they satisfy NPOV. And by far the overwhelming mainstream view is that this article is awful. In many ways. And that it is an attempt to press intelligent design, even less thinly disguised than normal as creationism. Our sources state that. So we do. To do OTHER than that is OR.--Filll (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the other half, Filll, which says, "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." You have the two words there, "directly," and "subject." The reason we have this is exactly so someone won't decide, for instance, that the movie is about persecution, and then add a paragraph about that taken from sources having nothing to do with the movie. Without WP:SYN, there's extremely little limit on what we could decide to write.

Anyway, the issue here is writing a good article. I started by saying we should focus more on reviews of the movie. If this went up for good article review or something similar, I'm sure we'd hear the same thing. People weren't interested, so I pointed out the relevant policy. As long as people are aware that this is an issue, I'm hoping they'll be a little more open to specific suggestions about how to improve this without harming (and I think actually improving) NPOV. Mackan79 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. For starters, the NCSE resource provides detailed reviews and background on various aspects. .. dave souza, talk 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You said: It states "article(s) should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..." And yes, I agree, but this article is NOT about Intellegent Design or Evolution, it's about the movie that explains the writer/co-writer's views ont he subjects. You do not need to go into detail about it and make a cut and paste of the Intellegent Design article in the process. This movie is not intellegent Deisgn, it is a movie about it. This is like editing the article of the movie "The Little Mermaid" and describing what scientists think of mermaids, or the movie The Patriot" and describing the conflict of the American Revolution in detail. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Filmmakers now in trouble for unauthorized use of John Lennon song.

[3]--Filll (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. Stein must be delighted at the free publicity – I doubt if even he dreamed that the film would be featured in the Wall Street Journal on the eve of release, and a google for "expelled" has news in 4th place, featuring that article. .. dave souza, talk 07:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Though come to think of it, applying the Schrödinger Occam® suggests it might have been deliberate! Baldrick would have been proud. .. dave souza, talk 10:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last comment because it was nothing but soap-boxing. Saksjn (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears the producers believe they have some sort of legal justification to use John Lennon's song without the owner's approval. This could get interesting. 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talk • contribs)

In the Wall Street Journal article they claim fair use since they only use 25 seconds. They've apparently not gotten permission to use music from The Killers. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Morphody..I mean Denise O'Leary at UD the Killers are saying they were mislead by the producers when asked permission to use their song. Here. Denyse is not the most reliable source but she seems to have some emails that indicate the band is not very happy. Angry Christian (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If the controversies continue

If the controversies around this film continue, as I expect them to, we might have to fork off a piece. For example, if these lawsuits amount to much, particularly if things happen with Yoko Ono, then we need a fork. Comment?--Filll (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a safe assumption the controversies will not cease anytime soon. And I think there are several sections that could stand on their own. The Florida legislature promotion comes to mind. It's significant in size, they have made similar appeals to legislators in other states (Missouri come to mind). It's pretty obvious this is in line with the teach the controversy scheme to get ID in the classrooms. You could also literally do an entire article just on the drama concerning PZ Myers and Dawkins. Stein and company seem to have a pathological obsession with both. Angry Christian (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The film is apparently associated with the legislation in Florida, in Louisiana, in Missouri and Texas. I suspect we are going to need a fork or two for controversies.--Filll (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a relevant quote from a review:

At an April 15 press conference for bloggers held at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., the movie's producers said that they plan to use the movie as part of a campaign to roll out legislation in states—so-called "freedom bills"—that would forbid anyone from "punishing" teachers and professors who question "Darwinism." Walt Ruloff noted that the science standards of about 26 states are currently in play and that Florida was likely to pass such a "freedom bill."

From [4]--Filll (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

typo

typo in the section "Claims that acceptance of evolution leads to Nazism", second sentence, first word 91.11.64.75 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...Fixed it. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Length and POV

Much of the controversy should be resolvable by cutting the article down to about 1/4 of its current length. Because the article spends so much time analyzing/describing/supporting/dissecting the claims in the film, it makes managing the POV nearly impossible. I propose the article should follow an outline similar to this: (1) Describe the production/background of the film, as is common practice for other articles; (2) describe why the film was made (according to its producers, and Mr. Stein); (3) dryly and objectively set forth the major claims made in the film; (4) include some sort of "controversy" section, and briefly describe the major criticisms of the film's claims and production. I imagine this could be done in seven paragraphs. The rest of this is entirely unnecessary and gives people a lot of ammo to say the whole thing is POV. A shortened version would also make this much more encyclopedic. Judicata (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to describe an art movie. You seem to have missed the whole point of this controversial film. .. dave souza, talk 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dave, perhaps you should consider the point of an encyclopedia. I had no clue what the movie was about before coming to the Wikipedia page (I didn't even know it billed itself as a documentary). Because a quick scan of Google didn't provide any apparently neutral reviews (i.e. "this is what the film is about, and this is what people are criticizing it for") I came to Wikipedia. I had to dig through a bunch of back-and-forth to find this. I understand that people have a reflexive reaction when they feel a film either (1) expresses and idea that they feel has been neglected, or (2) strongly criticizes a strongly-held belief. An encyclopedic article, however, should only "care" (allow me to personify) about the point of the movie to the extent that is required to make an enyclopedic record of it and its notable criticisms. Here, we have some strong arguments made in the movie, and some strong notable critcisms. Those should be quickly described and referenced. The article can then reference the articles about evolution, creationism, intelligent design, or articles about criticisms of those topics (if those articles exist). And if I "missed the point" of the film, perhaps it is because this article doesn't set it out in a sufficiently clear and succinct manner. Judicata (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is "encyclopedic" is for us to give verifable factual information ie this "Documentary" Lies from start to finish, it lies about Nazi doctrine being connected to Darwen, its producers lied to make it, lied durring the marketing and stole copyrighted material from Harvard and Yoko Ono to lie about Evolution. Now naturally with a "documentary" with so many factual errors, outright lies and blatent religously motivated hate speach it take a while to show what Notable and Reliable Sources say. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. That's original research, and a circular argument. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Untrue" No read the article.

"That's original research" No its all sourced.

"and a circular argument" Please enlighten me. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, "assertions made about scientists are wrong because scientists say they are wrong". See any circular argument there? And quit with the "lies" business, people who disagree with you are not all liars. In all likelihood, they're telling the truth. GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"assertions made about scientists are wrong because scientists say they are wrong" No what is happening is assertions made by the un-educated are wrong because 10,000+ educated people with Phd's say they are wrong, UNDERSTAND! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Judicata, perhaps you might want to acquaint yourself with the intelligent design movement and assorted campaigns by the Discovery Institute. This is not just a film. It is a beachhead in an effort to change legislation and educational systems and eventually the culture (up to even possibly installing a theocracy) in the United States.--Filll (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that Judicata, what you are advocating is in direct contravention of the principles of Wikipedia like WP:NPOV. You might be happier at a wiki that does not have NPOV like Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To your first point: actually, this is a film. Are you suggesting we should cut and paste the entire intelligent design article into this page? Because the film and movement are so related, there should clearly be a reference and link to it in the article, but movements/organizations have pages of their own. To your second point - please elaborate on your assertion that my change would be POV. I'm advocating making this article about "Expelled" about a film. You are advocating making the article about an entire movement (even when those pages already exist). We can discuss our positions on evolution/science/creationism or whatever elsewhere - but, you have grossly mischaracterized my own beliefs, which I have not disclosed here or anywhere else. Judicata (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No I am not advocating that and you might want to review the policies of Wikipedia and my comments accordingly. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you're advocating. Your edits betray your intent to use this article as a soapbox. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me? I am advocating that we stick with things like WP:CON and WP:NPOV. Is that a problem?--Filll (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, for the twentieth time. Stop making the straw man argument that anyone who disagrees with you disagrees with wikipedia policies, it's extremely old, and not convincing. Neutral point of view is not your point of view. You want everything to be a recruiting tract for atheism, and NPOV says nothing about requiring off-topic views held by less than 10% of the population to be given total dominance in an article.GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please stop dismissing new editors with this type of political commentary. Judicata's comments have been expressed by a number of editors and a steady stream of readers; they should discuss improvements to the article, not go elsewhere. Mackan79 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it is a "new" editor? Judicata, like many previous "new" editors, repeats the same arguments using the same wording as those before him over and over and over. "New" editors who magically know all the acronyms and procedures of Wikipedia pop up, repeat the identical arguments using identical wording. Interesting, isn't it?--Filll (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is not political commentary. I take severe umbrage at that characterization. I am advocating that we actually follow the principles of Wikipedia. Do you have a problem with that?--Filll (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about editors on this page; however, the relevant guideline for this is WP:AGF, and it's certainly not a reason for telling someone to go to conservapedia. At least to me it's not surprising that people keep raising the same issue either, as it's a very clear problem with the article. If you inserted an independent paragraph about the health care industry into Sicko, you'd have the same stream of editors. I would be surprised if new editors don't continue arriving until we make some real effort to improve this. Mackan79 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the only relevant guideline here is not WP:AGF. We have some others that are important as wel, such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and so on. Perhaps you have heard of them? And where did I not WP:AGF? And for those who are unable or unwilling to abide by WP policies like WP:NPOV, Conservapedia or Wikinfo or any one of hundreds of other wikis are suitable environments. And many have left Wikipedia and gone to these other wikis and become very productive and successful there. Is that a problem?--Filll (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That was in response to your comment that we don't know who is a new user. That's what I said requires AGF, and shouldn't lead to a suggestion that someone leave for a partisan site. Mackan79 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. And I give GF to those who deserve it. I will assume someone is an inexperienced user if they behave as such, and be less certain otherwise. Do you believe there is a policy against that? Please provide a link to a policy page asserting that. I would be most interested to read that. And all sites are partisan; of course Wikipedia is partisan itself because it has WP:NPOV. And you believe there is something wrong with suggesting that someone who is unable or unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policies might be more happy and productive at a sight which is partisan in a different way?--Filll (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing NPOV, so quit making your dishonest straw man argument; this is yet another incidence of your intellectual dishonesty. If I were in charge, I'd have your removed from wikipedia for a pattern of disruptive, untruthful comments about other editors that are designed to obfuscate the underlying issues, and allow you to push a POV shared by less then 10% of the population. NPOV does not, and has not ever stated that you may use the majority of the article space to evaluate the content of a film in an exclusively negative fashion. Your whole argument is in shambles. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"allow you to push a POV shared by less then 10% of the population" What position is that?

"evaluate the content of a film in an exclusively negative fashion." WP:NPOV <--- Read this! We use Notable and reliable sources to make up this encyclopedia. That means when Notable Scientific sources rip the lies of this film apart, piece by piece, we do the same. ID is at best Anti-science, and this is an encyclopedia not a bible study group so the words of scientists call infinitely more weight here than a religously motivated "think tank". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, you have violated WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA with your charges of intellectual dishonesty and other assorted slurs here. I am afraid you are quite confused about what WP:NPOV means. But thanks for your input.--Filll (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata we are are not dealing with the Whole ID movement just the lies put forward by this film, which just so happen to be the stantard lies used by DI et al about Evolution and ID, so there is a lot of cross-over. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gang I'd like to offer a few observations. The film promotes ID as a legitimate scientific, it also promotes ID is a legitimate subject for public science class, and Darwin lead to Hitler, and it portrays several IDists as victims of "Big Science" and claims the science community, educational systems are out to victimize IDists, and they also engage in efforts to change oublic policy - Ben is on recoerd saying he wants to see a change in public policy. So this is not some moview review, we're an encyclopedia and should cover all of these claims. So ID is a central theme that needs to be discussed as are all the other issues. As far as I can tell we're doing that. Angry Christian (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Christian and Hypnosadist - please understand that I never advocated removing the criticisms of this film. They are notable and documented, and should certainly be included (please refer to my proposed rough outline). But the article should be about the film only. It seems that you both have strong beliefs regarding this film and want to expose lies and other false claims. Because these beliefs are widespread and documented, they should certainly be included in the article. But both of you openly advocate altering the focus of the article away from the film itself. The title of this article is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It only follows that it should be an article about the film. I understand your belief that the film perpetuates lies and misinformation, etc., and I am not disagreeing with you. These views can be summarized in a fair and encyclopedic way without making this article a platform for one view or the other. Judicata (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's always good to find ways to make article more manageable, on-topic, and accessible to readers who are new to the subject. Judicata does have a point about the article being rather unwieldy for readers who are simply wondering what this film's deal is. That doesn't always mean that the article needs to be shorter, it might just benefit from reorganization and more summaries near the top (for visitors who don't want to read to the end, but still want the whole story in brief). This article dives right in to the ID controversy, without much preamble about what's in the movie and why this movie itself is controversial. At the same time, keep in mind that this is a non-fiction documentary. More to the point, it's a documentary with a clear bias, and it makes assertions and accusations that are notably controversial. As such, Dave souza is correct in saying that this article shouldn't be held to the standards of an "art movie" article. This documentary asserts itself to be non-fiction, so its claims can be laid out, clear factual errors can be noted (with sources), and significant viewpoints can be included. And we mustn't forget that the controversy is a major cause of this movie's notability. -Eisnel (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eisnel, your points are well-taken. My whole proposition is about summarizing the article to simplify it, make it more accessible, and mitigate POV arguments. I agree that, because the film has a clear bias (and I doubt many people disagree with this point), it should certainly be noted. I think pointing out factual errors as such would border on original research. But this is easily remedied by noting that reputable/notable sources have pointed out factual errors. The article already does this (at least as far as I could tell) so this doesn't seem to be at issue. I think you and I disagree only on the depth of treatment of the controversial statements and ideas (and their criticisms). I believe they should be treated briefly, clearly, and succinctly. If they merit deeper analysis, perhaps they should have their own page (as others, I believe, have suggested), in addition to being summarized in the main article. That being said, I think your suggestion of a better preamble/summary before jumping right in to the controversy would greatly improve the article as it stands. Judicata (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Above when I said "mitigate POV arguments" I meant that it would prevent people from arguing that the article is POV. When I re-read my statement I realized that I wasn't clear. Judicata (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we seem to differ on the extent to which the controversy should be covered. I think the article is too quick to jump into the detailed background story of the ID controversy. I think it should first give a summary of the movie's plot and allegations, as well as a summary of the substantial criticisms of those allegations. In other words: I think that any summary should include a summary of the controversy. With that said, I'm not sure how best it should be organized. I just think that any Wikipedia article should allow those with a short attention span to get the gist of the article's information, and then that can be followed with details for those who want the long read. -Eisnel (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata, you said "But both of you openly advocate altering the focus of the article away from the film itself." if you look at my history of edits to this article I think you'll find you're mistaken. Angry Christian (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata, you appear to be badly confused. I might also note for those who think a new reader will have trouble understanding what the film is about with such a long article is that there is a WP:LEAD. And as stated here in another section, we are probably headed for a WP:FORK.--Filll (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position a little. Just look at the article and ask "Does this read like an exposé?" From what I've read, it seems that this film has inaccuracies, to say the least. The major/notable inaccuracies/criticisms should be succinctly and clearly summarized to the extent other sources can be cited (again, the article already seems to avoid original research just fine). Since my comments are still on the page, for the record, I don't know why I have to repeat, ad infinitum, that I do not advocate removing the criticisms of the film. To do so would be counter to Wikipedia policy. I am advocating summarizing it, as to not make this article a point-by-point deconstruction of the film. That is not what encyclopedias are for. You can easily say something like "The film suggests that, Professor (or Professors) X, were terminated for their view on intelligent design. But others have suggested that there were other, legitimate, reasons for her termination. For example, Professor Foo from Univ. of Bar, has stated that 9 of the 12 professors were cut that year due to funding, and it had nothing to do with..." [I'm just making the facts up here to give you the idea, although the professors may not be the best example]. My point is that something that currently occupies several subsections can be summarized in 5 sentences or less, and have some footnotes. This gets the notable information out there without making the whole article read like a critical analysis. (By "critical analysis" I don't mean it in the lay "negative" sense, but in the "judgment" or literary sense - see dictionary.com). Critical analyses have their place. A Wikipedia article is not one of them. Judicata (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata, you have spoken in general terms and suggested we effectively removed 3/4 of the article. It's not surprising that those ideas have not been received well. Could you provide some examples of what/how you suggest we modify the article. Take a piece and rewrite it here for us to see? I think that approach will at least get the subject rolling and less accusations back and forth. You probably have some good specific suggestions but it's difficult to see that when you're speaking in such general terms. Make sense? We all agree the article is long, show us how/where you could shorten it without removing important content. Angry Christian (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Of course I didn't want to make such extensive edits outright, without discussing them here first. I should have time later to work on a section and post it here. I also appreciate that people have worked hard on this article, and would feel slighted having sections reduced. My suggestions, I believe, would result in paragraphs being reduced to sentences, rather than being cut out entirely, which I guess may help a little. Unfortunately, that is the nature of writing -- especially collaborative writing. Judicata (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what either of you, Eisnel, or others think of the version of the first section I proposed at the bottom of the section here. This isn't how I would write it myself, but I think it is an improvement, by stating the view of those in the movie first, quickly covering some background of what ID is, and then providing some information on Kitzmiller. Potentially by shortening, this would also allow a little more about the film's content. Of course things will change when the film comes out, but a basic structure may help. I placed this in the article here. Mackan79 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Judatica, I am afraid you have not absorbed much here I am afraid. I said and I will repeat, that we will probably WP:FORK this article. That will take care of the length. So do not keep whining about the length. It will be taken care of, ok? Also, this is not a regular encyclopedia. It is not a neutral encyclopedia, whatever that is. It is not unbiased, whatever that is. It is not nonpartisan. It is WP:NPOV. Learn that and you will not have such problems here.--Filll (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, almost the entirety of the article is currently about claims made in the film, or about reviews of the film (it's the reviews section that is getting long, but all of those are directly about the film). I don't see how the article could be significantly cut without removing relevant material. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, Let's keep this civil. I won't insult your intelligence, if you refrain from insulting mine (more specifically, my capacity for "absorption."). Read the first sentence of WP:NPOV. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I'm the first to admit that it is impossible to completely eliminate bias. That is just the nature of culture, language, background, and humanity. But, as suggested by the policy, we strive to avoid bias as much as possible. In other words, to the extent there can be a neutral encyclopedia, this is one. Please substantiate your assertion that my suggested revision would insert a POV. If you feel I've been too ambiguous or unclear, feel free to wait for my sample edit (pursuant to Angry Christian's request), and analyze my position then. Judicata (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So Judicata will accuse me of violating WP:CIVIL for observing that someone who repeats the same argument and statements over and over and over and over and over and over and over and displays lots of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by using the word "absorption"? That is close to WP:GAME and abuse of CIVIL, and is itself a sanctionable offense. Please do take care or suffer the consequences. It does appear to me that you do not know what WP:NPOV is, or the purposes and foundational principles of WP are, for whatever reason. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, your tone sounds to me quite unusual; I wonder if we should consider the possibility of a miscommunication. As far as I can see Judicata's comments have been more than reasonable. AC below seems to agree. I don't think there's a need for confrontation here. Mackan79 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to keep an editor from heading down a self-destructive path. Is that a problem?--Filll (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If I am the "editor heading down a self-destructive path" to whom you're referring, I appreciate your concern, friend. But, I think I'll manage just fine. Judicata (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of violating any policies. I'm not familiar enough with WP:CIVIL to determine that one way or the other. I was, however, implying you sounded a bit abraisive in your prior comment (and I note that this aggression on your part is apparently escalating). I think you need to read my comments and yours again very carefully. But, by all means, if you think that I am violating any policies, I encourage you to report it. Also, you have neglected, once again, to back up your assertions. Namely, if you feel that I misunderstand NPOV policy, I invite you to point out exactly where I have expressed that misunderstanding. Judicata (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If Judicata is recommending that sections be reworded in order to tighten them up, without changing their content, then I don't see anything wrong with that. This article might be too verbose in many places. In fact, Judicata, if you see a section that could benefit from being condensed, without having its substance altered, then you can probably be bold and tighten it up without consent from other editors. If somebody thinks that such an edit removes valuable info, they can revert and ask that it be discussed. I think there has been a miscommunication here, probably resulting from the original suggestion that the article be 1/4 of the size, which was likely an exaggeration. -Eisnel (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly why I asked Judicata to show us some specific examples. The fact neither you nor I can figure out a way to do it does not mean no one else can. Angry Christian (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the level of activity and controversy here, all large changes should probably be discussed on the talk page first.--Filll (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, we're on the talk page NOW discussing changes NOW. I've asked Judicata to propose changes here on the talk page. Judicata agreed to do that. At some pojnt you have got to put your pistols back in your holster and start listening to people. Please. Angry Christian (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of my suggestions are more "macro" edits, so I'm going to have to figure out a way to give a sample. It will take some time - especially since I have a job. It won't be up tonight, but hopefully I can get something Saturday. Judicata (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime feel free to improve some grammar, shorten sentences and make minor changes that won't change meaning and you'll fly under the edit war radar. Seriously. Dive in on the small stuff. I spent a good afternoon doing that one day and it made a positive difference. Much of it changes later by others, some even better and some wasn't. Angry Christian (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I've rearranged things in the first couple sections for coherency. I solemnly swear that nothing has been deleted except one quote that, with the rearrangement, pretty much duplicated the content of the prose that came before it. A few things were moved out of references and into the text, and one quote was copied from a later section for neutrality reasons. [It's the one about academic backbiting - we should probably replace it with another in the "People presented in the film" section, but the description was really POV without it for balance.] Obviously, there's been some moving between the two sections. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure: I found a much, much better source for Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Claims_that_intelligent_design_advocates_are_persecuted and have replaced some less-coherent material there with a quote from the New Scientist review. You may want to replace some of the references that got removed in this diff as secondary sources, but I think you'll agree that the New Scientist quote gets much more quickly and directly to the heart of the matter, and avoids the appearance of Synth and the over-quoting of the expelled blog. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You've lost some significant points from the first section, it was due to be reviewed and updated and there are new reviews to be considered and incorporated so this can form a new basis for development . .. dave souza, talk 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved several points to the second section - for instance, the first paragraph of the second section as it now stands is largely taken from the first section. Though some trivial points might then have gotten removed in the rewrites to add the New Scientist review. In any case, incoherency is not our friend, so there's no point leaving in dangling thoughts, then expanding them in situ, leaving even more incoherent paragraphs.

I don't think this edit is a good one. It is not needed in the lede. Please consider moving the statement to a more appropriate place. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning, since there have been disputes about it, that it's considered a propoganda piece as well as a documentary. I agree it doesn't need to be there, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree it does not belong in the lead. Angry Christian (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am moving that sentence here and when/if someone finds a better home for it feel free to copy it there but it does not belong in the lead.

described as "pure propoganda" by one review,

Angry Christian (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it largely ended up there as I couldn't find a better place for it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

satirical

The lead states the film is a controversial satirical documentary. "Satirical" is the term given in the Expelled press release and it's the ONLY place I have ever seen it described like that. I am not suggesting we not use the term but I do think we should use quotes around the term to make it obvious Wiki is not describing it that way but the producers are. Again, NO ONE on planet earth is calling it "satirical" but the press release so I think we should be cautious about adopting the view that is promoted via the press release. Quotes to me will accomplish that. Anyone have an opinion on it? Angry Christian (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just throwing quotes around it seem a bit like scare quotes... but here are a couple of other instances I just found: [5], [6]. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the word "satirical", and didn't understand how it applied to this movie. Is this a satire? From what I've heard, the movie states its assertions directly. I think perhaps the preview with Stein in a classroom could be considered satire, but is the whole movie like that? -Eisnel (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know why they filmmakers want to call it a satire. But they do. So...--Filll (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "satire" in our article comes from the official press release. Yeah I know it makes no sense, that's why I brought it here. We're inadvertantly misleading the readers (IMO) but using that term without qualifying it somehow. I would not have a problem not using the term satirical at all. Angry Christian (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

remove it from the lead sentance and perhaps include a broader discussion elsewhere in the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I just removed it and I have no idea where it should go or if it even belongs. I'll let others decide that. Frankly it's obviously not a comedy so I'm not sure what the producers are up to. Angry Christian (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Satirical is a fall-back. As in "I wuz jes funnin', yer honer" &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted "satirical" sentence from the intro. The whole satire angle seems pointless to me, and especially pointless bloat for it to eat up critical intro space. Alsee (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe how biased this page is!

Just a few examples of the overkill:

"The film ignores the many scientists who are religious and do not bring God in as part of their theories as testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God, so scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable, regardless of the religious views of the scientists."

"Stein tries to dismiss the outcome of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial"

"Stein presses the message of evolution being responsible without acknowledging more direct causes such as the economic ruin of Germany after the World War I and the racism and anti-semitism dating back over seven centuries before Charles Darwin, particularly Martin Luther's book On the Jews and Their Lies."

"The Expelled roadshow portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination and the Discovery Institute campaign asserts that his intelligent design writings should not have been considered in the review, a view that was contradicted by Gonzalez himself, when he listed The Privileged Planet as part of his tenure review file."

"Paul Zachary Myers is an Associate Professor of biology at University of Minnesota, Morris,[55] and the author of the science blog Pharyngula. In the film he is portrayed as a member of "Big Science"."

And every single statement the article details that the movie has made is refuted by a quote from another source (resulting in the aforementioned enormous reference list). The article thoroughly goes through scientist by scientist to discredit the claims the film made about them and is incredibly attentive to detailing the controversies that have surrounded it.

Frankly, to say that this amount of discussion for a film that hasn't even been released points to a serious problem. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, explaining things like the film's main premise, interesting events surrounding it, and its reception. Debunking each film's assertions point by point is acceptable on basically any other website, but is not useful here. As a person who came to Wikipedia to just see what the movie was about, I was completely overwhelmed by the amount of information that is presented and the level of bias that would never be admissible in any other informational medium! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.163.12 (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

if you're looking for a movie review I would suggest you follow the links given as there have been several published reviews. This article is not a movie review. And discussing every single claim made in the movie is quite appropriate. Angry Christian (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This article violates wikipedia's npov policy, evidence is above. Benrice8919 (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)benrice8919

Furthermore I don't think anyone in their right mind comes to wikipedia for movie reviews. Wiki is not known as a film critic. People come to Wikipedia for a more indepth understanding of any given subject.

OF COURSE THE ARTICLE IS BIASED This is the result of applying the principles of Wikipedia, called WP:NPOV. You have many other choices if you do not like this article. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you don't decide what NPOV means! When you arrogantly assert that your position is the only one that conforms to wikipedia policies, against consensus, it's very disruptive. Furthermore, the viewpoint that life on earth came from nonliving matter by spontaneous generation, and evolved solely by natural selection to its present state without planning from a designer is far and away the minority viewpoint. If we really followed NPOV, we wouldn't mention the fringe viewpoint of a slight majority of scientists (with basically no following among non-scientists), and instead focus on the clear consensus among the public, religious leaders, and a strong minority of scientists, that life on Earth was designed. Are you simply ignoring this? GusChiggins21 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think civility is in order, Filll. There is no reason for this talk page to turn into a war zone. I think we are all mature enough to speak to each in accordance with the Golden Rule, are we not? Raecoli (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

GusChiggins21: Please learn something about science before you attempt to critique it. Your descriptions reveal a deep misunderstanding about what science does and does not assert. First, abiogenesis is grossly distorted by trying to describe it as "spontaneous generation". Second, no one claims that life "evolved solely by natural selection". Even Darwin complained when people oversimplified his theory that way, and it has progressed much farther in the subsequent 150 years. Next, why are you focusing on the straw man of life reaching its present state "without planning from a designer", as that is not what's at issue here? Many people who accept the validity of evolutionary biology believe in the involvement of some god, while others don't. But that's not what this film, or the controversy it has caused by its misleading claims, is about. Actually, I'd like to thank you for pointing out one of the grossly false implications that the film attempts to dishonestly make -- that evolutionary biology and "godlessness" go hand in hand. As you correctly point out, that's BS, and the film's producers should be ashamed for attempting to promulgate such a blatant falsehood. However, you get some of your own claims wrong. The view that life evolved without the aid of a deity is not "far and away the minority viewpoint". It has a very sizable following, on the same order of magnitude as the number of people who adhere to a theistic evolution view, as well as the number of people who adhere to a "god, no evolution" view. Second, acceptance of evolutionary common descent is hardly a matter of "a slight majority of scientists", it's the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists, and you are flat wrong when you say it has "basically no following among non-scientists". Even the "evolution, no god" view has a very large following among the general public, with many tens of millions of adherent in the US alone. Please do not misrepresent the facts. Finally, while "life was designed" may be a popular view, it's hard to tell what point you're attempting to make here. The movie "Expelled" and the WP article about it are not about whether religious views are popular. Of course they are, but that's not the message of the film, and your observation is irrelevant to what it's actually about. Instead, the film attempts to make two general points: 1) "intelligent design" is science and should be taught in science classes, respected in science journals and as a field of scientific study, and 2) evolutionary biology is a fraud that turns people into Hitler. None of your observations, not even the few you managed to get correct, helps address these issues. What *does* address these issues is an examination of what is and is not actually science, how science is actually done, what scientific evidence there actually is for/against ID and/or evolution, what scientific results ID and/or evolutionary biology have produced, etc. Like it or not, rating the allegations that the film makes about whether science supports ID or evolutionary biology is a proper NPOV thing to do, even when, as it turns out, such an examination reveals that the claims made in the film are almost without exception false or grossly distorted. I'm sorry if the results of this fact-checking goes against how you'd *like* things to be, but that doesn't make it a violation of NPOV. Sorry, but facts are stubborn things. --Ichneumon (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Ichneumon, get off the soapbox. This article very actively and clearly rails against anything remotely looking like creationism/ID or whatever, and is hardly NPOV. We're not talking facts: we're talking agendas. Evolution is clearly accepted by the vast majority of scientists, and we all agree with that. That doesn't mean this article should become a POV hitpiece to try to somehow marginalize, implicitly or explicitly, those who believe the opposite. It's pretty darn shameful for Wikipedia. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, everyone here needs to stop violating WP: Civility as of right now. I mean it. I know the EvC debate tends to inflame passions, but I'm tired of seeing people on both sides attacking each other with comments like "arrogant", telling people that they have "other choices" if they don't like this article (whatever that means), "get off the soapbox", "learn something about science", and so forth. If I keep seeing this, I'm not going to stop with warnings, I'm going to block people until they cool off. Now, onto the issue of bias:

Let me preface by saying that I'm an atheist, and I accept natural selection 100%. Michael Shermer is my hero, and I've met him twice. That said, the passages 76.178.163.12 are biased, in terms of their inclusion or their wording, and I noticed this myself independent of 76 when I first read the article. It seems that my fellow evolutionists are trying to address the film's falsehoods and fallacies within their own edits. This is unacceptable, as it is a clear violation of WP: POINT. I can understand your frustration, but it is not the role of editors who offer their own insight into the film's content. There is plenty of criticism by people like Shermer, Scott, Dawkins, etc., so I suggest that anyone adding material that criticizes or counters the film's content do so ONLY if it comes directly from one of these sources, and DIRECTLY REFERENCES the film itself. And that's it. The passage about the film ignoring the direct causes of the Holocaust, for example, should make clear that these counterarguments are coming directly from its critics (such as Shermer). This is a proper part of WP: Attribution. To Filll: I would point out that an article adhering to NPOV should not be "biased" so it's absolutely not a matter "of course". NPOV is the exact opposite of bias. To Gus: The spontaneous appearance of life on Earth is not part of evolutionary theory, but I would admonish both you and those disagreeing with you that this page is NOT to discuss EvC, but the article. If you want to discuss the EvC controversy, albeit civilly, do it elsewhere, like here. I've tried to fix this by editing some of the material and wording that seemed to violate WP: POINT and WP: NPOV. Nightscream (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said Nightscream. I fear that this article is going to be rather unstable as long as emotions run high. Sadly, emotions will likely continue to run in the red while this movie is in theaters. Hopefully, once everything has cooled down, calmer heads can prevail. I'm not blaming anybody for being emotional about this issue, since evolution is a subject that I myself am passionate about. There's no such thing as an unbiased Wikipedia editor, but there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who know the difference between an encyclopedic article and an op-ed piece. -Eisnel (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA! I essentially AGREE with those who see this article as BIAS disguised as "final scientific consensus". Those claiming that most of the scientific community has settled this hot issue forget that science is not a CREED or FAITH--it should be a constant DEBATE AND RETEST - even of one's own scientific ideas and assumptions. ---My teen daughter is FORBIDDEN to use Wikipedia by some teachers because of bias disguised as "settled final facts". WIKIPEDIA should restructure this and other HOT ISSUE topics to allow for fair presentations of major differing viewpoints, scholarly ideas, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorianezine (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Wikipedia is about verification, not "belief". .. dave souza, talk 11:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This article is long for a movie yet to come out. I would like to point out some problems. The movie is a documentary accusing mainstream scientists. Therefore mainstream scientists are very bias in their opinion. Relying on reviews from them to describe it is not good. reviews should be sources for opinions about the movie. this is not about ID versus Evolution, this is a movie about it. Most of the sources are either Pro-Evolutionist. The descriptions of the view points of the author by these people is suspect, as they tend to interpret them with mean different things. really one option is just to delete most this stuff till the movie comes out. Rds865 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and prepare to get flamed by the people who protect this article from neutrality. GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia's neutral point of view and reliable sources policies. All significant views that have been published by reliable sources should be given weight. This includes the views of the prominent scientists featured in the film. There is no lack of reviews from Creationists. A balance of slanted viewpoints is not looked for in sources, a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is. MantisEars (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ALL OF WIKIPEDIA IS BIASED obviously. It is biased towards the mainstream. That is called WP:NPOV. Even still, the article is more than half "pro-creationist" or "pro-intelligent design". If you want to read an article that is 100 percent pro creationist, we given you many links to other articles that are like that; at least 50 or more. So do not complain. This article is written in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia. If you do not like Wikipedia principles, you can go somewhere else.--Filll (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course everyone is biased, you miss my point completely. The movie is described from the point of view of the critics of the movie. There are cases of the critics putting words in the mouth of the moviemakers. this is not about equal time. I am not a fan of secondary sources, and I believe the principles of Wikipedia are to give the facts, and let the reader decide. statements such that the film "uses what Richard Dawkins describes as the amateurish "Lord Privy Seal" technique of illustrating every point with images" are biased, and unencyclopedic. 1st, Richard Dawkins, is bias against the film, not an expert on film techniques, and "Lord Privy Seal technique" is a neologism. Rds865 (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as the perspective of the critics, something worth noting, Rds865 is the favorable reviews don't say much of anything about the subtance of the movie, the critics on the other hand do. The movie presents specific claims and all the favorable reviews mostly say "it brougt tears to my eyes" or "this film will change the world" whereas the critics are addressing every single claim/falsehood made in the movie. The claims made are utterly fantastic and deserve a place in the article. I agree the note you made about Dawkins seems hardly worth taking up space. There is way too much fluff and needless "they suck" in the article and we should prioritize criticisms of substance and not endless "the movie was really jerky and out of focus" type of stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Christian (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Complain all you want. However, we will be following the principles of Wikipedia including WP:NPOV no matter what you think. Bear in mind that you might be running afoul of assorted rules if you are disruptive. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am being disruptive, I am trying to follow the principles of wikipedia. A lot of perspectives are given, that I don't think are valid, and sources, I don't think are reliable. I fail to see which wikipedia policy goes against what I am saying. This is an encyclopedia article. Once the film comes out, there will be more information, and a better article can be made. Until then, an article based on reviews will become review like. Rds865 (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean, you will be following your interpretation of NPOV. Which is what this whole argument is about; you think it's neutral to use this article as a soapbox to attack ID, and other disagree. GusChiggins21 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

you mean me? or Filll and the people he speaks for? If you mean me then you are way off. I want the article to be about the movie. Rds865 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, if you look at the number of colons in front of my comment, it correlates to being a response to Filll. It would be indented one more line if I was responding to you. GusChiggins21 (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

another piece of evidence: "The film openly sets out to be the creationist equivalent of a Michael Moore documentary" This statement suggests that the makers of the movie, described it as a "creationist equivalent of a Michael Moore documentary". However the source is from a non-film critic, not the moviemakers. While it may be true, the makers didn't say it. Rds865 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Revising the overview

The first portion of the overview is, with respect, completely unacceptable for an article that is currently receiving this much traffic. The user two sections above offers several reasons why, with others problems having been discussed on the page. I propose two things:

1. Going back to the version from earlier today, seen here
2. Having a focused discussion about how to improve the material which does not directly address the film.

I'm aware there are problems with other parts of the article, but I think those who are interested in the first section should be able to focus on how to improve it directly. Mackan79 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's the bit I think you mean, it's focussed on the film and clearly shows points raised in the film together with the majority scientific view as required by NPOV. Got a problem? .. dave souza, talk 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the person two sections above notes several of the superficial problems: "Openly sets out," "The film ignores," "Stein tries," etc. The third paragraph also remains unacceptable WP:SYN, which is a violation of a fundamental and non-negotiable policy. I don't have a great deal of hope that people will appreciate this in the near future, but it is something that needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. Mackan79 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good time for someone who has the time to request a peer review. There is a ton in this article that is POV and that ignores what the movie is about. And for the record I'm talking about the POV that actually errors on the side of the debate I am on. I don't have time to endlessly argue, nor do I have time to pursue administrative solutions but I would support anyone getting an outside peer review. Hopefully someone else here does have time (to initiate a peer review, not to argue endlessly) Angry Christian (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just made some attempts that I think will help without needing to go back to something earlier. This is still very clear about the consensus as expressed in reviews of the film. I'd encourage any other specific point to be added, rather than going back to entire paragraphs of material not about the movie. Mackan79 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I should say I liked the new first sentence about trying to be Michael Moore, which I think is a more artful way to start. I took out "openly" and the repeat of "godless" and "atheistic" but otherwise I think it's good. Mackan79 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still a fan of the lead in that section giving a voice to the film, what the hell are they saying and in their own words would seem appropriate. THEN the summaries, counter-claims, criticisms. Angry Christian (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, with respect, some of the writing you are introducing is extremely POV. Whatever you think of this movie or its ideas, interupting our exposition of what's in the movie already in the second sentence to say that it violates scientific consensus is absurd. I don't agree with the movie either, but we have to trust people to be able to read three sentences in a row. I'd ask you to please consider this, since I think any revert warring over this could get the article locked down at a particularly inopportune time. Mackan79 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, with respect, most of what you changed in the article is what was extremely POV. WP:NPOV requires the majority viewpoint be presented, and that means the scientific community. You've been trying to marginalize or delete altogether the view of the scientific community from this article and it's getting disruptive and needs to stop. Keep it pal. Odd nature (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ON, I'd ask you to please address the specific problems raised here, 1. that providing (extensive) content not sited to sources that discuss the movie violates WP:SYN, 2. much of the writing suffers from very clear POV problems, and 3. interupting the exposition of what is in the movie so quickly to offer disagreement is both POV and deprives the reader of any information as to what is actually in the film. Also please be civil; if we can't work something out I'll likely ask for intervention at AN/I, as I think the current version is unacceptable for an article receiving this much traffic. Mackan79 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Something should be done. I've been an atheist my whole life, but this article is seriously POV. People should be able to read a simple description of the film before they are bombarded by debunkings of ID. I propose that we leave the debunking completely out of the overview sections and just say that the film's statements are not accepted by scientists or something in the lede. People can read those and then understand what the film is, like a any good encyc article should do. Do the debunking after that. People who keep saying that NPOV requires a bunch of debunking during a simple overview are using it incorrectly. There's only one point of view when describing the film and it's satisfied by a simple summary of the film itself. Giving a point by point reply to each thing the film says isn't part of an overview of a film. it's part of an overview of the controversy surrounding the film. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

why are we calling evolution "the scientific theory of evolution"?

Obviously evolution is a scientific theory, so is gravity but we don't say "the scientific theory of gravity" or for that matter "the scientific theory of relativity". I just scanned the evolution article and did not note a single instance of it being referred to as a "the scientific theory of evolution". When we hammer in the "scientific theory" it makes it look like an advertisement for evolution, which is obnoxoius for many reasons. Can anyone explain why we should refer to evolution as "the scientific theory of evolution"? If not I'm in favor of using the ordinary terminology which is to say let's call it evolution and give the reader a little credit. Angry Christian (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because evolution is a scientific theory. "Theory" in common English has evolved to mean "guess" or "speculation", and Creationists exploit this ambiguity to suggest that evolution is not as accepted as the theory of gravity is. MantisEars (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AC, it also struck me as peacock wording, and seemed wrong for the same reason. Mackan79 (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scientific theory of evolution" is not a peacock term, peacock terms are, from the article you linked to, “terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information.” "Scientific theory of evolution" imparts the real information that evolution is a scientific theory. It does not serve to promote evolution. MantisEars (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It read like it was written by someone very insecure and afraid a reader might not believe evolution is a scientific theory. The irony is they don't call it this at the evolution article. As a reader the first thing I think of when I read it as it's written is "how dumb does Wikipedia think I am?" Again, by using your logic why do they not call it "the scientific theory of evolution" on the evolution article? Angry Christian (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the problem. Mackan79 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read it the same way, perhaps that's just your personal caricature of a scientist. Wikipedia does not think you are dumb, but should aim to be as clear as dis ambiguous as possible. As to why evolution isn't referred to as "the scientific theory of evolution" in the evolution article I do not know, but unless you are disputing evolution's status as a scientific theory, it has no relevance to the matter at hand. MantisEars (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AC. Gravity is gravity, and evolution is evolution. Everyone knows it is a scientific theory. Saying that every time just creates excessive verbiage. Judicata (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is important to use the full "scientific theory of evolution", at least the first time it is mentioned just as you would use the full "Discovery Institute" title before using its abbreviation, "DI". A reader should not have to visit the evolution article to have a sense of what this film is criticizing. MantisEars (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It creates excessive verbiage and appears we're trying to manipulate the reader. Evolution has proven itself a million times over and does not need us to convince people of its merits. There are more examples in a similar vein. The article claims 99.9% of scientists accept evolution, but it's an opinion and not the results of a scientific poll yet the article does not clearly state this. That is another example of what I can only describe as a weasly sales pitch for evolution. That cheapens evolution and science for that matter because anyone with a brain can see through this kind of thing. Again, as a reader when I read a statement like that I think "how dumb do they think I am?" This sort of thing begs for edit disputes and gives creedence to the argument that much of the article is POV. Angry Christian (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IF proponents might disagree. It appears twice in the article, once in the lead where it's appropriate to overcome the common creationist claim that it's only a theory, and once in contrast to creationist views. Seems reasonable. .. dave souza, talk 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I clicked on your link but I'm not getting it and I want to. Would you elaborate your point for me. And I'm not trying to be a smart alec, you do gfood work here, but I am not aware of any policies that say we should frame things for the benefit of creationists. I am not a creationist and I find it somewhat insulting (that might not be the best word but it's the only one that comes to mind) when I read "the scientific theory of evolution" because it reads like propaganda or some sales pitch. Maybe it sems like dumbing down, I'm not certain but what I do know it is it not called that at the evolution article. We link to the evolution article. We'd be better off briefly defining evolution and describing it as a scientific theory instead of just using the term repeatedly and gratuitously. Anyhow, please elaborate you point. Angry Christian (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What manipulation is occurring? Are we trying to manipulate the reader into thinking that the scientific theory of evolution is a scientific theory? Are you bringing this to dispute? MantisEars (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Manitear please read my comments in the future before responding to them and I will do the same for you. Thanks in advance. Angry Christian (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought he made it clear that while yes, it's a scientific theory, we just don't need to mention this repeatedly. I agree. We don't go around writing articles that say "According to black man Al Sharpton.." despite there being no disputing that he's black. It's similar here. Friday (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But we don't mention this repeatedly. It is only mentioned once in the article — in the lead, and it's useful to know what the screenwriters meant in full. In an article about black people, or black people's opinions I would say it is reasonable to mention that Al Sharpton is a black man once. MantisEars (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Friday I think you hit it on the head. Let's say it once and be done with itAngry Christian (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has just now been edited and now it is only in the lead and I think this is good enough. Prior it was elsewhere and read really silly Angry Christian (talk)

It appears someone removed the "99.9%" opinion too, which is an improvement. Angry Christian (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this outcome, but let me clarify my position. Calling something a "theory" isn't degrading. See Theory. I know it seems like it to some people. But it is just wordy to repeat "the scientific theory of" over and over. So, "evolution" should be sufficient. I agree with the resolution here - not that you needed my agreement. Judicata (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave did you just add the additional "scientific theory" back in the article? Angry Christian (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

maybe if scientific theory was in quotes, it could be considered degrading, but by calling it scientific it is praising it. the comparison to gravity is not a very good one. Gravity is a law, because tests show it remains true. Evolution, is an explanation. ONe has to do with Physics, the other with biology. Gravity is consistent, evolution is about change. Rds865 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just foolishness. Gravity is a temporary theory and so is evolution. Gravity is far less consistent than evolution and is far more likely to be replaced by a new theory in the next 50 years than evolution is. However, most people don't know this since the average person is so ignorant. It has been shown over and over that way less than 50 percent of the American public can choose the definition of evolution out of a multiple choice list.--Filll (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rds865, our understanding of gravity is based on the Universal Theory of Gravity. It is a theory. Moreover, laws can be disproven. Such as, Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity. If you can disprove evolutionary theory submit your paper to a scientific journal and claim your Nobel prize. Until then, do a little reading. Paper45tee (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AC, I remember the edits in question: one editor added the word "theory of" in front of the word "evolution" and the next editor added the word "scientific." --Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks AE. This is actually pretty humorous, no matter which "side" you're on. Judicata (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. What we ended up with started to sound like a pamphlet on evolution. Not sure what state the article is in now, too afraid to look at the moment :-) Angry Christian (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Earth Creationists unhappy with Expelled.

Hugh Ross and his compatriots aren't happy with the movie as discussed here and here. Ross doesn't believe in evolution and is a prominent OEC. Is this relevant enough to go in the article? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

The section on Michael Shermer is getting a bit overloaded with quotes from one document. While much of it is relevant, can we convert one or two into prose, or move them elsewhere? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved two of the quotes to more appropriate sections. I also lost that awkward and unexplained "is-ought fallacy" quote by Dawkins in favour of this, since, frankly, Shermer explains it a lot better than unexplained rhetorical jargon does. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the addition of the quotes. Its good to see science presented correctly. Paper45tee (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I left a post on AN/I due to some of the issues, to hopefully bring in some experienced eyes. I'm particularly interested in getting discussion about revising the overview above, though maybe there are other issues that could use help as well. Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Drivel

I removed this crap as it is poorly written and misleading.

Evolution, the scientific theory that intelligent design and other forms of creationism set themselves in opposition to, is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists, and Dr Brian Alters says that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution." The film portrays this as an end to debate and claims that those who dare to question “Darwinism” will quickly be silenced, but there is vigorous debate on many aspects of evolution, and the scientific status quo is frequently successfully challenged by ideas supported by sound research and evidence.

&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim I couldn't agree with you more. For starters when we start promoting these "99.9%" opinions we beg for the creationist side to make similar unsubstantiated claims (like the DI's list of 700 morons). Also the article is too long as it is and we should be trying to trim fat and not add useless information. Seems like someone doesn't agrree as they have now added this crap right back. Angry Christian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is nice to see so much enthusiasm among our drive-bys here, but unfortunately it is awful for the quality of the article.--Filll (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Very Active Page

Hi everyone. Funny how this has become one of the most active and extensive articles on all of WP (wonder if that says anything about the editors). I'm wondering why a lot of the news releases and reviews are being allowed onto the page. Taking a look at WP:INDISCRIMINATE I would say that there are a few things that don't belong. In number two, I would say that most the editors here would call Expelled a fiction story (ha ha), but I'm not seeing much analysis about the movie. Actually I don't know what analysis of this movie would even look like. If you could enlighten me. Also number five, I think there are way too many news articles about how scientists think Expelled is a bunch of junk. We all (okay, most of us) understand that, but what is on the page is serious overkill. I think revising the page to have 2 or 3 articles that best summarize what "all" scientists feel about this page would be sufficient.

Now, as for Darwinism and eugenics, just one comment. First, people have to understand there is a difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. If people can make that distinction then it's easier to understand. I don't believe that Darwinism has anything to do with eugenics, nor I believe do many scientists, but Social Darwinism is an idea that many people and ideologies, including Nazism, have used to suppress those who they consider inferior. I think this has been well summarized in a paper written by Rutledge M. Dennis:

Tracing the philosophical underpinnings of scientific racism from the early work of hereditarians Darwin, Spencer, and Summer, to the intelligence testing movement led by Galton and Binet, and lastly to the contemporary race and IQ studies of Jensen, Herrnstein, and Murray, this article maintains that science is often used as a justification to propose, project, and enact racist social policies.

If people can understand this difference then there would be a lot less discussion. Infonation101 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I could more easily trace racist attitudes through Baptists and Pentecostals and Lutherans. People claim all kinds of nosense, but where is the evidence?

Also, this page has swollen because people like yourself are excited about a new movie coming out. This movie also has had quite a bit of controversy associated with it. As you can see above, it will probably be split into pieces and will be much shorter. So just relax.--Filll (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, please. You usually read more into the posts then that, and are usually a lot less defensive. I can understand because of the content that is going into the page, but dude AGF. Did my comment even degrade any remarks about ID and Creationism (two big ones here) or even that if this article is NPOV? Well, I don't think so or I wouldn't have posted it. I'm trying to become a better WP editor and leave all that behind. Just relax, I'm just giving feedback on the article. I think that there is not enough material on the movie, and more about what the movie proposes and what people think about what the movie proposes. By the way, has anyone editing this article even seen the movie?

Also,I never made the statement that racism and eugenics are exclusive to Social Darwinism, but that Social Darwinism is one aspect of science that people use to show superiority. Goodness, there's a never ending list of religious causes that claim that God has blessed them over other nations or what not. Isn't that one of the promises to the Jews made in the Bible? If we want to go further we can bring up the Koran or any number of other scriptures. My comment was that people use whatever means necessary to show they are better, and when it comes to science, Social Darwinism is perfect. And where is the evidence you ask. Um, if I remember my history (see Nazism and religion and Nazi occultism) Germany hated the semantic religion, and I think pretty much any religion, thereby killing 6 million Jewish followers. There is plenty evidence going both ways. Hence the quote

...science is often used as a justification to propose, project, and enact racist social policies.

Anything will be used to accomplish one's purpose, and in the age where science is growing stronger everyday doesn't it seem practical that someone would use it? Infonation101 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Social Darwinism is not an aspect of science, but of sociology. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Which would be a social science, and you may be right on the premise that Darwinism is a branch of biology. So one idea led to another, but when you say science it's a little too broad. Though that's just getting picky. Thanks to Herbert Spencer this gap was filled and vuala, biology meets economics in the survival of the fittest, but with that opening people began to use Darwinism for something that, I believe, Darwin never intended. Eugenics. Just like religion, science has been used for whatever means necessary to accomplish their goals. Another example would be Marcuse and his use of Freudian theory to create Eros and Civilization. The argument isn't if this is what Darwin intended, but what others have made it seem he intended. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, the article is inherently biased . . .

This really didn’t occur to me until just a short time ago, but I think it really needs to be examined. I think one very important fact has been overlooked by everyone: the reviews, criticisms, and comments of pro-evolutionary and/or anti-ID sources are inherently biased. Why? Take a look at the issues this film addresses.

The allegations made by Ben Stein are that people who either believe in intelligent design and/or creationism are persecuted for those beliefs. Now whether or not that is true is beside the point. The point is that any criticism, reviews, or comments on the film that cast it in a negative manner by pro-evolutionary and/or anti-ID proponents are inherently biased, because they are based on a view which contradicts and combats the views conveyed by the allegations. In other words, the evolutionists are not presenting a truth to combat a non-truth, but rather their opinions based on their stance on the issue to combat a conflicting stance. Taking that into consideration, any criticism they make of the film or of the allegations comes in the form of a response to an allegation, not the invoking of an irrefutably factual set of ideas to refute a non-factual set of ideas.

Therefore, it would be unencyclopedic to use said criticisms as a method to refute the premise of the movie. While evolution may be the majority viewpoint, it doesn’t make it irrefutably true (“consensus does not truth make,” as someone said earlier.) Intelligent Design and/or creationism are offered as ideas to combat the theory of evolution, their scientific basis notwithstanding. Remember, both creation/ID and evolution are both only "theories," not, "truths" or "laws."

Basically this all boils down to one thing: individuals who are pro-evolutionists and/or anti-ID have something to lose if the issues raised in the film are proven to be true. Since that is the case, bias is unavoidable on the part of both sides and using those sources (which appear throughout the list of sources on the article’s main page) as a means to disprove the allegations is completely ridiculous (It would be sort of like the Republicans disagreeing with a particular stance of the Democrats, and then in the Wikipedia article on that event presenting the Democratic view as the irrefutable truth.) The criticism by these individuals should be included in the article, but in a way that shows them for what they really are: responses to Ben Stein’s film showing their opinions, not the irrefutable truth. Raecoli (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Remember, both creation/ID and evolution are both only "theories," not, "truths" or "laws."" No creation is a fairy tale and Evolution is sciencentific theory with much evidence to support it, they are very different. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Why don't we cut most of the evolutionist AND creationist sources, and instead focus primarily on the third party sources, such as movie critics? Scientists expertise is in science, not movies, so they're opinion is pretty irrelevant. GusChiggins21 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's also important to note that I don't particularly have a problem with this, per my posting in the "At least ad the POV tag" section of the talk page. I just thought the community might be interested to see it from this perspective. But I like, Gus's take on the issue: the articles needs to focus on uninvolved, third-party sites that do no have a financial or ideological stake in the outcome and minimize the amount of criticism from evolutionary proponents. Raecoli (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your definitions of what is "encyclopedic" might be in accord with other encyclopedias, but not Wikipedia. We follow WP:NPOV here. By definition, the articles here are biased because we follow WP:NPOV.--Filll (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, there is no need to get defensive. Plus, if you're going to keep throwing out that WP:NPOV thing you need to at least know what it says. Going by those guidelines, this article is clearly in violation of the neutral point-of-view in these key elements:

1. “It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively.”

2. “The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints.”

3. “NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.”

4. “Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By ‘fact’ we mean ‘a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.’”

5. "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;”

6. “NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.” (Regardless of what anyone says, ID or creationism is not a minority or fringe viewpoint. It may be among the “educated elite,” but the same is not true among the public at large. There have been plenty of polls, surveys, and the like that have shown that trend.)

7. “If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view.”

And that was just after briefly skimming the WP:NPOV. Raecoli (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, your ignorance of what a scientific theory entails is clear by your use of the phrase "only theory". Theories are detailed explanations well established with considerable evidence. Theories are the highest level of explanation in science. They don't graduate to "laws" or "truths." A scientific theory is not ever proven, just either supported by evidence or falsified. Theories are tentative; one day new evidence may force development of a better theory to supplant it. The theory of evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science today. On the other hand, ID has no evidence to support it and has yet to develop even a hypothesis to test. As it is, it is not falsifiable and not science.

Expelled has been shown definitively to be wrong about their claims of persecution, so it's not just a matter of opinion there, either.

And it seems rather convenient of you to find a way to effectively cut out all criticism of this movie and consider it "encyclopedic." No thanks.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what a circular argument is? This is a classic example. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy, I will do my best to remain civil with you and I ask you to do the same; we're all big boys and girls here, so I think we're capable of following the Golden Rule. Forgive me for my ignorance of scientific terminology: I used the word "theory" in the context of something that has not been shown to be irrefutably true. Please pardon me for the confusion.

It's also important to note that the Expelled Exposed article/review was created by a group that is pro-evolution and anti-ID, therefore what they have to say is inherently biased and belongs in a "Criticism" section of the article. If it had been published by a group that "do no have a financial or ideological stake in the outcome," then I might be more open to what it has to say. Raecoli (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Any idea what "in proportion to their prominence" means? --Filll (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:NPOV gives a fairly accurate description: "For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." I think the key issue here is what minority are we talking about? The minority among scientists or the minority among the public? Raecoli (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is basedd on expert opinion, not on opinion polls of the ignorant. See NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 07:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Raecoli: I'm sure it would awfully convenient to the makers of the film, and those who wish to promulgate the same falsehoods, to restrict the WP article on the film to just a list of film reviews. However, covering the film's many departures from reality still remains a proper function of a WP page on the film. Basically this all boils down to one thing: individuals who are anti-evolutionists and/or pro-ID have something to lose if the issues raised in the film are refuted when they are compared against verifiable sources. Thus I'm not surprised many of them would attempt to short-circuit such an examination. I know that you only have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and wouldn't want to unwittingly aid and abet such duplicity. Let's fact-check the film's claims and let the chips fall where they may, shall we? As for the Expelled Exposed website, they are a group which strives to maintain the highest standards of science education in the public schools. I'm sure you'll applaud such an effort as well. They're not "pro-evolution" or "anti-ID", except in regards to stepping in when the teaching of evolutionary biology is unfairly attacked, or the teaching of ID is promoted in an unscientific manner. If this film is accurate and fair and doesn't cause damage to science education, it's got nothing to fear from the NCSE. If you feel that any of the NCSE's criticism of this film are actually incorrect, you should let them know, but to dismiss anything they have to say outright would be a logical fallacy on your part and appear to reveal a bias of your own, would it not? Finally, you ask, "what minority are we talking about? The minority among scientists or the minority among the public?" Well, since the film makes most of its claims about science (both the validity of evolutionary biology, and the asserted science-worthiness of ID), then the answer should be quite clear -- scientific questions are defered to the scientific consensus, not public popularity. --Ichneumon (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I don't know how the public puts up with you guys. I have never seen more scientific arrogance and academic hardheadedness. Never assume that because the public by-and-large aren't microbiologists or scientists they're stupid.

I agree that Ben Stein has something to lose if his assertions were proven wrong, therefore criticism from sources that are pro-Expelled should have a place only in a section of the article labeled, "Criticism." The same is also true for anti-Expelled sources: they belong in a "Criticism" section. I know the evolutionists think they have everything figured out and what they have to work with is irrefutably true, but the rest of us aren't so sure, so it would be a lapse of judgement to use their criticism as a way to refute the film's premise. You can label evolution a theory, a work-in-progress, or whatever you please, but until I see hard, irrefutable evidence that says, "Evolution is true," the debate is still ongoing.

"As for the Expelled Exposed website, they are a group which strives to maintain the highest standards of science education in the public schools. I'm sure you'll applaud such an effort as well. They're not "pro-evolution" or "anti-ID", except in regards to stepping in when the teaching of evolutionary biology is unfairly attacked, or the teaching of ID is promoted in an unscientific manner." My point exactly, Ichneumon. If this had come from an uninvolved third party and said the same thing, there would definitely be some questions there, but as it is, I'm not convinced. Remember these words: uninvolved third party. I think you may need to re-read what it was exactly that I said at the beginning of this section. Raecoli (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Never assume that because the public by-and-large aren't microbiologists or scientists they're stupid" No their not, but they are stupid, egotistical and many words i can't write if they choose to disbelieve the work of 10,000+ microbiologists with Phd's on the nature of Evolution when they might have done science to high school level. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the number of biologists in the US is over 1 million. The number of geologists is in the tens of thousands. The number of biologists and geologists in the entire world that have signed A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is about 150 or so. And when contacted privately, most of those said "Of course evolution is the way that species came to be! Anyone who believes otherwise is stupid! Intelligent design is a load of nonsense". So...--Filll (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Raecoli: You write, "Wow. I don't know how the public puts up with you guys. I have never seen more scientific arrogance and academic hardheadedness. Never assume that because the public by-and-large aren't microbiologists or scientists they're stupid." Umm... Raecoli, I have done or said nothing to deserve this obnoxious insult from you. I don't know what your problem is, but I suggest that you go somewhere and address it before you attempt another response, because I'm not going to be able to respect anything you have to say until you're better able to keep your emotions in check and not hysterically lash out at people like this.

At the very least, work on your reading comprehension. I in no way said that the public by-and-large are "stupid". Retract that insult, immediately. An honorable person would apologize as well. Let's see how honorable you are.

And speaking of arrogance, where do you get off speaking for "the public" in your first sentence, and why do you attempt to attack a broad group of (unspecified) people by railing against "you guys" when somehow I'm the one you're really attempting to make a personal attack on?

Next, where is the "scientific arrogance and academic hardheadness" you imply you've found in my post somewhere? Is it the part where I dared to point out that you were making basic errors in your understanding of science and the people who practice it, and as a result several of your complaints were off base? If anything, you've only managed to reinforce this impression with your latest emotional ad hominem screed, both in your inability to discuss the matter without leading off with a bitter broadside insult, as well as your continued confusion over basic issues, not to mention your poor reading comprehension.

Speaking of your reading comprehension, you insultingly write, "I know the evolutionists think they have everything figured out and what they have to work with is irrefutably true, but the rest of us aren't so sure, so it would be a lapse of judgement to use their criticism as a way to refute the film's premise." Perfect example. This one passage contains multiple failures on your part. First, it shows your penchant for making snotty insults as a substitute for having something of substance to say. Second, it insults "the evolutionists" as a group is a hugely hyperbolic broadside slur. Bigoted much? Third, it tells a blatant falsehood -- no, I don't "think I have everything figured out", and nothing in my post would support such an attack on me. No, I don't think that "what I have to work with is irrefutably true", and nothing in my post would support such an attack on me. Nor have I seen other "evolutionists" make any such claim either. Fourth, the state of your own uncertainty in no way turns solid refutations of the film's claims into a "lapse of judgement". Fifth, there you go again attempting to speak for "the rest of us" -- speak just for yourself, unless you've been appointed spokesman for humanity when I wasn't looking.

Finally, and here's the crux of the matter, the one you got wrong in your first post in this section and are repeatedly making as you go along, is that the "evolutionists" aren't claiming to have all the answers, but THAT'S NOT WHAT IT TAKES TO REFUTE THE FILM'S FALSE CLAIMS AND SLEAZY IMPLICATIONS. Read the following carefully until it finally sinks in: The criticisms of the film aren't due to someone saying, "evolution is absolutely true and ID is absolutely false, therefore the film is bogus". Go back and read that *again*, because your multiple misunderstandings and the basis for your disgusting insults are all rooted in your assumption that that is the case. It's not.

Instead, the film is being rightly excoriated for making claims and propagandistic implications that are at odds with reality, or which engage in basic logical fallacies. For example, the film makes a number of claims about the Sternberg case that quite simply are not true, or presented in an incredibly misleading fashion by leaving out key facts. One doesn't have to be a "Darwinist" who thinks that they "know everything" to point out these discrepancies between what the film claims and what actually happened. Similarly, even when the film makes claims about science and scientists, what is being refuted is not refuted based on "we're Darwinists, we know everything", it's refuted based on the fact that the film is mischaracterizing what evolutionary biology actually has to say -- it's engaging in straw man misrepresentations, which remain misrepresentations whether or not evolutionary biology happens to be Absolue Truth or not. Finally, the film is caught engaging in numerous logical fallacies, and one need not be a "know-it-all Darwinist" to point out clear errors in reasoning.

In short, the criticisms of the film aren't based in a fundamental struggle over whether evolution or ID are the "right" idea or not, they're based on the unfortunate fact that the film manages to screw up a large number of things it claims *about* evolutionary biology, manages to make many false claims about events which had many witness, manages to leave out key facts in an attempt to give the viewer the wrong impression, and manages to fumble numerous times when it attempts to engage in basic reasoning.

This has nothing to do with "evolutionists" claiming to have all the answers, as you insultingly assert, and has everything to do with the film departing from basic standards of accuracy and honesty.

Deal with it.

You say that "the debate is still ongoing", and indeed it is, but this is irrelevant to basic fact-checking which the film flunks.

You also write, "If this had come from an uninvolved third party and said the same thing, there would definitely be some questions there, but as it is, I'm not convinced." Your bias is duly noted, thanks for admitting it. As soon as you find an "uninvolved third party" which meets your impossibly high standards, one that you will finally allow past your mental filter against even the most basic and well-documented criticisms of the claims in the film, do please let us know. In the meantime Wikipedia will continue to include valid criticisms that are verifiably accurate even from sources you attempt to handwave away as obviously "biased" because they actually know the subject matter which the film attempts to attack. That's generally good enough for mere mortals. --Ichneumon (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ichneumon, don't get your panties in a wad. I wasn't trying to insult you, but if you want to take offense that's your prerogative. "Retract that insult, immediately. An honorable person would apologize as well. Let's see how honorable you are." First off, I mean what I say and I say what I mean and I will in no way, shape, or form retract anything. That was a broad statement including everyone on this talk page. However, I will apologize for you thinking it was directed solely at you, though I will not take it back, nor will I apologize. As well, your impossibly long (that's a joke by the way so don't take offense) response includes multiple components that could be construed as insults, though I am not going to take offense. It's always best if you think you've been done wrong to rise above it.

"As soon as you find an 'uninvolved third party' which meets your impossibly high standards, one that you will finally allow past your mental filter against even the most basic and well-documented criticisms of the claims in the film, do please let us know." I thought that was the goal of any encyclopedia? If Wikipedia isn't interested in finding ubiased information for its articles, it should perhaps consider a name change.

To be honest with you, I really don't care if the page gets changed, or stays the way it is. The movie gets released today and I'm going to go see it either today or tomorrow. Even though I stand by my argument at the beginning of this section, I'm not going to worry about this article anymore because I think the public is smart enough to make their own decisions and its really exhausting arguing with you guys. Raecoli (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion proves the movie's point. Scientists seem to walk in lockstep, with no dissent tolerated. It seems the opposite of the scientific method. I call for unbiased 3rd parties setting the tone of the article with critics given their own section. I am looking forward to seeing this movie if for no other reason than to see those in power squirm. They have too much to loose if this film succeeds. WP can't let them use a power play to silence their critics.Harpervi (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...'

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know..., Scientific American -- covers:

1. Quote-mining Darwin to make his connection to eugenics & Hitler seem stronger
2. Stein's fake university address
3. "Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie."
4. Richard Sternberg
5. "Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism."
6. "Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution." (Finally we have a really solid source for this -- explicitly mentions Ayala and Miller)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hrafn, I'm kind of tired so I only made it through the first of the six. I read the passage as Stein used it and as it appeared in the book and I didn't see that the elimation of the added emphasis changed the meaning of what was said. It still conveyed the same ideas and while it probably wasn't the smartest thing to do, I don't see it makes much of a point. And even the next few sentences don't help that much either, I thought. It seemed that Darwin was outlining a fact, and then saying why we should avoid the consequences of that fact. If that is the case, Darwin's personal opinions on his previous statement are for the most part irrelevant, since Stein has said he doesn't have as much of a problem with Darwin himself as he does with the implications of the doctrine he created.

Anyway, I'm keeping an open mind. Like I've said before, I don't know Ben Stein and for all I know he might be a terrible person or a saint. That was just my take on the first of the six. Raecoli (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Raecoli, I think you should re-read the article more carefully. The difference is not "elimation[sic] of the added emphasis", it is elimination of large chunks of what Darwin said to radically alter the emphasis of what he is saying. It is quoting out of context, it is quote mining, it is blatant dishonesty. It is also completely normal practice for creationists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't see how grossly dishonest, misleading, and an attempt to "poison the well" it is to quote-mine Darwin in a way that makes it look as if he was arguing in *favor* of eugenics, when in fact in the very next passage he explicitly declared such a practice to be dehumanizing and evil? Really?? Ben Stein, is that you? Sorry, but I have a higher standard of accuracy and truth than that, which is ironic because I'm one of the "Darwinists" that Stein denounces as immoral, while he holds himself and his fellow creationists up as being held to a higher ethical standard. *I* wouldn't bear false witness against someone like Stein does. Irony is so ironic. If you're wondering why so many people are disgusted by the behavior of the anti-evolutionists, this is one of the big reasons why. --Ichneumon (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A reason why people are sort of disgusted with the evolutionists is because they don't listen. I said it wasn't the smartest thing to do and he probably shouldn't have done it. Having said that, I didn't feel that it changed what was said. Darwin stated a fact (about survival of the fittest) and then went on to say it was evil. From what I know of the movie, Darwin's opinion on what he says is a fact is irrelevant. Stein is asserting that Darwin's ideas were the source of the problem, not the problem itself. In other words, that later people miscontrued them, or took them to mean something they didn't. Raecoli (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Darwin was explicitly stating that civilised society should not emulate this "fact" of nature (a point also emphasised recently by Richard Dawkins). It is therefore blatantly dishonest to link him to twisted attempts emulate nature to 'better' the human race by forced ('negative') eugenics, genocide, etc. It is ascribing him responsibility for something he explicitly disavowed, while hiding the fact that he disavowed it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting survival of the fittest was not even Darwin's idea. Nor was murdering Jews something he advocated. In fact there is not a biology book in North America that suggests once race is superior to others or one race has the right to murder others. That kind of thinking usually comes from the Ku Klux Klan and those folks probably cannot even spell evolution. And I believe no secular school in North America had a recent policy that forbid black students from dating white ones (after all, they might breed - oh my!). Um, what school was it again that had this racial policy up until Bush visited them and it became a scandal? Which Darwinist college had that racial policy again, the name escapes me. Angry Christian (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Raecoli: would you consider an zoologist who studied the praying mantis, who noted that the females consumed the males after mating, but specifically recommended that people shouldn't do likewise, would be to blame for women eating their mates after sex? And would you think it would be honest to blame him/her while simultaneously concealing that recommendation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may seem shocking, but one very prominent biologist was so racist that he argued that blacks were a separate species, hence slavery was justified. That was Louis Agassiz – oops, a creationist opponent of Darwin! So it goes.. dave souza, talk 19:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What about that book that biological textbook that justifies slavery, in fact it's a slaveowners manual. Oops, that's Leviticus and not biology 101. My mistake. Angry Christian (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So long, of course, that the writers and the audience were not the slaves. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points but with respect this isn't a forum and you're all getting a bit OT. Raecoli seems to have left the discussion anyway. And weren't you the ones complaining about the length of the talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SA claim #2 about the university speech being "staged." Of course it was staged! He was on a stage! ALL speeches are "staged." This is like accusing an author of collaborating with a printer. Jwbaumann (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In English, staged does not only mean "performed on a stage". In this case, it means that what was presented as a talk before Pepperdine students was actually a talk before paid extras. Nothing to be embarrassed about, of course - your English is very good - but English can be confusing with its mixture of literal and figurative meanings. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In case it escaped you (which it obviously did), I was using "staged" in both senses. SA used the "staged" nature of the speech, and the apparent paucity of actual college students (who are clearly more evolutionarily advanced than his "extras" and therefore of greater credibility <-- note: this is sarcasm) at the event, to attempt to discredit Ben Stein. Has SA had articles which ridicule the laugh track on sitcoms? There was nothing rational or scientific in this point. It was just a stupid ad hominem attack. Jwbaumann (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no shame in missing the alternate meaning. You don't have to pretend otherwise. Your English is immensely better than my German. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SA claim #3 that Dawkins, Myers, et. al. thought they were being interviewed for a different movie. What?? Would that have changed their answers? Is scientific truth contextual? This is embarrassing and ridiculous for SA to even mention. Jwbaumann (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the article. Dawkins, Myers, et al. would probably have been far more careful with their wording if they knew they were being interviewed by creationists, because they are well known for their dishonest quote mining. If you are talking to normal people, you speak without the worry that your words will be twisted. If you speak to creationists, you should work under the assumption that they will misrepresent what you said. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying Ben Stein is a Creationist? I don't believe he ever states that himself. In addition, virtually everyone is missing the point that ID vs. evolution is simply a backdrop to the bigger focus of the movie, which is the suppression of free inquiry in science because of fear that free inquiry will lead to the self evident truth that there is a Creator. And if you reject a Creator, you reject the moral basis for our (USA) existence as a nation. Jwbaumann (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that does sound like a threat to your constitution. As for moral basis, reminds me of Gitmo :) .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course Ben Stein is a creationist. And no, the point of the movie isn't "suppression of free speech". It's a creationist propaganda piece. Why else would they leave out people like Van Till, Comer, the guy at Southern Nazarene...or people like Miller.

"And if you reject a Creator, you reject the moral basis for our (USA) existence as a nation." While Mathis & co make a lot of laughably dishonest statements, I don't think they're saying anything quite that ridiculous. Aren't they Canadians anyway? 24.231.182.13 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SA claim #5 - Have you heard of SETI? If we received a morse code message from space which read "Dear Earthlings" we would be ecstatic at our contact with intelligent life. But if we treated SETI like evolution, we could receive the entire encyclopedia Brittanica from space and still consider it random noise. Jwbaumann (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Really, you need to brush up on your English. But, when it comes down to it, do you have a source for any of this? I can't see how this connected to the article. If you want this addressed and rebutted in the article, you really need to find some reliable sources for this. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ichneumon, you wrote, "You don't see how grossly dishonest, misleading, and an attempt to 'poison the well' it is to quote-mine Darwin in a way that makes it look as if he was arguing in *favor* of eugenics, when in fact in the very next passage he explicitly declared such a practice to be dehumanizing and evil?" But you are mistaken. The movie did not do that. Its quote was perfectly accurate, and perfectly in context. If you read carefully what Darwin wrote, he did not characterize eugenics as dehumanizing and evil. He used the word "evil" to describe the sort of problem which could justify neglecting the weak and helpless, not to describe eugenics. Also, what he described as dehumanizing was not eugenics, per se, it was the idea of neglecting the weak and helpless. Darwin did not even hint at disapproving of things like forced sterilizations, which were the main strategy of many eugenics programs. For more discussion of this, see here. NCdave (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

reviews

There are going to be a ton of reviews coming in and many more from actual movie critics. Has everyone seen the E! Online review? Anyhow, have we given any thought to what criteria we'll use or will we try and add them all or? I have no opinion, just curious about the subject. This fits in with the space concerns. Angry Christian (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One idea. If editors have a moment, go through and take the highlights of each article (what they think the article is trying to hit the hardest) then find a few articles that reach out to as many of those points as possible. From what I've read there are a lot of the same opinions in many different articles. Or we may just post a list of the "concerns" and/or "disagreements" that these articles have along with a few exceptional excerpts. Infonation101 (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading AN/I, it looks like everything is sort of on hold until everything calms down. AC, we'll get back to this once everyone has had their fun editing the crap out of the article and what not. Hey, does Filll sleep? And how do so many people have so much time to put into this page? Anyway, night. Infonation101 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we should be looking for "a few articles that reach out to as many of those points as possible" but rather (per WP:RS) prominent reviews that feature in major national/international newspapers, major movie-trade/science magazines, etc. One example is this one that has featured simultaneously in the The Arizona Republic[7], the Chicago Tribune[8] as well as the Orlando Sentinel. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Baltimore Sun review
• New York Times review
• LA Times review

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, Hrafn. Heck all three of those should be incorporated into the article. Interesting that the mainstream press seems to be echoing what the scientific community has been saying about Expelled all along. Also interesting that much of the mainstream media is characterizing the film as nothing more than propaganda. Fascinating. Angry Christian (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As of now, 1 fresh 10 rotten tomatoes, which gives useful links to the reviews. .. dave souza, talk 10:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, that idea sounds good to me. Now that the movie comes out today everything should be calming down a bit here. I almost couldn't find this. A few of you seem to have this as under control as it can be, so I'll just leave it up to you to sort through the mess. Thanks for taking the time to do this. Infonation101 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we add the Rotten Tomatoes link to extern links section, and also should we have the external links come prior to the refs so the readers does not have to scroll through two pages of refs before they see the external links section? Angry Christian (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally just mention it in the Reaction section, but it's not unreasonable idea to put it in EL too, I guess. Go for it.Nightscream (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Move criticism to bottom

Criticism in the article should be moved to it's own subsection at the bottom, instead of point by point negative commentary on pretty much every example given in the article... compare to other articles on potentially controversial documentaries putting large amounts of negative criticism to accompany each point could give the article a POV appearance 72.205.199.80 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This usually is not encouraged formatting of Wikipedia articles. If you will read above, you will see we will probably shorten it with one or two forks at some point.--Filll (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Frustration.

I came here fof the AN/I, made a few simple edits, pulling the criticism out of other sections and back into its' own, where it belongs, fixing badly assigned pronouns, and so on. OrangeMarlin, in an effort to control the page and attack other editors, reverted a whole night's worth of edits with the blanket statement that he was restoring NPOV. It's clear he's instead seeking to control the page. I won't edit it again. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully we can keep what you replaced for now. The paragraph about the scientific view is still there, though I think an increasing number of people see a problem with this, but at least the language itself approaches fairness (which goes a long way). Even so I think it should be clear we're ticking off a lot more readers than we should be, increased traffic notwithstanding; I'd like to think we can improve this before the article returns to obscurity. Mackan79 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be impossible to improve the article until the hordes of new editors leave i.e., until it returns to obscurity.--Filll (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I told you at AN/I. You just have to listen.--Filll (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to improve the article only if editors undo improvements, Filll. Many articles undergo large amounts of editing, and don't necessarily suffer as a result. The issue here is editing, and why people are reverting helpful changes to the article. The idea that it's simply impossible to look at what's being reverted doesn't seem to me at all supported or to be good practice. Mackan79 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Filll on this one. You either are ignoring consensus or are policy, I'm not sure which. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tiny little improvements in writing or spelling inside of massive deletions of NPOV material is not going unnoticed. And if you read my edits to this article, they are NPOV, supporting the ID propagandists on rare occasion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd most certainly like everyone to know about any change I make, and for everyone to be content with the end result. Unfortunately the issues all kind of blend together, although I've recently only tried to fix the language and to have at least a basic exposition of what the moviemakers think (two sentences) to start the overview. I'm putting the other issues aside, with the view that this alone will keep a lot of people from immediately questioning the article itself. Mackan79 (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping for discussion of the edits replaced by ThuranX here, resulting in the overview here. I don't believe this leaves out any part from previously, and clearly includes the paragraph about scientific consensus. The primary difference here is the language, and moving a basic statement about the filmmaker's views to the beginning so that this is known. If people could check this out and comment, I'd appreciate it, as again I think there are significant issues here that shouldn't wait indefinitely. Mackan79 (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring against consensus and NPOV and other Wikipedia policies are not a good idea in general.--Filll (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Filll, but also one of the reasons why direct discussion on the talk page becomes so important. Mackan79 (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please divide up the "Lawsuits and Alleged Plagarism" section.

It is requested that an edit be made to this semi-protected page. (protection log) This template should be followed by a specific description of the request.

It needs up to four subheadings:

1. Harvard/XVIVO (amusing reference)
2. The Central Dogma of Evolution (accusations here)
3. Imagine/Yoko Ono (reported all over the place)
4. "All these things that I've done", by The Killers (accusation here) which apparently was properly licensed with more information here.

Some of the last three may be worth combining, but they should be separated from the large discussion of the XVIVO lawsuit. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Page is already sprotected.

As far as lumping all the negative information into a "controversy" section: No. Read Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Er... I don't understand. I wasn't asking for a thing to be moved, just subsection headers added to a section that already exists. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FM that a "controversy"/criticism section (which 72.205.199.80 suggested in a thread further up) would be a really bad idea. However, I think what this anon-IP editor is asking for is simply an expansion of the copyright controversy to cover more purported violations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, 71.41.210.146 is not asking for the page to be sprotected, he's asking for some edits because the page is sprotected and he can't add them himself. The sprotected box is used to notify other editors of these requested edits so they can do the edit for the unregistered user. That being said, I don't think he has met the criteria of a specific description for the requested edit. -- HiEv 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the Colorado Confidential footnote

It is requested that an edit be made to this semi-protected page. (protection log) This template should be followed by a specific description of the request.

I believe it should reference this posting by Dan Whipple on December 16, 2007. The date in the existing footnote (#96 as I write, but it may move) is in mid-2006, which is at odds with the "Second week of December, 2007" date mentioned in the text that references it. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the point, I've had a look and the reference from July 3, 2006, is of Whipple's bio which describes his credentials as a reviewer.[9] The reference dates are ok, but it's much appreciated that you took the time to raise the question. .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy advice

This article violates the wikipedia policy of neutrality. The overview is obviously critical and negative. Critical and negative views should be openly labeled as such, under a section called "Criticisms" or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.133.40 (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect and generally violates Wikipedia policy. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing FM from the section above, "As far as lumping all the negative information into a "controversy" section: No. Read Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure FeloniousMonk" . . dave souza, talk 09:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization needed

The article as it stands now reads like a critique against the movie, almost from the very first sentence. At almost every sentence describing some aspect of the movie, there is a follow-up sentence stating why the movie is wrong. In adhering to WP style and to maintain objectivity, I suggest that the first "Overview" section describe only what the movie presents to the audience, i.e., its structure and the arguments it promotes. Following that should be a separate "Criticism" section that then and only then goes into details about the reported flaws of the movie, point-by-point analysis, quotations and opinions of experts, etc. Separating the description of the movie for what it is from its many criticisms is the only proper way to present an article on a topic like this. — Loadmaster (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion violates Wikipedia policy in several ways, in particular WP:NPOV. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. How does separating the description of the film from the list of criticisms qualify as POV? The article should not be written so as to appear that the editors were passing judgement on the film. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one said it sucked. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the sleeziest documentaries

NYTimes: One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time [10]--Filll (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we base our formatting on Sicko or The Passion of the Christ

I was hoping Sicko or The Passion of the Christ would be a featured article, but they aren't. If someone knows of a FA controversial film that would be even better.

Anyways, looking at those articles which have had some time to cool down (TPOTC still has NPOV tags) they both start with a paragraph that just describes the film. Sicko then has a paragraph summarizing its reception and criticism, then a paragraph about it's performance in the theaters. I think following Sicko for the lede would be a good idea, leaving off the theater stuff since this movie isn't out yet.

Both articles then have a sysnopsis/plot section summarizing the film without any extraneous information. I've been editing wikipedia since 2005 and I've never seen anything other than that until this article. If someone can find a featured article about some other film/book/etc. that breaks up the synopsis to comment on it maybe we can use that as a template.

I'm trying to think about this from the readers perspective. Someone who knows nothing about this film will be best served with an opening that quickly describes the film and it's reception. We can say that So and So doesn't find it to be accurate in the reception paragraph, that much is NPOV. The reader then comes across the table of contents which allows them to choose if they want to read a summary of the film, a summary of the reception, or a summary of the controversy. They shouldn't be forced to read about the reception within the synopsis.

I just noticed that Trembling Before G-d is a featured article about a documentary so we could use it as a template if we want, although it doesn't seem to have generated a bunch of controversy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This ideal has been hampered by the film's promoters expelling any independent reviewers from pre-screenings, restricting these viewings t the faithful and demanding that attendees sign non-disclusure agreements. Timonen's description on Dawkins.net gives a good overview, which could be combined with some info from the Scientific American articles, but reviews are now starting to come in and can be analysed soon. . . dave souza, talk 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design and creationism tend to excite assorted passions of editors. Things with a temporal component, like a film opening or an FA review get things even more heated up. Not much can be done for quite a while until the interest of the average editor dissipates. Any major editting will be quickly reverted and/or destroyed by one side or the other here. I would suggest instead just waiting for a few weeks or months. Since it looks like the controversies will have legs, some of those might be forked off. This article in archival form might eventually look more like a standard documentary article, although few are as controversial as this one. People should not get so upset and excited, because that just tells me that they have zero experience with this kind of article.--Filll (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Was the dispute that this article was biased settled? Basically, my criticism of the article, is it defined by its opponents. It would be like if the article on Fahrenheit 9/11 was written by George Bush. Sure they are relevant, and have a place in the article, but they are not third party. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not suppose to solve the debate once and for all. It should give a basic idea of what the film is about, and its cultural significance. Not educate the reader to the point where the reader know as much as one who viewed the movie and read the criticisms. Rds865 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Objectively examining a film's controversial claims is not bias. Neither is it bias when such an examination happens to reveal embarassing things about a film's veracity. Reality is what it is. The main bias I see on this Talk page is the complaining from folks with their own agenda or chosen beliefs, who don't want such results reported if the results don't go their way. --Ichneumon (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To understand anything about the film, the context is needed and is taken from reliable mainstream sources. Rds865 is objecting to the mainstream view – see NPOV: Pseudoscience and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". . . dave souza, talk 08:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Objectively examining a film's controversial claims is not bias. Neither is it bias when such an examination happens to reveal embarassing things about a film's veracity. Reality is what it is." I would be a lot more impressed by this high-falutin' sentiment if the Wikipedia entry to the movie that Expelled is often compared to, Fahrenheit 911, were as strongly worded — and biased (invariably, every point in Ben Stein's movie or connected thereto is literally followed by a point-by-point refutation) — as the Expelled entry is. Asteriks (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you do not like the principles under which Wikipedia operates, like WP:NPOV you are free to go to the Conservapedia article.--Filll (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Asteriks, have you actually watched Farenheit 9/11? While the tone of that movie is clearly anti-Bush, it simply does not contain a multitude of factual errors on the scale that "Expelled" evidently does. Nor is it attempting to push an agenda that has been recognized as essentially fradulent in a court of law. Nor is there such a wealth of expert opinion denouncing it. That's why I earlier recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a more appropriate comparison. That is declared to be "a plagiarism, a hoax, and a fraud" in the first sentence of the article! --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia's NPOV policy requires THIRD PARTY sources. I like the principles of Wikipedia, apparently you think neutral means your view. My point is not that there is criticism in the article, but the way it is presented. The movie, maybe complete BS, should be examined with an open, yet skeptical mind. The mainstream scientists, should be quoted in this article, but not for every part. A mainstream news source not an editorial blog, would be more neutral Rds865 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, What are all those hunddred-something footnotes, then? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we are obligated to allow the scientific voice to be heard for every science related claim made in the movie. I think we both agree stuff like Dawkins' opinion on the Expelled logo does not make much sense. Angry Christian (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The 100+ footnotes exist because of talk-page challenges. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday's point is a response to Rds865's comment that NPOV requires third party sources. SH was sarcastically replying, if those 100+ footnotes, many from mainstream news sources, don't count as ample third party sourcing, then what are they? -- HiEv 01:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Filll's comment ("If you do not like the principles under which Wikipedia operates, like WP:NPOV you are free to go to the Conservapedia article"), may I quote Nina May again? "The great thing about this discussion, is the blatant hypocrisy when you consider the fact that this film is being vilified by the very open-minded left, who will argue to the death that alternative lifestyles should be celebrated, embraced and encouraged. Yet the alternative lifestyle of believing in a creator … is not only reviled and marginalized, but those who express this belief are condemned as not being smart enough to even engage in the discussion. We are the inner-city ideologies, while the brilliant bourgeoisie live in Beverly Hills and New York City."

Regarding The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 1) it has been around for over a century, and 2) the "a plagiarism, a hoax, and a fraud" comment refers to the powers known to be behind it, i.e., to it having been deliberately and intentionally fashioned by a government (the Tsar's). If anything is to be compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, shouldn't it be the massive staged response to the movie, as well as the anti-Exposed agenda coming out, in these pages and elsewhere, before the movie has actually been seen!?

Is it unfair or unusual to expect that the person asking "Asteriks, have you actually watched Farenheit 9/11?" be fair and ask, also (to the rest of the Wikipedia community), "have you actually watched Exposed"? Asteriks (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Overview, third paragraph

"The film responds to the outcome of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial..."

Is it just me, or have we forgotten to say what the Kitzmiller trial was before discussing the film's reaction to it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See the next sentence in the paragraph – 'The film responds to the outcome of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial with Stein saying he thought science was decided by evidence, and not the courts. The trial resulted when a public school district required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution, and the court ruling concluded on the basis of expert testimony and the testimony of leading intelligent design proponents that intelligent design was a creationist religious strategy and was not science.' " .. dave souza, talk 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Sorry, your eyes go a little funny after a while. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Earth Creationists refute Expelled's premise

Old Earth Creationists Reasons to Believe have this to say about Expelled's 'Big Science is expelling dissent' claim:

In Reasons To Believe's interaction with professional scientists, scientific institutions, universities, and publishers of scientific journals we have encountered no significant evidence of censorship, blackballing, or disrespect. As we have persisted in publicly presenting our testable creation model in the context of the scientific method, we have witnessed an increasing openness on the part of unbelieving scientists to offer their honest and respectful critique.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So how should that affect the article we're discussing here? Again, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." Please make sure your comments clearly discuss how to improve the article. -- HiEv 01:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

PC liberalism: any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned

WP:SOAPbox rant, that quickly veers off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I went on to this Wikipedia entry, expecting it to be somehow objective and for the purpose of adding Brent Bozell's review of how "Ben Stein's extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection." Instead, it turns out that this is one of the most biased pages in Wikipedia's existence, with every point made in the film invariably followed by a point-by-point refutation (or a demented attempt thereat) unless it is demonization of the film's authors and tactics throughout. (Compare it to the entry of the movie that Expelled is often compared to, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, and the objective reader will see the differences.) It turns out that Brent Bozell's review, Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists, is twice as relevant as believed beforehand, especially when he writes that "It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay "rights." Abortion "rights." On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism's power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension." Asteriks (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Translation: you want to add the rantings of a frothing-at-the mouth zealot, but you can't bear the fact that the article also contains informed criticism from actual scientists and other relevant experts. And this is a problem... how? --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ID Overview

I see some aspects of revisions have remained in place. However, the second and third sentences are now as follows:

The film ignores the many scientists who are religious but do not bring God in as part of their theories as testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God, so scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable, regardless of the religious views of the scientists.[9] The film includes various inconsistent and confusing descriptions of intelligent design.[10]

I'm not sure how this is squared with WP:NPOV. I understand one idea is that ID is fringe and should thus be treated as such, but considering this is a movie, and presumably that even a fringe idea should be briefly explained before it is rebutted, I'm suggesting we return to a version that provides a sentence on what the filmmakers believe ID is before getting into rebuttals, such as here. Mackan79 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there seems to be a problem here. Suppose we have a WP:FRINGE group that describes all chihuahuas as black by definition. And we have several mainstream sources that describe chihuahuas as black, white, and brown. By WP:NPOV we are required to include the mainstream views in the article. I am very surprised that someone supposedly as experienced as you does not seem to know this. That leaves the casual observer with another conclusion unfortunately.--Filll (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, did you read what I said? There are issues with your comparison, but as far as I'm aware I'm only suggesting here that we give a sentence on what the black chihuahua group thinks before stating how this has been viewed. Did you have an opinion on this? Mackan79 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Mackan79, clearly if you want that (which is actually quite an understated version of what you seem to be pushing for), you want to violate several of the principles that WP operates under. We have to follow WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD for example. And legions of similar malcontents with agendas have tried similar arguments before you. None of them hold any water. --Filll (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So, Mackan79, your ideal is an opening paragraph that credulously recites the film's claim that people of faith are excluded without mentioning the context that many people of faith work with science as a secular technique, shunting that off into another paragraph as "a criticism", and giving a definition of ID from a primary source which is not available for checking. Hmmmm. .. dave souza, talk 13:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat baffled editors think we can't even say how the film presents its view before stating what parts people disagree with. Mackan79 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mack I agree that you first have you put forth what the film is claiming and then add how others view those claims. What you are suggesting here does not conflict with any Wiki policy and adheres to typical writing standards. You don't criticize Bush's speech until Buch actually gives the speech. This proposal continues to fall on deaf ears. Angry Christian (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan forgot to mention the first sentence, which is followed remarkably enough by the second one – "..portraying evolutionary science as a materialistic theory, committed to atheism and refusing to accept ideas with a religious component like intelligent design. The film ignores the many scientists who are religious..." Spot the connection? Statement – evolution=atheism, response – evolution same for religious scientists as atheists. The assertion needs an immediate correction, not one tucked away elsewhere in a way that implies it's only a "criticism". Suggestions for improved phrasing welcome, of course. .. dave souza, talk 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Suggestions for improved phrasing welcome, of course" No offense but that's a somewhat comical statement. Read this talk page to understand why. Angry Christian (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While you gotta laugh sometimes, note that I've accepted and worked from your comments and changes to the Caroline Crocker section. If the meaning was so unclear that Mackan missed the point entirely, perhaps it should be reconsidered to give it more emphasis. There are sources noting that the film makers went out of their way to avoid interviewing Christians who are scientists, though of course to them anyone not abiding by their own rigid interpretation of scripture is just a sort of atheist – see what leading ID proponensts say about theistic evolution. Anyway, think it's worth emphasising this point and moving the definition they don't give for ID into a new paragraph? The NCSE describes the contradictory things they say about "design" in the film. .. dave souza, talk 15:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did and do note that Dave and yes laughing is the ONLY thing that will keep you sane around here. If we could make similar strides in the ID section we'll have accomplished a great deal. If you look at that section there is hardly anything at all from the film itself and reads like nothing but a collection of people taking turns throwing punches at Ben and Co. While those punches are well deserved, and I am not advocating removing them or being "fair", my point and others have echoed it is we would do well to include what Ben is actually peddling. Ideally in the opening para. Angry Christian (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence says they're imitating Michael Moore, and that they oppose evolution, but doesn't say what they're promoting -- the stated topic of the section. Is there another way to address this? Mackan79 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, see the earlier version here for the idea that having this is some attempt to whitewash the article. That gives two paragraphs, and was probably written by Filll for all I know. Mackan79 (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this article well-written? No of course not. Will it be written better eventually? Sure, but we cannot do so with this much turmoil; that is basically impossible.

Is it extremely unfair to the filmmakers? No. We do not have criticism sections in our articles, if we can avoid it. If we have two views, A and B, we present them back and forth. For example, in this article at the moment I see, in sentences and phrases, A A A A B B A B B A B A B B B B B A B A A B A A A A A ... and so on. As I look at this balance of A's and B's I do not see a heavy overweighting of one or the other. If anything, I see more As than Bs, just as I did when I did a very careful check a couple of months back and found that this article was 88 percent pro intelligent design and pro film.

And guess what? Even when the article was 88 pro intelligent design and pro film, people like yourself whined and whined and whined and whined and whined and whined and whined and threw tantrums about how unfair it was that there was any criticism of their precious piece of propaganda. Well sorry...but that is WP:NPOV.

However, WP:NPOV states that we give the views in proportion to their prominence. This film purports to be about the science community right? So what does the science community say about it? Well the mainstream science community states that this film is crap (well over 99 percent of the relevant fields reject intelligent design for example). What does the mainstream film community say about this film? The mainstream film community states that this film is crap. By this measure, the article could easily look like A B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B.. and so on. Instead, you want it to look like A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A and eventually maybe in a separate section (or separate article?) a bit of B. Well guess what? It is already MORE than balanced and fair.

You just do not want any criticism. Sorry that is not how the world works on Wikipedia. You are free to go to Conservapedia if you want another option. Because there is a certain measure of freedom of expression on Wikipedia, and in the United States, not like what one would find in the Christian Taliban nightmare that this film seems to want to promote. --Filll (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll no one but you is talking about being fair to the film makers. For that matter I think it's pretty obvious I personally loath the film makers. What we're talking about is how the article/section flows. In any circumstance in the world, other than this specific article, the point that is being criticizes is made first. Then the experts weigh in. For some reason many editors here feel we should ignore what Ben's film says and add nothing but what his critics say. Please read people's comments before replying to them. I don't give a shit about being fair to Ben Stein. Some of us would like to see a quality article about Expelled. Fairness has nothing to do with that motivation. Angry Christian (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See above - assertions need to be given conext.. dave souza, talk 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me also ask: is stepping in to argue that you can actually be religious and support evolution the best second point? Additionally, if we're catering to the least common denominator here, I doubt that person will know what it means that you can't "control" God, and how this relates to what we're talking about. This is another reason it would seem better to wait and present the more important objections to ID, not just to the first thing that gets said about the movie. Mackan79 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving/talkpage length

This talkpage is approaching half a Meg in length, and so often drops out while loading (at least out here on the edge of nowhere), it has 77 sections, with the older threads being kept 'active' by the occasional redundant 'me too' or off-topic rant, it has multiple threads active on the same topic (bias/NPOV), and is getting to the stage of being almost completely unreadable/unusable beyond the 'leading edge' of it. For this reason I'm reopening the topic of reducing the archiving time down to 7 days, and will do so semi-unilaterally unless I get absolute howls of pain on the topic in the next few hours. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Count me as a howl of agreement. And 7 days sounds good to me. Thanks Hrafn. Angry Christian (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Filll (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Judicata (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... not to rain on your parade, but I already did this two days ago. :-) --Ali'i 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. And can we do some unilateral archiving of some of the me-too reactivated threads to get this down to size? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Count me as a howl of disagreement. Also, please refrain from characterizing other editors' comments as "off-topic rants." NCdave (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A very good example of good writing

Look at Caroline Crocker section, the first paragraph. Dave just made some edits to it. It opens with us being told who she is, what she does, what the film says about her. It does not start out saying "that dumb broad is a liar" (even though she obviously is) The first few sentences are very informative they respect the reader's intelligence and give the reader a nice back ground. Then it introduces the opinions about the claims being made in the film. Excellent writing, good style, nice flow, and most of all it allows the reader to come to their own conclusion. This is a very good example that I think all the sections should follow. Very nice editing Dave (and others who contributed)Angry Christian (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In case I'm not being clear, I am suggesting we use the same format (especially) where the promotion of ID is introduced. Instead of telling the reader Stein is more pussifed that Michael Moore, tell the reader what Stein is peddling. Then portray him as a Michael Moore wannabe in a cheap tuxedo. Angry Christian (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobble heads

Enough! If you want to buy a bobble, go to eBay.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"People who bring 25 patrons to "Expelled" can get a limited-edition Ben Stein bobblehead -- just the enticement for collectors like Projector who already have the Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh dolls." From LA Times review.--Filll (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I see that (the numerous) entries like this one is not (in no way) Soapbox or point of view. I get it now; only conservative viewpoints are. And, naturally, reviews such as Brent Bozell's piece, Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists will not be included in the article! (That can't be anything but "the rantings of a frothing-at-the mouth zealot"!) Well, it's good to know that Wikipedia is nothing if not a totally objective encyclopedia… Asteriks (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for coming by Mr. Bozell. Would you like to have a more accurate biography here?--Filll (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I want a Ben Stein bobble head! But I'm not planning on putting any money in Ben Stein's pocket. I'll buy one from one of you people if you get one :-) Maybe one will show up on ebay some time Angry Christian (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I didn't realise that townhall.com was a major news outlet on the same level as the Los Angeles Times. Live and learn. Although more than a tad facetious, Filll's original comment was at least discussing a statement made, about the topic, by a WP:RS. That puts even his jokes two levels above most of what we get on here. HrafnTalkStalk 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Are there any pictures of the Ben Stein bobble head anywhere? I'll pay $25 for one if they look really goofy. Maybe they'll make bobble heads of all the ID victims - "Collect 'em all!" as they say. Can you imagine a William Dembksi bobble head? Maybe with that nutty sweater we all know about. Shoot yeah, you guys let me know if you get one that you'll sell. Angry Christian (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC) If the article wasn't so darn long already, I would argue to slip this in. Maybe after we fork it we can find room for this.--Filll (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Layout

The layout of the article should be changed to resemble that of An Inconvenient Truth, as both documovies are equally controversial. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. An Inconvenient Truth is based in science, while Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is based in fiction. The two films are apples and oranges. Besides flying in the face of science, the creators of E:NIA have also used various underhanded tactics in their use of video, music, and interviews, making the amount of controversy and criticism far greater than for AIT. Rather than trying to shoehorn E:NIA's size 16 feet into AIT's size 7 shoes, it makes far more sense to spread the loads of legitimate criticism throughout the article, rather than trying to lump it into a few sections that would be lopsided in size compared to the rest of the article. -- HiEv 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is probably the worst example of bias I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and the above paragraph reinforces it. It's only controversial if it's conservative: if it's conservative it's immediately POV and/or must be marginalized. Liberal equals mainstream. NPOV has become LPOV. Science apparently now demands an liberal worldview. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Those damn Nazi hippies! Angry Christian (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The bias in this article isn't towards liberalism or the mainstream, it's towards objective reality. Creation "science" is actually a pseudoscience, and this article rightly treats it as such. Also, I did not say AIT wasn't controversial, far from it, I merely said there was a lot less wrong with it than E:NIA. Also, when the movie or the people who worked on it make a notable and false claim, notable replies correcting those errors will be included. It is not "bias" to show both sides of the argument or the evidence of error. Leaving that out might be bias though. Now, if you have specific constructive criticisms to help this article which follow Wikipedia guidelines, rather than unhelpful broad insults and soapboxing, we would be most interested in hearing them. Simply saying the equivalent to, "You suck!", though, is not particularly helpful. -- HiEv 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Defining the nature of objective reality is not something Wikipedia can actually do. I also don't see why it should do such a thing in an article about a movie. Essentially 5 or 6 indepent segments are devoted to how wrong it is and how it's hurt people. There is nowhere near a similar number of criticisms for What the Bleep Do We Know!?, The Root of All Evil?, Jesus Camp, or the The God Who Wasn't There. Many of those are just as kooky, but their meanspiritidness is not directed at Wikipedia's founding/disproportionate group. (Techies, atheists, and agnostics)--T. Anthony (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have misunderstood my point. I did not say that Wikipedia should "define the nature of objective reality", I merely pointed out that Wikipedia supports mainstream science (which is based in objective reality) by keeping fringe science in proper balance. I've seen the first three you named and I'm familiar with their background, and they all have far fewer problems than E:NIA has. None of them blatantly copied someone else's video, used music without permission, used dishonest tactics to gain interviews, expelled people from their pre-screenings, or compared a scientific theory to Nazism. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The E:NIA article shows more criticism than those other articles because there has been more criticism against it. It's really as simple as that. -- HiEv 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bethell review

The paragraph on this states:

Tom Bethell of The American Spectator says that the film brought tears to his eyes and that the film is the "best thing that has been done on this issue, in any medium". Bethell asserts that the film promotes the position of Ken Miller of Brown University and Francis Collins of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and by many religious figures, that evolution and belief in God are compatible. However, he believes that the film exposes the persecution of those who hold this position by people like Richard Dawkins and William Provine.

However what Bethell said was:[11]

Dawkins and Provine are among those evolutionists who unflinchingly accept the logic of their own position and reject what might be called the diplomatic option. This seeks to keep everyone happy by agreeing that evolution happened on schedule but allowing also that God arranged things that way. It's the position taken by Ken Miller of Brown University, Francis Collins of the Human Genome Institute, and by many religious figures. It puts diplomacy before truth and adopts the Rodney King mantra: "Can't we all just get along?"

He isn't accusing Dawkins and Provine of persecuting Miller and Collins, he's accusing Miller and Collins of dishonesty. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the top one you quoted was a huge distortion or complete misread. The revised edit is completely accurate, but it presents problems too because it digresses away from the film into a Bethell's opinion of what the implications of Darwin prove about God and religion. That might be notable in other contexts, but is it notable in terms of this film-- With Ken Miller and Francis Collins not even in the film, it is better to stay focused on the film itself, not whether some reviewer considers Miller's stance dishonest. The article mentions elsewhere that the film is criticized for a selective bias by choosing Dawkins et al over Miller et al, revealing that this is propaganda (of course, DI and other prominent IDers know of Miller very well-not including him was not a careless oversight). There are many good sources available that just come out and say this. If anything, I'd go back to Mathis's comments about Miller and see if that can't be made more clear why Miller's absence from this film is so controversial. If Bethell's opinion contributes much to content to the article, it should at least be tied to Mathis's comments somehow.

The article gets really oblique for readers - we don't need everything, and the kitchen sink too. Juicy comments aren't encyclopedic if they don't have content. So juicy quips just hum about like unfiltered noise unless either the reader knows all the backstory before they read it here, or the relevant backstory is described in the same section as the fly-by commentators. With an article this long and dense it has to stay focused or it fails to communicate the key ideas well. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

P is for propaganda

Virtually every mainstream critic/review I am reading the critic is describing Expelled as propaganda. Would it make sense to organize a section where the propaganda claims are somewhat organized and looked at more in depth? It's one thing for members of academia and/or science to make this charge but so far all the leading, prominant reviews by major media are all calling the movie propaganda which I think is highly notable in itself. Angry Christian (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For starters, how about a paragraph at the end of the overview? Once it has some shape, we can move it to a proper home. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Like a second paragraph in the overview? That could work. Angry Christian (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a small sample of mainstream reviews that specifically use the term propaganda to describe the film:

Seattle times

Minneapolis Star Tribune

LA Times

Chicago Tribune

NY Times

Arizona Republic Angry Christian (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Village Voice calls it propaganda as well. Angry Christian (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, those are third party sources, although it should be noted the first two are articles by the same writer. Not that that invalidates them, or disproves the point. it is more in the interest of full disclosure, that I mention it. Rds865 (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More

Guardian Nashville Scene Conde` Nast Portfolio The Week Daily Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Angry Christian (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Even TV Guide is calling it propaganda. Angry Christian (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"all the leading, prominant reviews by major media are all calling the movie propaganda which I think is highly notable in itself." What is even more notable, or just as notable, is that seemingly every subsection on this page allegedly authored by a conservative and presenting an alternative viewpoint eventually seems to get censored (or hidden, or whatever you want to call it). Asteriks (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because (to my knowledge) they haven't written anything pro-intelligent design, and hence really can't be considered third party. If someone can prove me wrong on this; by all means do so. RC-0722

Please do not insinuate ID = conservatism. I am conservative, and against pseudoscience and the peddlers thereof. I don't like liars, and I've yet to find an honest IDer, if you don't count Kurt Wise.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

^247.5/1 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

they haven't written anything pro-intelligent design, and hence really can't be considered third party. - this is probably the biggest non-sequitur I have seen in my life, not to mention the fact that it's absurd on its face. Raul654 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How so? A third party reference should be unbiased, and you can't be unbiased without presenting both viewpoints. Now, show me an article from one of those sources that is pro-intelligent design, written by the same author(s) that wrote pro-darwinism articles, and then we can call them third party. I am not going to discuss the whole ID vs. Darwinism here (e-mail, however, is a different story). RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh?

Pardon me not being logged in. XD Too lazy. I'm User:SuperDMChan when I am, though. But, am I the only one whose noticed the fact that this article is leaning EXTREMELY towards the left (meaning evolution), especially with the useage of the word "claim"? This really ticks me off. One of the main rules of Wikipedia is that you don't inflect your opinions, which I think a lot of evolutionists are doing. I'll probably get flamed fifty million times for this, but oh well. SuperDMChan (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (P.S.: I've logged in and signed my post. ^^)

Amen. I've noticed that too. This article needs some serious help in the POV department. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that as I've been reading the article and sources more closely, and seeing the way the article is being edited, my earlier opinion has completely reversed and I think the article is biased as hell, and I'm an 'evilutionist' or whatever you lot call me. But I'm afraid I don't want to get involved in a battle like this. Restepc (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's biased, but the problem is that this is done on the premise that ID is a fringe pseudoscience position, and therefore that it should be. To improve it, the point that needs to get across is that one can reflect predominant views without having the article itself take a role of advocacy. Primarily it's a matter of tone, and whether derisive reviews should lead to a derisive encyclopedia article; it's clear that some editors think it should as a matter of policy, which is why I think it would be helpful to address this point. Mackan79 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. It isn't about content, but tone/presentation. Judicata (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

..."leaning EXTREMELY towards the left (meaning evolution)"? I presume this is an Americanism? Evolution isn't "left-wing", it's reality. If anything, it would be seen in most of the world as having right-wing connotations (stressing "capitalist" competition and so forth). IIRC, it was rejected by Stalin for precisely this reason, and the movie itself tries to equate it with right-wing fascism! --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not cede reality to the left side of the aisle. Evolution is reality, not a leftist viewpoint. This is getting ridiculous. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Reminds me of the tongue-in-cheek comment that reality has a left wing bias.  ;-) -- HiEv 02:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, HiEv, the version of that joke which I heard said "right wing."  :-)

As for the position that "evolution is reality" and the article should simply reflect that reality, here's my take. There's evolution and there's evolution. Both sides are right: Evolution is proven reality, and evolution has been disproven by science.

The left wing v right wing has to do with politics, which may have relevance to the movie, since politics control what education. On whether or not this movie is propaganda, is based on one's definition of propaganda. Today it has the negative connotation of being lies told to convince the masses of something. Really the term originally had positive connotations, and does not indicate lack of truth. Rds865 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Here's what I mean. Microevolution has been proven to the satisfaction of just about everyone; nobody doubts that bugs evolve drug resistance. But Darwinian gradualism (Darwin's main falsifiable prediction) has been falsified by the fossil record; almost nobody believes it anymore.

The dispute is over whether evolution, by itself, can account for the origin of life and the complexity of human beings. There are many thoughtful people on both sides of those questions, and a NPOV article on that subject would give balanced treatment to both POVs. You may believe that one side or the other is right, but science has not proven it.

Of course, this article is supposed to be about a movie, the main point of which is not the issue of which side of the pro-ID/anti-ID dispute has the better arguments. So this article really shouldn't even be wading into that swamp. NCdave (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just replaced this comment after its removal, which isn't to say I think it's as focused as it could be, but more that I'm not sure how one can remove this and keep the three above. I'd also say if there appears a pattern of someone happening to argue personal views in a large portion of their posts, this could be cause for concern, but then I think we should also try to be clear and reasonable about it. Mackan79 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will move my response from NCdave's userpage back to here (even though I think we're getting too far off-topic: WP:NOTAFORUM. Dave, your statement contains falsehoods that are likely to attract comments not related to improving the article. Macroevolution has been confirmed by overwhelming physical evidence: including the fossil record, DNA analysis, cladistics etc. Furthermore, Darwin was not a "gradualist" (by which you apparently mean "constant-speedist": he believed the rate of evolution was highly variable, a view comparable to the modern "punctuated equilibrium" position). And nobody has ever come with any evidence indicating that evolution, by itself, could NOT account for the complexity of human beings (evolution isn't about "the origin of life").

...Whereas ID is creationism rebranded. This is clear from the Wedge document and other evidence presented in Kitzmiller vs Dover. There is no scientific debate going on here. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV: Making necessary assumptions is policy, this isn't a forum to debate evolution. It's good fun, but time to stop and let this be archived. .. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

It seems the lead should have much more to say about the critical reviews, which currently aren't addressed at all. One positive side effect would be if we made clear how widely criticized it has been in the lead, we could have some slightly more focused sections below, but the lead should have the criticism regardless. Anyone who is up for doing this could check out WP:Lead for guidance (basic idea: at least two or three paragraphs would be appropriate). Mackan79 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We also need a synopsis that doesn't go into external criticism. Then it will be getting closer to other controversial film articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the movie, took 6 pages of notes

Even if you guys aren't going to go see the film, I would highly recommend watching Stiens interview with Richard Dawkins. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and it did an excellent job of defining the difference between ID and creationism. A lot of it turned out better than I thought it would. I'll put the best of my notes in typed form and put it up here hopefully in the next hour. That way those of you that asked me to do so can see them. Saksjn (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans and if people here try and hammer you for your opinion I'd suggest you ignore them and move on. Most people here are likely not going to share your enthusiasm for the film but many of us are still interested in your take on it. I do plan to see it I will do it in a way that does not line Ben's pockets. Angry Christian (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. We'll read it with interest and of course accept that it's your own take on the film. Of course it can't be a source for the article and doubtless there will be aspects where there are different opinions, but it's all very informative. .. dave souza, talk 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Will read when you put them up. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but there will be a little delay. I got home and found a truck load of stuff I had to do and now I have a baseball game so it looks like I can't get them up till tomorow morning or late tonight. Sorry. Saksjn (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a bit of expanding on the Dawkins side of things. Dawkins is a brilliant man, though he comes accross as a pompous ass he really is one of the best in his field. The article needs to explain more about why Dawkins ever agreed to this as well as what the film makers were trying to make him say for the purpose of the film. it's all well and good to say he was tricked into being in the movie, but it's pointless if you don't say why the film makers wanted to trick him into the movie in the first place. JayKeaton (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Found another new review

Take a look at this. It makes a few interesting points about the film, though I'm pretty sure most of you will think it's crap. Saksjn (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the quote from the article you want us to see;

"The pessimistic induction says that all scientific theories of the past have to varying degrees been wrong and required modification (some were so wrong that they had to be abandoned outright). No scientific theory is written in stone. No scientific theory should be venerated. Every scientific theory should now and again be subjected to severe scrutiny. This is healthy for science"

Thats what I thought Science was supposed to be about. But what do I know, Im just a man.

The beliefnet: Movie Mom review gives an interesting perspective. .. dave souza, talk 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the guy who wrote this is Biased

I believe that the tone of the article is biased towards Ben Stein’s Critics. Where is the support for the idea? There is obviously support against the idea in the article. I want my facts dry and concise. Not laden with opinion and colored language slanting the discussion in one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.177.175 (talk) 19:36, April 18, 2008 (UTC)

A common mistake that people make is to think Wikipedia only presents "neutral" or uncritical or unbiased or sympathetic views of a subject. This is not true, by WP:NPOV. Wikipedia presents all views in proportion to their prominence, roughly, and in this case must present the mainstream and scientific critical reception of the film. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but an encyclopedia or any reference souce SHOULD NOT allow any opinion. Facts. I agree that Wikipedia should not even have this listing as it seems to be a movie review at best and BIASED movie review at worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.177.175 (talk) 19:47, April 18, 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense and we write in English here if possible. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you keep repeating this argument in different contexts. I can't speak for Unsigned, here, but many of these people you attack with this statement are not suggesting that critical opinions be removed. I agree that all significant views should be expressed -- and certainly not just sympathetic or uncritical views. There is a difference between an article presenting biased views and being biased. When people say "the article is biased" you respond by saying that "biased views are supposed to be there." And you're not wrong. You just simply aren't addressing the person's concern at all. It's a different story if that person says critical views should be removed. WP:NPOV mandates that article be as unbiased as possible, and also requires that biased views be presented. I do hope you'll keep an open mind an reconsider. I think many of the people that think they have a problem with this article's content really just have a problem with how the content is presented. As I've said before, many people (including me) feel this article reads as an exposé. This does not mean that critical information should not be presented near the beginning -- even in the lead/introduction. Judicata (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Judicata you are confused. By the rules of WP:NPOV, and using our sources, we could probably have this article that was 90 percent or more anti-film according to the rules of Wikipedia. NINETY PERCENT. Do you understand that? Instead it is probably about 70 percent pro-film. So please, spare me.--Filll (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only does Judicata's comments seem clear to me, they compliment nicely with WP:NPOV as I just went and reviewed it in relation to Judicata's points made. Filll sometimes I would swear you respond to certain people without really reading what they're saying. Judicata is clearly advocating WP:NPOV specifically "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias..." Judicata is advocating the article not reflect an editorial bias but of course the sources do and should. It's an important distinction. Angry Christian (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the percentage, it's how the sources are used. An overview of the film should be just that, not an overview of the film plus rebuttals. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm not making myself clear to you. Perhaps you are reading someone else's comments, thinking they are mine. In any case, I wouldn't object to an article based on the % of its content that criticizes that article. I don't care if it is 99% negative. Please recognize the distinction between "content" and "presentation." Until you actually respond to one of my arguments, rather than making up your own argument and responding to it (see straw man ), I think we're done here. Judicata (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It might help to distinguish between an explanation of the film itself and commentary on the film. I believe virtually all articles are going to spend more time talking about the subject of the article than opposition to (or support for) the subject, since generally that's the first thing a reader wants to know about. In terms of "balance," that would generally be between support and opposition. In this article the issue is that we're completely cutting out discussion of the subject -- I gather because we're concerned that will give a biased view -- and jumping straight to commentary on the film. So we've effectively decided that an overview of the film isn't possible. Obviously none of this is absolute, but it does get to the problem. In any case, my hope would be now that there is negative material in the lead (which could be expanded if necessary, though I think it gets the point across), it would be considered alright to make the overview more of an overview. Are there thoughts on that? Mackan79 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say make the overview more of an overview can you elaborate? And I think the recent addition to the overview lets the reader know what's coming so I think that was an improvment. But anyhow can you elaborate? Angry Christian (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've actually been unsure: by overview, you realize I'm talking about the section after the table of contents, right? I'm referring to the first introduction as the lead. Possibly this has been a miscommunication... Mackan79 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I mistakenly was thinking of the lead as the overview. Now I see my error. Sorry for being a dork. Angry Christian (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem -- I think we still agree, though, that it's in what I've been calling the overview that it would be better to say what is in the movie than to jump directly to what it ignores. As I said above, the specific arguments there about religious people supporting evolution and needing to "control" God don't seem particularly compelling either. But I'd basically agree with Peregrine about doing a straight synopsis, now that we have noted the criticism in the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record I am the guy who originally split the overview into 3 distinct categories. I did this because previously it was a hodge podge of ideas and had a terrible flow. The attempt to categorize was to organize the claims being made by the film/producers and allow for a better flow. I'm not married to the organization and I think we do way too much editorializing in all three sections (in contarst to letting the film and critics speak for themselves). That said I'm open to ideas on how to improve it. I would suggest you or someone provide some specific examples and do so in small bites versus trying to rewrite the whole thing or section. That will make it easier to evaluate and bring the least amount of knee jerk resistance. Just my $.02. Angry Christian (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I think the overview should work is the section should be renamed to Synopsis and there should't be a single piece of information in it that can't be foudn by watching the film. Also get rid of the blue box. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79 - I think that is a good idea, if I understand you correctly -- that is, the lead should note the criticisms, and the overview/synopsis should be an overview of the film's content. Importantly, it should state the film's claims as such and avoid editorial characterizations. For example, "The film claims that intelligent design is rejected blah blah blah" is fine, but "The film tries to portray intelligent design as superior blah blah, even though the majority of the scientific community has rejected it" is an editorial characterization. Later, we can say "Dr. X, lead scientist at Supersmart Institute, characterizes these claims as weak and unfounded, because blah blah blah." Judicata (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to do this is create a Synopsis section from scratch, then rename the Overview section to something else. Not sure what. Maybe Scientific basis like in An Inconvenient Truth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an argument for a synopsis – film opens with berlin wall, Stein emotes to auditorium, interviews with selected atheist scientists intercut with adverse images, vague claims of unfair treatment, vague statements about ID, concentration camp, gas ovens, emoting, back to auditorium. However, we'd have to be careful to avoid introducing the propaganda that the film's trying to put over, that's what the more detailed sections discuss in the context of majority expert opinion. Of course we need a reliable secondary source to cover the selection and outline that we're making. Anyone proposing a suitable source? Anyone? .. dave souza, talk 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I think I understand your concern. But you can say "the film says this" "and the film does this" without making it look like the article advocates the film's views. You can trust readers to know when an article states "The film says X" that the article's editors are not taking a position as to the truth of X. It sounds like you're nervous that if a sentence says "The film presents intelligent design as a legitimate explanation for Universe's existence," then the reader may begin to believe it is a legitimate theory. That simply isn't the case. You don't need to add "even though the idea is contrary to scientific consensus" at the end of the sentence. There's plenty of room for that. Judicata (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Looking this over, I think may have misunderstood you. If you mean that we have to be careful not to say something like "The film shows that intelligent design is a legitimate explanation for the Universe" then I totally agree -- that is editorializing. Subtle, but important. Judicata (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to do this is create a Synopsis section from scratch, then rename the Overview section to something else. Not sure what. Maybe Scientific basis like in An Inconvenient Truth. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to support anything that makes this article longer. As I've expressed before, I think the article is way too long as it is. I suggest trying to move the relevant information from the overview to the "synopsis" and moving the non-synopsis info elsewhere in the article, to the extent the statements aren't already in the article. But, if it is better to expand and rename, so be it. Judicata (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, those are excellent ideas and reminders. Maybe we'll see some reviews soon that provide us with a road map like you're suggesting. Judicata, I think others share your concerns about the length at the same time I'd be in favor of it getting bigger if the end result was a better article (big does not = better of course). I think people are objecting to what they feel is over editorializing in the article and not giving much voice at all to what the film is actually saying, portraying or showing. I think Dave's suggestion would address those complaint and possibly result in a better article. Angry Christian (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps we can just watch for things that can be easily consolidated. Judicata (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source for a plot summary is the work itself. Just like any fiction based film. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

True Peregrine, but we need reliable sources to provide that plot summary for us to summarize/use as a guide :-) Otherwise we're indulging WP:OR. Angry Christian (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to cite anything for a plot summary (beyond the film), but I guess we've cited everything else so we may as well. I did a (very) little google searching and didn't find a straight summary for the film. I guess we peace it together. Maybe we could use those six pages of notes that some user wrote, then find refs for any controversial parts. I don't know what to use beyond the film itself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)

The idea sounds good for when we get the material. It would also reduce the issue with the overview; as I'm envisioning, though, an overview could still make sense. Simply for the time being, I also think our tit tat tit tat approach remains distracting and ineffective for the reader. The second sentence, saying you can support evolution while being religious, and something more obscure about needing a control to test God, is I think a result of this; to say this just doesn't strike me as a necessary argument. It also has nothing to do with the more important general consensus that ID is itself pretty much at best a legal maneuver (this from my reading). These are good reasons I think to go back to what was there before, and what I've tried to insert a couple times, where the overview starts with a second sentence about the producers' definition of ID. Note the next quote then points out exactly that the idea is vague and inconsistent. I think it would be a good change for now (bearing also in mind the new criticism in the lead), see the section here. Would this be alright? Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been tempted to just use the overview as the second and third paragraphs of the very stubby lead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis in progress

Ever helpful, I've started off a synopsis as the main item under the "Overview" heading. Have got as far as the Berlin Wall, presumably Stein in the auditorium comes next but SA suggests that he's preceded by clips of the "interviews" with scientists. The aim is a bare outline, with the claims and arguments being dealt with in detail in the subsections as at present. Note the NPOV guidance against splitting critical views away from assertions, and that I've separated out the very significant portrayal of science as atheistic into its own section which should be expanded to include the issue that those interviewed were selected or edited to display atheism. Note also Nelson's definition of "design theory" which he gives in the film. .. dave souza, talk 10:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As an interim measure I've roughed out a synopsis. The source is by no means ideal, hope a better source comes to hand shortly. .. dave souza, talk 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Future Film

I removed the {future film} tag because the movie is already out. Would anyone object to its removal? THEemu (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's a "recently released" film template, I can't see any objection. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Opposing Views need a Tag Too

You seem to use alot of Tags that are of the opposing viewoint from the film. You should put up a tag that is from one of the Evolution refuting scientists. Pardon my vocabulary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.177.175 (talk) 20:07, April 18, 2008 (UTC)

There are any? Reliable source needed.... dave souza, talk 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please rephrase the question. "there are any" I dont know what you want me to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.177.175 (talk) 20:26, April 18, 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounds a bit silly to be honest.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The tag "Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference. ... It is perfectly okay to question Darwinism (or any other ism in science), as long as there is a way to test your challenge. Intelligent Design creationists, by contrast, have no interest in doing science at all." -Michael Shermer, one of the interviewees for the film.[7]"

and the tag

" The film makers' logic is that by teaching evolution, the US public school system is telling children that there is no God, morality or free will. And this can lead to only one thing: Holocaust." - Amanda Gefter, writing for New Scientist[40]"

this one is inflamitory

If you are goingot be balanced, you should attach a quote from the movie (since you are quoting the movie) that is pro Evolution or at least pro stance of the Movie. That would be the fair and balanced thing to do. Not put up a refute of the movie with an inflamitory comment. It is the general consensus of the opponents of the film that the first tag is common knowlege, lets balance that with one of common knowlege from the other side of the fence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.177.175 (talk) 20:43, April 18, 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wiki. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Expelled video parodies FSM Expelled Sexpelled Angry Christian (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Sexpelled is the best.--Filll (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Filll, you're just saying that because you want to supress the FSM theory! Angry Christian (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) The FSM theory is the only truth. I think Filll should be indefinitely blocked for POV-pushing of the anti-FSM side! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Ramen Brother Marlin! (Hypnosadist) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Bethell, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Bethell, and Rush Limbaugh

Are these guys really notable enough to be mentioned twice each? They both appear in the "Critical reaction" section (where they are the only two named critics before the various subsections start), and again in the "General media" subsection. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Rush Limbaugh is that notable. Not sure about the other one though... RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the world needs more than one of each. I'll take them out of the first paragraph. --Robert Stevens (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is the number one talk show host in America, right in front of Sean Hannity. I'm pretty sure he is one if not the most notable person that reviewed the film. Saksjn (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Compare to Other Examples for NPOV

When it comes to NPOV, it seems prudent to compare this article to others of the same type of subject matter. I looked up the Wiki article on Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth since it's not only the same type of subject (documentary film), its also tends to have supporters who reside on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum as this film. The opening paragraph to Inconvenient Truth treats NPOV very well by stating basic information about the film. It is not possible to determine the author's personal leaning on the film's subject. That's the way it ought to be. That's the whole point of NPOV. That article then handles controversies and criticisms in later, dedicated sections. Using that template, the opening to this article should say something like...

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary film on the persecution of educators and scientists for their belief that there is evidence for intelligent design in nature. The film is hosted by Ben Stein and directed by Nathan Frankowski and was released on April 18, 2008 by Rocky Mountain Pictures.

The article should then move on to an overview or synopsis section detailing the film's arguments followed by a criticisms section that offers substantiated arguments against the film's positions. To be completely neutral, the article could go the extra mile and offer a "support" section citing examples of critical support for the film's argument (although this last section is not strictly necessary especially if the synopsis section is written fairly).

Remember that the whole point of discussions such as these is not to debate the subject material of the film itself. The point is to clean up the articles themselves to provide the best encyclopedic source on the internet. NPOV is essential for the latter to happen. Otherwise, the article begins to comes across as an opinion piece. Some will argue (as they already have) that this article meets the minimum NPOV threshold, but the point isn't to just slide in under the bar. Good writing requires that we do our best to uphold NPOV on the subject. Raise the bar higher. Set the standard. I believe that the changes I outlined above treat the subject fairly and with the least amount of bias possible. --Jedi1010 (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One obvious problem I can see with that lead is that it assumes that such persecution actually took place: whereas apparently it didn't. Also, criticism sections are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia articles nowadays, for two reasons: they tend to accumulate anything that anyone can dredge up, and they tend to lose the context of the criticism (whereas criticism incorporated into the article at the relevant points preserves what the criticism is about). Of course, in this article, "criticism" is primarily "critical reviews" which are already in dedicated reviews sections anyhow: of the remainder, some is needed up-front to explain why ID (which, of course, features prominently in the film) is controversial at all, and that is needed to establish why an ID-proponent might experience such problems. --Robert Stevens (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this option then..

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary film about the treatment of educators and scientists who believe that there is evidence for intelligent design in nature. The film is hosted by Ben Stein and directed by Nathan Frankowski and was released on April 18, 2008 by Rocky Mountain Pictures.

I believe what is getting lost here is that the article should be about the film, not a criticism (or even support) of ID (or evolution). A synopsis of the film and "critical reviews" should suffice to show the person who is researching the film that there are plenty of people who disagree with its premise. The article should also show that there are people who agree withe them film. Again, its not about who's right or who's wrong on the ID-evolution argument. Its about showing future researchers what the film is about in a NPOV way. Those researching the film can draw there own conclusion on the wider debate. --Jedi1010 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Source

"The Chicago Tribune rated it one star, while the New York Times described it as a "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry." Can we source this please? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes YOU can. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I will try and find a source, if that's what you meant. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Speculation

You know, the movie's out now, and the Inner Life of the Cell, Imagine, and other such things presumably haven't been removed.

If they are wrong about how well they skirted the edges of illegality, they are going to be screwed in the courts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the Inner Life of the Cell has been removed and replaced by the Get Expelled - Cellular Animation Movie Clip linked from ERV's Premise Lawsuits, Toddler Animations, and a Final Resolution article. I imagine they're trying to persuade Yoko Ono that parodying and ridiculing all that John Lennon stood for is fair use :) .. dave souza, talk 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter review

[12] Quite negative.--Filll (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pegasus news: review and official premiere in Dallas the 15th

[13][14]--Filll (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits Regarding Attribution

I've begun making some edits to remove editorial langauge in this article. I'm commenting here for discussing purposes, because it is a controversial article. I'm not removing sources or any information, but rephrasing so that the statements are attributed appropriately. You can see examples of my edits to see what I'm getting at. But, generally, the article should not make assertions, but it should note the assertions made by others. Otherwise, it is original research. Judicata (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a danger in that the majority expert view as shown in well respected sources gets portrayed as an individual opinion, care is needed to avoid undue weight and "equal validity" being given to pseudoscience shown in primary sources. Something to consider with care. .. dave souza, talk 08:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. There is a subtle distinction between individual opinion, general opinion and an editorial statement. When a community has consensus on something, the article can certainly say that, rather than saying it is an individual's opinion. E.g., "The scientific community rejects the movies claim that intelligent design..." (general consensus) vs. "Dr. X, in the Scientific American, rejects intelligent design..." (individual attribution) vs "Intelligent design is not valid." (editorial/original research). You might get away with "Intelligent design has been rejected" but that is weaker passive voice. I'll be sure to keep the distinction in mind. Judicata (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation in review and cite

In the critical reaction part of this article, it cites a review that says the movie never defines either evolution or ID. However, this is blatantly false. I have just recently seen the film and in one interview, they interviewee defines both (i havent had time to find a quote online from the particular interview). Maybe Ben Stein doesn't say it himself, but it is defined and you are led to believe that those are the definitions that "Expelled" is based on. I propose removing this and any reviews that also try to say likewise as that as fallacy and opinion, not truth. The truth is they do define it, several times. Xtrm3writ3r (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about WP:verifiability, not "truth". It will be excellent if you can find a reliable source backing up your statement, and that can be set in the context of secondary sources reviewing the film. .. dave souza, talk 08:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. Has anybody suggested the final cut of film in general release might differ in any way from earlier cuts shown in pre-release screenings? Professor marginalia (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the film a very clear difintion of both was given and one individual even went the extra mile and defined the difference between ID and creationism. Saksjn (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda category

I have restored the propaganda categorization based on the following information:

From Category:Propaganda: Propaganda is the systematic spread of a given doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests. and The intent of the category is <sic> items easily classified as propaganda.

I think that this film can very easily be shown to be systematically spreading a doctrine (ID), as well as allegations of suppression which reflect the interests of the ID community. In that regard, it easily fits the classification of propaganda.

If there is further reasoning beyond this, please being it up here before deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As I alluded to in my edit summary, the Category talk:Propaganda page describes what is apparently a long-standing guideline for what should and should not be included in the category. "Articles about specific works characterized as propaganda, or individuals listed here only because they created such works ... would be deleted from this category." Apart from this film, the noticable lack of certain members in this category attest to this. A side article titled the Propaganda in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed would belong in the category. As for this article, the sourced statements are plenty. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtually all of the major mainstream media are using the terms "propaganda" and "propagandist" to describe the movie and/or Ben Stein (even TV Guide). I've added about 10 such examples on the talk page (way above) and there are many more I did not add (I got tired and they are ALL saying this). The only people NOT calling it propaganda are the choir Expelled is preaching to (anti-science religionists)Angry Christian (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry, I did read that talk page. While I did read a great deal of discussion, I could not find a reference to a WP policy regarding this. Trying WP:PROPAGANDA links to WP:COI as the related policy, but I don't see how that necessarily applies here. If I am missing something (anyone, not just S^2), please try and let us all know. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the mainstream media, it's an encyclopedia. Wikipedia references reliable sources that say the movie is propaganda. But this is a controversial issue, as stated in the lead paragraph. Wikipedia does not take sides by categorizing the movie as propaganda. If this article remains in the category, the internal inconsistency of Wikipedia is painfully obvious to me. Interestingly, placing this article in the Propaganda category, thus taking one side and calling the debate over, demonstrates one of the movie's main points. And, calling all proponents of the movie "anti-science religionists" does nothing to advance discussion. By the way, I'm glad someone below has brought up the fact that even Dawkins will admit to the possibility of Intelligent Design, as long as the designer is an alien race. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please make sure you put a colon after the two left brackets when referring to "Category:Propaganda" with a link. I fixed LonelyBeacon's comment to prevent this talk page from being included on the Category:Propaganda page. -- HiEv 23:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Not having read much of the above discussion, I would like to voice my naive opinion that the article should not be listed in Category:Propaganda, if only for the reason that other similar works are not also listed in this category. Unless it is grouped with other similar works, I see no encyclopedically useful reason for listing it in the main category. Is there a suitable subcategory that this article can be put into? silly rabbit (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Digital DNA?

Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#Overview contains the statement "- such as the digital code in DNA and the molecular machines in cells -"

There is nothing digital or electronic about DNA! Please remove the word digital.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.28.243 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A very good point, that's the problem with citing primary sources without reliable context. It's supposed to be a quotation from the film's promoters, but can't be checked as they've changed their site too much. .. dave souza, talk 08:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Have found a definition used in the film, so have added it and commented out this rather dodgy definition. . dave souza, talk 10:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually DNA can definitely be considered a form of digital code, even our own digital article mentions that. When you start to consider things like methylation, this breaks down somewhat but from a simplistic view point DNA can be seen as a digital system. Also electronic has nothing to do with digital really. There are electronic devices that operate on a more or less completely analogue level and a number of clearly digital systems involve no electronics (morse code for example) Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

length

please. the article weighs 130k now. Who do you suppose is going to read that? Any intelligent reader will figure out the situation after 2k; and those who Want to Believe will not figure it out even if you expand it to 500k. It should be compressed to about a third of its current length. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

yes? I'm familiar with this page. your point? dab (𒁳) 13:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expressed the same concern. Because of the climate on this article right now, that will probably have to wait. After some other major issues get sorted out, I'll be happy to help reduce the size of this thing. Judicata (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right. I bet you would. As I said before, WP:FORK.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How much are you betting, Filll? Me? I've got $5 riding on it. Oh, and when are you going to fork this baby? I'm all for it. Angry Christian (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's give it a ccouple weeks to settle down first. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

fork "criticism of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and similar offshoots, and see if they survive AfD. I was asking for pruning, not for metastases, although splitting may be a first step in this (see if Promotion of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" stands any chance on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe some of this material could stand on its own if done carefully.--Filll (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Boston globe review is also negative

[15]--Filll (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

All we are say-ing, is, give Darwin a chance :) ... dave souza, talk 12:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave you might find this intersting, although we obviously cannot use it. A student who saw it and says his class was required to write a paper about the film he was assigned by the school paper to do a retrospective on it. More here. An intersting viewpoint. Angry Christian (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it'd be nice if the school paper's a notable publication. Some perceptive comments, including his summary – "it's trying to argue that evolutionists are elitist pricks who are not only completely wrong, that their scientific proof isn't worth anything, and that evolution is a grand conspiracy that is responsible for school shootings and genocide around the world. I'm not kidding, this is all said in the movie." . . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

POV

I just started to read the article and I already see lots of POV writing. I'll work on changing it, but in the meantime I have added a tag to the top of the article. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some reasons for disputing the neutrality? Its not really enough to slap on a tag and say "I'll work on changing it" in the near future. Paper45tee (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you new? You don't do a drive by tagging and say you'll work on it later. Angry Christian (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Erev Pesach for me, so I soon won't technically be allowed to drive-by to revert other drive-by's.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1.2 million so far

I think the producers said $12,000,000 the first weekend would be the amount that they would consider the movie to be a success. I'm sure they've grossed more by now, this figure I think is just for Friday. Anyhow, see here Angry Christian (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are that many suckers in the US? Damn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thousand or so theaters, you do the math. I believe they set a record for the number of theaters for a "documentary" that would be something to add to the article when I remember where I read that. Keep in mind so far they have grossed a hundred thousand more $ than DR. SEUSS' HORTON HEARS A WHO!. Oh and I plan to see it so not everyone who sees it is a sucker :-) This is the evangelical equivalent of Reefer Madness to me. Angry Christian (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Estimated. Note the huge effort to get a good number on the first day.

You're not the only one,this is the most useful brief outline I've seen of what's in the film, obviously ignoring the pov. Anyone got a better source? . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Great review, thanks!Angry Christian (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the next installment of the Star Trek movie series. If I'm going to watch science fiction, I want it to be well-done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, regarding Horton hearing Who, just been watching the film Amazing Journey on the telly :) .. dave souza, talk 22:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

12 million >> 1.2 million, of course. Though I'm sure they'll start spindoctoring it into a huge success soon. Also, User:Sakjsn (I think I've misspelt that) said a while ago that he was going on a school trip to Expelled this Friday - a few trips like that, with the school reimbursed under the schemes are probably going to throw estimates off. Let's see how the results look in a day or two. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins's Intelligent Design Theory

I didn't see information in the above posts about this, but it seems important to understanding the film and Richard Dawkins. In this film, Richard Dawkins goes on for about 10 minutes in uninterrupted dialog, in which he explains that all life may have come from a single cell that was Designed by an Intelligent race of beings from another planet. There is no information, yet, whether this Intelligent Design theory will impact his career or disqualify his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetsoul777 (talk • contribs) 22:47, April 19, 2008 (UTC)

In considering this point, it's important to understand that this "thought experiment" of his appears in one of his books, showing that even if a natural "designer" is posited, that designer still has to arise through evolution. I don't have the source for that immediately to hand, but clearly it's not harmed his career :) . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The specifics of his Intelligent Design theory are irrelevant. If Intelligent Design theories are supposed to end one's career, one would expect to see the same with Dawkins. Again, there is no evidence that this has occurred, yet. Poetsoul777 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What does your (Poetsoul777's) comment have to do with improving the article? If you have a suggestion for improving the article, please make it. The above seems to be an irrelevant comment, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so it should not try to predict any "impact" his comments may or may not have. Also, please make sure you sign your comments using four tildes as described in this page's header. -- HiEv 01:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was about the Expelled movie that suggested one would lose their career or status for Intelligent Design theories. Thus, whether Dawkins loses his would be a part of the thesis of this movie. Poetsoul777 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If that had happened your comment might have some relevance. Since he has written earlier about it, as was mentioned above, and has not lost his career or status, then at best this is another criticism of the movie, though one so weak it's not really worth mentioning. Again, I do not see how your comment here helps improve the article, which is the point of this talk page. -- HiEv 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources indicating Dawkins is an intelligent design theorist/advocate? Has he published any pro-intelligent design papers or books? Does he have a history of advocating intelligent design as a science? Is he affiliated with the discovery institute? Do he and Dembski have a lab on the Baylor Website? This would be fantastic information to add to the article as soon as you can find reliable sources for it. Since it's been documented that Ben Stein and company are garden variety propagandists and they've edited the film in a less than credible manner to show a specific point of view, the film is not a reliable source to make a claim like this. We don't even know what question was posed to him. I could be wrong but I believe Stein never even interviewed him but the film leads you to belive otherwise. Again, find cooborating evidence that Dawkins is an intelligent design theorist/advocate and heck yeah it belongs in the article. Angry Christian (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins has a rather lengthy interview in the film and Stien drives him nuts. He actually says that there is evidence of design in nature, but says that whoever designed it had to evolve as well. When he actually said there is evidence of design I about sstood up and clapped for Stien. The fact that he could get him to say that was amazing. Saksjn (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins has been saying that for years (he even coined the word "designoid", to describe phenomena "designed" by natural processes such as evolution). It's already pretty obvious how Stein got him to say that in a manner which could be used out of context: that's what the whole "Crossroads" deception was about. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Article flow

Just as another thought on the article flow, one problem with interspersing the critics so much is that it doesn't give the reader a sense of the important issues. For instance, from a critical perspective, I think some of the most important points are that ID isn't really science, and actually that it's often recognized as an attempt to obscure "creationism," primarily for legal reasons (to circumvent the establishment clause of the First Amendment). The fact that it is "wrong" isn't actually the main issue from a critical perspective. Having a sentence from the movie, then a sentence of rebuttal, etc., etc., doesn't give any sense of this, and is ultimately very difficult to read.

The latest issue with this is here, where I don't think it helps after saying it's junk science twice, then having Ben Stein comment, to again rebut what he just said. Also as presented it's largely a problem of style: the sentence turns the paragraph into an argument about whether the film is correct or not, which will be jarring to many people who read it. Mackan79 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point that your edit removed the source for Stein's statement, and when presenting opposing views it's bad practice to separate one from the other as that disconnects them, so that the argument has to be stated twice. It's perhaps one long argument, but clarity is more important than style or "jarring". Improvements welcome, but not deletion of mainstream context. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarity is exactly the issue I'm raising. You're right that NPOV suggests against having a "criticism" section, but the extent you're taking this is well beyond what I've seen in any other article. The concern is right; you don't want to completely separate criticism from praise, or argument from rebuttal, but pro con pro con pro con through the whole thing is extremely tedious. What I'm saying is that there are ways to offer a more complete vision from one side, and then a more complete vision from the other, that avoids attempting to respond to every single statement. Not separate sections, but in this case allowing more than one sentence at a time. Of course, doing so will remove some of the insignificant arguments, as is part of the point. Mackan79 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can improve the flow and writing, but intelligent design is all about framing – secular science=atheism, for example, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" requires us to ensure that the mainstream context is provided. Be clear that NPOV: Pseudoscience applies, the film is a demand that ID be given credibility as science without bothering to actually provide evidence or a testable theory. There's an interesting aspect of ID as a revival of "empirical theology", essentially submitting God to testing, but that's not the focus of the reviews I've read. . . dave souza, talk 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As per below, I very much disagree that the pseudoscience FAQ is the proper guideline for writing this article about a contemporary film. Even so, I'm not sure how framing changes the point. If it's really about framing, then the first statement of criticism should be that it's been pointed out that the movie tries to reframe scientific issues and draw attention away from the failure of ID to produce anything useful. This isn't unusual, that one side of the debate addresses something different from the other. It still shouldn't be an excuse for trying to disrupt the spin-job mid paragraph or mid sentence, however, if we want a good article. Mackan79 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Article in definate need of clean-up.

The whole damn article needs some serious clean-up. Instead of just going over the movie an what it has to say in the sections "Overview" and "People Presented in the Film", it brings in direct responses from sources outside the movie (blogs, news-articles, websites, anything that wasn't in the film). Take the whole "Portrayal of science as atheistic" section. Instead of just saying what Stein, the producers, and writers did in the movie, it goes straight to defending the counter-arguement that science is not inherently atheistic. Then there is the "People presented in the film" OPENING paragraph, where we insert a review directly after the opening sentence! It's not in the movie, so why does it get placed there and not in a "Critism" section like Wikipedia has for all of its documentarys, including Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"? Hell, even Guillermo Gonzalez's book: "The Privileged Planet has its criticisms IN A CRITICISM SECTION! Yes, this movie is controversial, but there is a place in each article for the criticisms a movie has recieved, and its NOT in the plot/overview section! Wikipedia is a free and open-minded online-encycolpedia, meaning that it is NOT a place for personal feelings or bias, regardless of what the topic may be. This article needs a serious clean-up. Paladin Hammer (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All significant views should be represented, per WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, without giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE views. .. dave souza, talk 00:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is nearly not neutral as according to WP:NPOV, to quote: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Every defense of evolution is made directly AFTER a sentence of what the movie stated! Look at Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine", do you see the criticisms directly after a sentence from the movie's summary? No, its in its own section for "Criticism". NPOV does not approve of people placing outside opinions and ideas in a section thats about the movie. If it did, Wikipedia would be an unreadalbe mess and flame-war. There is a place for everything in Wikipedia, it doesn't just get thrown in there. Paladin Hammer (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Dave has argued that you shouldn't totally separate criticism, and I don't totally disagree with him, but there hasn't been any strong defense for the extent of the back and forth style. I'm hoping at some point he or others will consider whether it could be improved. Mackan79 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between pseudoscience and alternative theories that makes a difference. Moore's views are not universal, but are also not exactly non-mainstream. Intelligent design is not mainstream at all, so some extra care is necessary to, in the words of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

That's largely true; I think there are still issues with the article's credibility, though, and what makes for good reading. Also, while it isn't something we've really gotten into, calling ID pseudoscience is a little complicated when it's not always clear what ID is. Of course that's one problem with the theory, but it's also a potential cause of confusion here, in terms of what we're offering the additional criticism toward, exactly. The average reader probably doesn't know the difference between ID and creationism, e.g., the idea that a god created the world (in fact, of course, we specifically say this is creationism without explaining the distinctions in some contexts). This is another reason why, while certainly we need to present critical material, it's still important that we retain our encyclopedic role and don't go no-holds-barred against the film. People will notice when we do, but regardless of our reasons, they won't know why, which means a loss to Wikipedia and the article's credibility. Mackan79 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not ID is pseudoscience or not, that does not excuse the format of the article. My asking for a cleaup of the article is not about whether or not the film is right or wrong, its about this article meeting Wikipedia standards. The article WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience does not excuse the sloppy format. It does not say "Write the majority view immediantly after the minority view". Also, your forgetting WP:NPOV, quote: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself". The responses that have been given to much of the material of the video were opinion responses from blogs, news-sites, etc, and are therefor opinion. Sure, ID is disputed, but that doesn't mean that criticisms of the film belong IN the overview of the film. They belong in there own section, so as not to confuse the material of the film with the material of the criticism. Paladin Hammer (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a work in progress, but the responses being given to the arguments presented in the film, and indeed the best sources so far for arguments in the film, are expert opinion from quality newspapers, scientific magazines, and the report prepared by the NCSE. The latter present a mainstream scientific view, as required by NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Further guidance is shown in WP:FRINGE. That balance has to be maintained with attention to WP:NPOV#Article structure regarding "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself... dave souza, talk 08:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, you really shouldn't be going by the FAQ about pseudoscience though in this type of article about a film. The only reason the FAQ would apply is if were were doing original research, in violation of WP:SYN, and discussing the topic of the movie independently from reliable source discussion of the movie. Of course we have done that here, but this remains in violation of fundamental policy, notwithstanding the above FAQ. There's also the problem of what we are saying is pseudoscience; it would seem people are using this label basically as a hammer against the movie, rather than carefully determining how to address specific issues in the article. The idea that evolution is atheistic may be wrong, but it isn't pseudoscience. The same goes for most of the claims in this film. Even ID itself is only pseudoscience to the extent it gets into specific theories like irreducible complexity; yet, you're using this to immediately rebut just about every single thing that is said about the film. Relying on that FAQ on the vague premise that, "well, this stuff in general is pseudoscience," continues to be a significant detriment to the article. Mackan79 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rants

Can we just userfy or archive all these random rants by people we're getting, with appropriate, polite messages to the users on their talk pages explaining policy and such? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last rant, while he may not be familiar with policy, does reflect a real problem with the article. Most of them that I've seen are similar. One can assume these people are all just nuts, but I think a more reflective approach would help. That's not to say it's important whether they are archived, but if they are discussing problems with the article (and not political rants), I think they should probably stay. Mackan79 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you can just delete them. As the top of the talk page says, "This is not a forum for general discussion of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article." (my emphasis) Still, considering the subject matter, deletion is somewhat ironic. Manual archiving is probably more appropriate in this case. -- HiEv 00:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mackan that some care is needed, but some are genuinely unhelpful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen many instances where the "rant" or debate is moved from the talk page to the talk page of the person doing the ranting/sermon. That seems more respectful that just deleting the comments, though as mentioned simply deleting them is well within policy and decency for that matter. Angry Christian (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant by "userfy". That said, I think a little extra politeness needs be done in this situation - be polite, tell them the policies, explain why you're doing it, etc. In the end, we're going to be dealing with mostly newbies, and newbies that may well have just watched a emotion-driven documentary talking about their views being oppressed. A little politeness and sympathy now'll help a lot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this film predicted to make a lot of money?

Is this film predicted to make a good profit in-terms of average documentary profits, or not?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.131.224 (talk • contribs) 19:58, April 19, 2008

No idea. Angry Christian (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be confusing, because of the school rebate stuff (Who's paying for that, anyway?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the split is bewteen the film maker and the theater? Has nothing to do with the article, I'm just curious. Angry Christian (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the theatre rents the movie from the distributor. Therefore, the theatre keeps 100% of the receipts for the movie. Each movie has different rental rates, depending on, I suppose, the how well it's predicted to do. The next Indiana Jones movie is going to have great rentals. A Sundance film festival art movie is not. Theaters of course love movies that have low rentals, but high receipts. These movies are rare, but think artsy movies that become mainstream. What the theaters hate of course are blockbusters that aren't. I can't find the rental rate for this piece of crap, but I'm sure it's on the low end with other "documentaries". I also notice in a google search that a lot of theaters in the South are promoting rentals of their theatre to church groups to watch the movie (I found it by trying to find out the rental rate for the movie). So, I hope that's the answer to your question. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some humor here. I have to leave popups enabled to use Twinkle on Wikiedia. When I was doing a search for reviews of this pathetic movie, one of the sites had porn popup ads. I love a good sense of humor. And no, I'm not providing the link! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The movie was 8th overall in the United States on opening day, getting 1.2 million in gross. [16]. I don't know how impressive that is, it seems like not very. But if they did well yesterday or do well today they might do well overall. Regardless, being in the top 10 for ever one day is not a small acheivement. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that I'm not sure if the campaigns behind it (The school reimbursements, etc) are going to artificially inflate apparent profits. If a big proportion of the school fieldtrips were on Friday, that may not last, nor represent real profit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

An anon was trying to add the opposite argument, since it was all these church screenings (and discounted tickets, presumably) the profit per venue might not reflect the profits in real cinemas. Still, assuming $10 a ticket, only 115 patrons per venue on Friday, dropping to 94 on Saturday. Considering there were at least two showings in some venues on Friday, it can't have been terribly crowded - or do you have many 60 seat cinemas? ... dave souza, talk 17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is all original research, but according to Movie theater, the first megaplex had 6000 seats for 20 screens, so about 300 seats per a theater. Now, assuming that that's somewhat on the large size a regular theater has maybe say 200 seats? So with 1.2*10^6 dollars grossed on the first day we get (1.2*10^6 dollars)(1 person / 10 dollars)/1000 theaters= 120 people per a theater on average (assuming each theater had only 1 screening which is likely an underestimate). So theaters were at best about half full on average. JoshuaZ (talk)

Portrayal of science as atheistic

The line ===Portrayal of science as atheistic=== should be changed to ===Portrayal of Neo-Darwinism as atheistic=== — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

How about "mainstream science"? Neo-Darwinism properly refers to some superseded pre-1950s schools of evolutionary thought. Basically. Neo-Darwinian biologists: "Natural selection rules! We don't need anything else!" Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Hey, look, my research on genetics helps explain the mechanisms of natural selection a lot better, and points out some other interesting consequences and processes!" Now-not-so-neo-darwinian Biologists: "Oops! Let's research this." [They do, and discover lots of new things, like genetic drift and the importance of mutations.] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the film also promotes Gonzales's claims that galaxies, the universe and everything shows ID. Nothing to do with Darwin, neo or otherwise. .. dave souza, talk 09:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn poor design if you ask me. Black holes sucking up galaxies. Stars with a limited lifespan. Supernovas. I demand a refund from the designer. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the promotional material and the interviews, the main target of this film is materialism, and naturalism, just as that is the main target of the intelligent design movement. Although they do not come out and say it clearly, they want to introduce magic and the supernatural etc into science. And since the Scientific Revolution a few centuries back, it has been excluded. That is the real target here. Not Darwin. Not evolution.--Filll (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Christian Taliban of the US would prefer that their religious magic be the method of choice for determining anything in the natural world. But of course, that means medicine has to go away, because it relies on science, not magic. So, all the good medicine will be in Europe and Asia, and the Christian Taliban will die of diseases, because their magic incantations to a mythical belief set isn't going to work. Then, of course, basic physics and chemistry, which also rely upon the scientific method, will go away, and we will be come a backwater country. Isn't that what the other Taliban did in Afghanistan? Well, I won't live here amongst the Christian Taliban, along with every other intelligent and rational American. Canada, here we come. Of course, with Global Warming, denied by the Christian Taliban, will give us a lot of good land in Canada.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been repeatedly censored because my comments were allegedly "comments that were mostly devoted to insults, incivility, or the EvC debate, rather than the article." Well, I'm throwing that flag on the preceeding comment...DrHenley (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV added again

I see someone added the NPOV without leaving a reason nor making any changes. This is getting old. If there really are serious NPOV issues then use the table below to show us. Paper45tee (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Source	Says	<notes>
Example
Scientific American April 16, 2008 Scientific American by John Rennie and Steve Mirsky	Richard Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian and had already stepped down from his unpaid position before he published an article without using the normal peer review channels	Article
Ignored sources
Source	What it says
Source	What it says

Radio Commercials

Has anyone else heard radio commercials for the film. In my town, three stations were running comercials for the film every commercial break. The station s were the local ABC news station, the local FOX news station, and ESPN radio. Saksjn (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, what the hell kind of advertising budget does this film have? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No clue, but it must be pretty high for them to be able to run adds during The Sean Hannity Show. Saksjn (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear one of the radio ads last week. They incorrectly identified Michael Medved as "Michael Medgood". Odd. Typical "big science is evil" type stuff (same we see on their website). Angry Christian (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

low importance ID cat.

I think with the headlines and the sails the movie has been getting we should update this to a medium importance article. I mean, this has more discussion right now than the ID page it self. Saksjn (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the importance was determined several months ago, back when the page was first created. I wouldn't object to upping it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While it has been suggested that this will be another Waterloo for ID (since it shows the general public the deep dishonesty behind the ID movement), for the moment it's still pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Give it six months and then see whether it deserves an increase in importance. For the moment, it's still trivial. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins statements regarding design in nature

I've reverted some recent additions by Saksjn (diff). Essentially, it's a complete misrepresentation of what Dawkins says in the film, sourced to (among other) evangelical minister Gary Bauer, and Uncommon Descent (William Dembinski's web log). Dawkins described his comments in the film in his interview with PZ Meyers, saying that (essentially) he was asked what he thought about the possibility that life was designed intelligently. (The question itself pre-supposes that it's possible.) He answered by saying, essentially, that if we assume it's possible, panspermia is a more likely explanation than god did it, but that he doesn't consider either of them to be particularly likely. Raul654 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur, and would like to add that another source used by Saksjn was Joseph Farah, an evangelical minister who claims Stein as a "good friend". As these sources are highly partisan, not even remotely neutral, if they are to go into this long article at all they must be clearly identified, as in "Evangelicals claim Dawkin's version of the interview is incorrect"... blah, blah. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys even seen the film yet? Before you jump to conclusions, see what he says for your selves. Just because Dawkins said it went one way doesn't mean it's true. What was the other source you wanted removed, I allready removed the first one. I wish there was a youtube video or something with the interview so I could show you guys. Saksjn (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(In response to edit history comment) How do you reccomend I source it, casue it does need to be sourced. Saksjn (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Already done tole you. Read my comment above. And I suggest you discuss here about phrasing, support for adding it at all, etc., before simply re-adding a very partisan view of what transpired. I'm not even sure there is any support for inclusion of this, and if there is, then we must be careful how it is phrased so it is not misleading. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Once the film comes out on DVD and clips make it to youtube, can a clip of the entire interview be used as a source? How about a transcript of the movie? Saksjn (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, you really need to do some reading. The movie isn't offering any new material from Dawkins (aside from editting and removing context). Dawkins says IF there were a "design" it would be done by a high evolved intelligence. Thus, it wouldn't be a "design" by a God/Gods, but by a being that is the result of an evolutionary process elsewhere in the universe. If you are too lazy to read Dawkins' work where he discusses this (such as in The God Delusion) then listen to it here. Dawkins says there is no evidence for such a design, but uses that example to show that "design" wouldn't come from God/Gods IF it existed. Paper45tee (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the film, the film has a 20 or so minute interview between Dawkins and Stien, and in the interview he says what you have said above, but also says that there is evidence of design in nature. I don't know how to get oyu guys to get it unless you see the film because the main stream media won't cover it! Saksjn (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, find a source where Dawkins "says that there is evidence of design in nature." Because certainly Dawkins has NEVER said such a thing in the past. Paper45tee (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I did, but any source that does will be called unreliable by you guys. Saksjn (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Show it and we can discuss it. No need to be pessimistic about it appearing in the mainstream press. Here's"Gods and earthlings - Los Angeles Times". – by Richard Dawkins. Note that films get edited, and the point Dawkins was explaining may not be what's shown in the film. See also "'Lying for Jesus?' by Richard Dawkins - RichardDawkins.net". where he suggests he set out the same argument in The God Delusion, anyone got a copy to check that point? .. dave souza, talk 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be a clue for you Saksjn. If Dawkins had actually said something that remarkable, it would be reported by reliable sources. If you can't find a reliable source that says so...maybe it's because it's obvious that Dawkins didn't mean what Mathis and co. twist his words to make it look like he said? Think about it. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Saksjn, you can read Dawkins' response to Expelled where he discusses 'Directed Panspermia' and Stein's interview here. Saksjn, the WorldNetDaily is not a WP:RS in this case nor is Joseph Farah reliable. Farah, is the guy afterall who promoted Falwell's Vincent Foster conspiracies that Bill Clinton had him killed. With such information, that should be a clue that either you didn't pay close attention to the interview and/or your basing you opinion on unreliable sources. Paper45tee (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I think Saksjn is reporting accurately the impression given by the film. Since the film tells obvious lies elswhere, it's quite probable that the editing has been done in a way that creates a false impression about what Dawkins says. A transcript would be very useful, but until the film's available in recorded form it's very hard to get an accurate transcript. .. dave souza, talk 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's exactly why reliable sources are important. We've got a propaganda film that (surprise, surprise) twists Dawkins words to make it appear that he says the opposite of what he means. Which is why reliable sources matter... 24.231.182.13 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Saksjn brings up a good point. Many people will see the film and come to a mistaken conclusion regarding Dawkins views on ID (whatever) just the same as they will come away thinking Darwin lead to Hitler. Does the article address the films mischaracterization of Dawkins' views? Angry Christian (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Too Long and Citations Questionable at Best

I noticed one of the most cited people in this article is a FOX-Cable-News-Online Article written by a Celebrity/Gossip "Reporter" named Roger Friedman. The article reads like (and may be) a Blog entry. The bulk of the cited article is comparing Mariah Carrey and Young Jeezy's latest albums. And the article is even listed under Celebrity Gossip. I'll be removing any entries that cite this soon, since Celebrity Gossip is not encyclopedic. Please find new sources within the next day or so, if you'd like the entries to remain.70.150.37.124 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I appreciate that not everyone views Fox News as reliable, but in our terms it's certainly an item by one of their reporters. Perhaps they think gossip is the appropriate level for the film? . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AAAS and Ham

"Exploring Our Matrix: AAAS Statement About Expelled". looks interesting, and a comment at "Expelled: The first numbers are in - The Panda's Thumb". mentions "Salvation Poem Cards Arrive at the Creation Museum at Around the World with AiG's Ken Ham". making an appeal on his blog today for Christians to go and see the film , along with a special offer of: incredibly low-priced value pack of Creator-affirming materials. .. dave souza, talk 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Obvious Bias

This article is about a movie that claims that scientists who oppose the "consensus" view are shouted down and marginalized as kooks. And when someone complains that this article itself is an attempt to shout down Ben Stein and marginalize him as a kook, they are in turn shouted down and marginalized as a kook.

Do I detect a pattern here????

I saw the movie. OK, I admit it went over the top with the Nazi stuff. But the primary point of the movie was that science should not be about kowtowing to the concensus view, but about challenging the concensus view based on scientific evidence. That is called progress...

I am a scientist, and I know of serious shortcomings in evolutionary theory based on my own research into enzyme deactivation mechanisms. Google "Henley Enzyme Deactivation" for my bona fides.

I can tell you that the persecution of scientists that oppose the consensus view is real, and what was portrayed in the movie is just the tip of the iceberg. The very notion that scientists should prostrate themselves before the consensus view is anathema to true science. Science is not about consensus, it's about following the evidence wherever it leads.

True, out of ignorance, many creationists were guilty of trying to corrupt science, and I suppose many still are. I'm not one of those. I'm not afraid of where the evidence will lead.

But now Darwinists are guilty of the same thing. They are terrified of where the evidence is leading because they have built a house of cards around some very shaky science.

Don't worry, I will not edit the article because I cannot do so in an unbiased manner. But PLEASE do not insult my intelligence by saying that an extremely biased article has a Neutral Point of View. DrHenley (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What matters is whether you want to contribute to the article, in which case feel free to use this page to address specifics, or not. 24.231.182.13 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The first thing that I would suggest is to lose the condescending attitude. The next thing is to reduce the number of times the word "claimed" is used in the article - I count over 50 - and not treat the movie as if it were a total fabrication. I have no idea how much is a fabrication, but I know that it does have some valid points. At least allow for the possibility that not all of those people were lying. I mean, let's face it - they went on screen on a nationally released film with their real names and faces.

Henley, see Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#NPOV_added_again and add to it. Arm-waving doesn't interest us. If its biased then let us know what's left out. Paper45tee (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the exact problem with the article. DrHenly said he didn't want to argue about evolution/intellegent design, etc, and someone went ahead to do it. This is Wikipedia, not a forum. I think he was trying to say that the writers of this article have incorporated some NPOV issues, and it is noticable. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That was his opinion on the matter, Paper45tee. If I went on a metalica page and said "I really don't like Metalica but this and this is wrong on the page..." I wouldn't be there to argue about it. Again, this is no article on anyone's point of view, which he was not entirely needing to point out, but still, again, this page is not about anyone's view on whatever subject matter is represented, just a summary/etc of it.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, I will repeat my first suggestions for improving the article, and think about further suggestions. It's not what's left out, it's what's left in that I have a problem with.

1 - Drop the condescending attitude, it is abundantly obvious from the wording.

2 - Reduce the frequency of the word "claimed"

3 - Stop treating the movie as a total fabrication.

4 - Think about the fact that there is first hand evidence in the movie from real people with real names and faces. Maybe, just maybe some of them are telling the truth.DrHenley (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Maybe, just maybe some of them are telling the truth" Some being the operative word, unfortunately what they say does not match up with the employment records of where they worked. ie Richard Sternberg. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted posts and comments that were mostly devoted to insults, incivility, or the EvC debate, rather than the article. The next time someone restores them or adds similar such material, they will be blocked. Now, as to Henley's assertions:

Henley, I myself noticed some blatant violations of WP: NPOV and WP: POINT, and removed them. If you see them, not remove them? Why do you say you won't edit the article? And in lieu of that, why not provide examples of the "wording", instances of the word "claimed", or anything that reads like an attempt by contributors to treat the movie as a fabrication? As for your fourth suggestion, to whom do you direct this suggestion? Editors don't have to consider anything other than the film's content, and the reaction of the public to it. Whether there is evidence in the movie for its thesis is only relevant to extent that the movie mentions this evidence, and the article properly quotes or paraphrases these mentions, as well as those of its critics. If you feel the article doesn't properly do this, provide examples, and we'll work to bring it in line with WP policy. If you do not do this, then there will be no purpose to this section, and I will delete it entirely. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

DrHenley, I would like to address some of your claims about this, but wikipedia is not a forum so I won't. However, you wrote that this article is "treating the movie as a total fabrication." Can you give me a specific example of a claim/scene discussed where the article implies that part of the movie is a fabrication? Until you offer evidence, people will find it hard to respond to such a generalization.

As for using the word "claimed," indeed the article needs improvement. However, when dealing with secondary sources of varying weight, wikipedia has a policy of WP:ATT the claims and asserting WP:V, not "truth." These are policies and its consequences are the innate problem of a body that anyone can edit.

Again, please be specifc. What claim or claims are implied to be "a total fabrication"? Paper45tee (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You want an example? The following paragraph DOES NOT BELONG in the opening section, but belongs in a criticism section.

The film was released on April 18, 2008,[7] to widely negative reviews which described the film as dishonest, propagandistic, heavy handed, and anti-intellectual. The Chicago Tribune rated it one star,[8] while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."[9]

DrHenley (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Intro should be a summary of the article, perhaps this summary will be more balanced:

The film was released on April 18, 2008.[7] While the Christian media have given it favorable reviews, the general media response has been generally unfavorable, and the science community's response to it has been widely negative. The Chicago Tribune rated the film one star,[8] while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."[9]

What do you think, Henley? Nightscream (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a vast improvement.DrHenley (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very inaccurate. The science community has unequivocally regarded the film as lies and propaganda, as far as I've seen, and not all Christian media have given it favourable reviews – see links posted earlier. . .. dave souza, talk 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dave, if you can think of a better, qualified description of the Christian passage, I'm all ears. For now, I'm going to respond to the following message that User:Orangemarlin left on my Talk Page:

Please notice the immediate Fundamentalist Christian POV edits put to the Expelled article about 2 minutes after blocking Angry Christian.

I did not make any "Fundamentalist Christian POV" edits. All I did was the following:

1. Inserted the word "documentary" in the opening line of the Intro, since that's the genre to which this film belongs. "Documentary" is not a value judgment. It's a completely neutral description. The fact that the film may be ID propaganda is completely irrelevant to this.
2. I provided a more balanced summary of the overall reaction to this film by including conservative and Christian viewpoints. Mentioning only the general media and science media's reactions is not accurate. There is nothing "Christian" about this, let alone "fundamentalist", and that's putting aside the fact that I myself am an atheist who fully accepts natural selection, and who sees Michael Shermer as one of his heroes. (That's MY photo of Shermer in his article, btw, and ditto for the articles on Margaret Downey, Ellen Johnson, and the Rational Response Squad.) Both Henley and Dave Souza agree with the edits, though Sousa says that not all Christian reviews were negative. Is he a fundamentalist Christian too?

If you continue to object to these edits, then I would suggest that we request Third Opinion, Mediation, or some other conflict resolution, and not engage in edit warring. Nightscream (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, in my opinion the inaccuracy has now been reduced though not eliminated – are there any science media reviews that aren't "negative"? – but the current phrasing has problems of undue weight, and tends to give "equal validity" to a pseudoscience position. I'll review the wording when time permits. .. dave souza, talk 09:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and to clarify, I didn't "agree" with the edits, but did criticise their accuracy. The previous version was simpler and gave a more accurate impression of the overall weight of reviews. .. dave souza, talk 09:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reduced Protection on this page, Ben Stein

Both pages have been unprotected today. I'd like some consensus on whether this is a smart idea. For myself, I think it's rotten timing: both are too active to sort out all the new IP user additions and questionable edits are getting lost in the shuffle. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur - I think it's a really bad idea. I've reprotected. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the both of you. Angry Christian (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda -> Category:American propaganda films

So how is everyone's favorite movie? I just have one problem. The propaganda category should be changed to one of the [[::Category:Propaganda examples]] subcategories, probably [[::Category:American propaganda films]].

• That's most specific category it reasonably fits in.
• [[::Category:Propaganda]] is more meant for concepts related to propaganda.

Any problems with this? --Merzul (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that change. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you no sense of irony?

The fact that this article is closed to new edits pretty much proves the film's point, doesn't it.

No ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not the scientific community. There is nothing wrong with original research in the scientific community, but Wikipedia only reports from second or third party research. For science articles, the sources must be reliable and peer-reviewed. Although ID promoters have the funds to do research, they have yet to put forth the effort to implement any. The Discovery Institute has more lawyers than scientists, and no labs to speak of. Where is the evidence? Not even a valid workable hypothesis for ID has been proposed over the last eighty years: it's been shown to be a fruitless endeavor, so now the proponents are reduced to crying "Persecution!" and demanding affirmative action for their ideas in science departments. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many ironies about the movie (such as, intelligence being "expelled" from it), but wikipedia preventing the continued vandalism is not one. Paper45tee (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with hypnosadist to a degree. It's not trying to make sure users don't edit, just trying to keep the vandalism of both sides away. I think though, that how the article is written is ridiculous. I'm not an ID advocate/creationist/etc, nor am I an evolutionist, but I can see how this article is dodging NPOV severely. The people who believe in evolution are saying "no it's not" and those who don't say "yes it is." No one has been trying to come up with a compromise really, the ones who have get pricked and probed, and I would try but it would get shot down for sure, so there is no use trying. And also, this article is NOT a page for pro-evolution/anti-evolution or whatever. "Where is the evidence?" That is related to the Evolution and ID articles, NOT THIS ONE. I can't believe people are aruging about evolution/ID in this article, it's a movie, not the article of the two seperate theories. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"No one has been trying to come up with a compromise really," Of course not, no RS says ID is anything but a joke. The film claims to be a documentry yet is completely riddled with factual inaccuracies (thats the AGF version of that thought) about evolution. The innaccuracies of Sicko etc, are discussed in their articles but this film is so full of them it forces this article to be so long. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Real scientist? What consitutes that? There are scientists of kinda, some of which do not believe in Evolution. That in itself is not NPOV because who's to say what a real scientist is? Again, I'm not talking about a compromise between the theories, but on the article. This page is not about the theories, but about the movie. There's no need to be intricate and incredibly detailed. This page tends to lean on the theories presented, not on the movie, more often than not. Innacuracies, sure, but detailing all of them is ridiculous. If we had to do that, then do you realise how long the Armageddon movie would be? It be larger than this one.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"do you realise how long the Armageddon movie would be?" If Armageddon Claimed to be a documentry then it should be as long as this if not more, but its a piece of fiction (just like this film). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RS stands for reliable sources not "Real scientist?". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled as Fiction... Again, your opinion. I see it as such as well in some areas, but I am not going to put that into the article. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice you completely failed to address my point! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The comments above are clearly from someone who does not know what WP:NPOV is, let alone science.--Filll (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph improvements

I made some minor improvements to the introduction that have been reverted by [User:Thegreyanomaly].

Old version: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 film which claims that American educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief that there is evidence of intelligent design in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, the film claims that what it calls "Big Science" suppresses dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames evolution for a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood.

Improved version: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial 2008 film, which claims that American educators and scientists are being persecuted for their position that evidence of intelligent design exists in nature. Hosted by Ben Stein, the film claims that the "scientific establishment" suppresses dissent against the scientific theory of evolution. Furthermore, the film links evolutionary theory to a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood.

I am asking for input on why the "improved" version above may not an improvement or why the "old" version is not biased (e.g., belief, blame, etc as opposed to the words chosen in my version). Thank you. --Davidp (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science" is the phrase Stein uses and thus, it should remain. Stein "blames" the Holocaust on Darwin, not merely links to it. "Links" does not describe what the film does, on the other hand "blame" does. Paper45tee (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making a good faith effort to improve the article. For starters the film does not "link" evoltution to anything. It blames. It shows dead people, Nazis, the Berlin wall. it dishonestly quotemines Darwin. That is not "linking". It's propaganda. This is a vital distinction. Angry Christian (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others; we must be reading this differently, but none of the changes look quite right to me. Mackan79 (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp, if the argument is that Darwinian evolution led, started humanity down the road, to the Holocaust then the word to use is blame.

Richard Weikart, a pro-ID professor who appears in the movie, asserts about Expelled that "six [Darwinian] ideas were promoted by many prominent Darwinian biologists and Darwinian-inspired social thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All six were enthusiastically embraced by Hitler and many other leading Nazis. Hitler thought that killing "inferior" humans would bring about evolutionary progress."[17]

Weikart does not "link," he "blames" and ignores the origins of Nazism in Catholic (Hitler was a Catholic) anti-semitism and Martin Luther's ideas (Luther wanted to kill the Jews). Expelled's claims are ahistorical rubbish. Paper45tee (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of irony, Hitler banned Darwin's books from German libraries, in fact they were to be burned with all the others. He also said atheists were enemies of Nazi Germany who should be dealt with accordingly. You have to wonder what history books Ben researched for the movie. Angry Christian (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also it is ludicrous that Darwinism is linked in the movie to Stalinism, given that Stalin sent Dawrinists to prison camps and reeducation programs and championed Lysenko, who was opposed to Darwinian evolution.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will concede that "Big Science" seems to be more appropriate than my edit. However, to use blame instead of link is disingenuous. If you view the entire film, it is made clear that Evolution is not responsible for eugenics or Naziism. The film is explicit on this point. It is a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) to infer blame when a basic complimentary link seems to exist. If I need to me more verbose on this, please let me know. --Davidp (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Evolution is not responsible for eugenics or Naziism." Why mention Nazism at all if not to cast blame by association, the Nazi party never published research on evolution, the only reason this film is fronted by someone of Jewish origin is to push this Evolution => Holocaust lie. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • The problem is the movie contradicts itself. It's says its not the only element, but then it leaves the viewer the impression. There are many logical fallacies in Expelled and some out right false claims too. Paper45tee (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Running quickly through some minutiae: (1) Word choice of position vs. believe - Belief and position are somewhat synonymous in this context, yet "belief" injects POV as a pejorative term, especially in this context. This is no less a position or belief than Panspermia, yet I suspect some here would have problems calling panspermia or other abiogenetic positions as "beliefs". (2) Dissent here seems to be dissent "against" evolution, not "from" it (nonetheless, change not re-inserted). (3) Blame is less accurate since the film does not hold the theory of evolution responsible for eugenics or the Third Reich. Yes, it is cited as necessary for it to have been successful. The perversions of the intellect that needed evolution were not caused by it. That would be stupid and the film did not make such a gratuitous assertion. I'd like someone to point it out and correct me if they did. This is not the kind of thing we need to feel; it needs to be fact-based. Thank you. --Davidp (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "necessary but not sufficient" assertion of Berlinski is a standard mathematical term, but the fine points of the distinction between "necessary" and "sufficient" are likely to be lost on a general audience.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Likely true, but we can't in general make conclusions in article space that don't have reliable sources backing them up. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I was about to say that "links" could be seen as just as disingenuous, considering this is raised specifically as a criticism of evolution in a film criticizing evolution. But I suppose it's possible people would get the point either way. "Blames x for a range of things from a to z" sounds a little satirical, I'm just not sure that's our fault. Basically I don't have a strong opinion either way. Mackan79 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp, please read the review summaries at Rotten Tomatoes and tell me the viewer is not coming away with the impression Stein is blaming the Holocaust on Darwin/evolution. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with what reliable sources are saying about the film. Then read Ben's own quotes on the Expelled blog. Look at this article and you can see how Stein quote mines Darwin to portray his ideas as something sinister when in fact they are/were not. The evidence that Stein blames is overwhelming. Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- If I might say something a little more to the point: saying that it "links" evolutionary theory and a range of, etc, etc... does make it sound like there's strong rigourous evidence presented in the film to show that link. As far as I can tell from reviews (I live in Britain, and it seems unlikely the film will be released here) it is a purely emotional appeal, without any evidence behind it, and, particularly the Nazi sections have proven controversial. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp, In spite of the evidence that has been put in front of you, that you are clearly ignoring, and the consensus shown here you continue to push this mistken POV of yours. I believe if I revert you one more time I will be in violation of 3RR. That will not stop someone else from attempting to stop your POV pushing. Angry Christian (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Angry Christian, et al - I have now read reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and others. There is still zero evidence of blame as opposed to a basic connective link. All the film is saying is that the theory had to be there for perversions to feed upon it. I am a bit taken aback by the lack of evidence to support such lambasting of this movie. I saw the movie just today. I am an agnostic, evolution-believing libertarian type. The movie has flaws, but this wikipedia article is very poorly done and is chock full of POV. To be direct, the flaws in this movie are that it eschews the whole topic of what constitutes science. It elevates ID to science. This is not done explicitly, but through the supposition that it is on par with evolutionary theory. ID is a philosophical or metaphysical school of thought that seeks to explain what just might be inexplicable: the origin of life itself, as opposed to the origin of species or explaining variation in life forms, which is the domain of evolution obviously. However, for reasons either surrounding disciplinary integrity or perhaps dogma, the establishment seems to overextend in its resistance to the idea that life may be explained by an intelligent creator. This, in fact, does science a disservice. Anyway, I suggest all editors of this page view the film prior to generating narrative about it from third-party sources. To not do so seems rather vacuous and intellectually disingenuous. --Davidp (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I say try some more changes, or suggest them, and make the case. I think you're generally right about the article, I just don't happen to agree with these specific changes. On the "link" issue I'm a bit on the fence. In any case, I've made a number of suggestions for the article, but if you try a little more it could help things along. See also WP:BRD for guidance. Mackan79 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys... this page is not for an argument on the basis of your beliefs. This is a apge discussing the movie, not what you believe ordon't believe about the theories presented. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are also forgetting this, via WP:NPOV: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation, bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all. We should present all significant, competing views impartially." ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"bearing in mind that views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all" <=That discribes ID. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an NPOV FAQ that's also a policy page. Have a read of WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't believe that applies here. The point of those provisions is that ID should be ignored in the article on evolution, not that it should be ridiculed in an article about itself. And this still isn't even an article about ID. This doesn't change that I disagree with Davidp's above suggestions. Mackan79 (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If the reliable sources, in the mainstream and the most prominent set of views, are viewed as ridiculing the FRINGE position, then that is what gets quoted in the article. And if you actually count the pro and negative and neutral content in the ariticle, you will see that more than half is pro and neutral, which is more generous than we are required to be by NPOV.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the views held. This is an article on a movie about ID and Evolution, and since ID is one of the views in conflict, it is not considered a "exteme minority view." Even in psuedoscience articles, both views should be shown in equal footing. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp what you don't seem to realize is we are bound to rely on reliable sources and not one another. Ben has not linked anything, he has blamed. I gave you numerous reviewers who say the same thing I am. Had you read all the reviews I provided you then you'd know the majority of professional film critics who've weighed in on the movie do not agree with your assessment. Your personal take on the movie is interesting but again, we can't use you as a source. Angry Christian (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's one such example: According to "Expelled," Darwinism responsible for everything from atheism to abortion" Well, according to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," it's Darwinism, described as a philosophy that posits the pointlessness of life and encourages the "de-privileging of human beings" — and as such is responsible for everything from atheism to abortion, euthanasia to the Holocaust. Are you suggesting we simply ignore reviews like this because they conflict with your POV, Davidp? I can get more examples but quite frankly I have better things to do. Angry Christian (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein tells us he is not saying that Darwinism leads to mass murder, but the connection he draws is unmistakable Angry Christian (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Angry Christian, what I think you are not grasping is that the actual film transcript is a reference for describing the film. Relying on film critics is POV. I am not suggesting you rely on my POV, I am suggesting you rely on empirical evidence rather than opinions. The note that "Stein tells us he is not saying that Darwinism leads to mass murder, but the connection he draws is unmistakable" actually supports my position that the film is not assigned blame. It is assigning a connection, a link, a pre-condition. I'd rather not get too pedantic here, but I imagine you are following the logic. If something in the argument in particular is specifically unclear to anyone, I can address that. --Davidp (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, but this violates the foundational principles on which Wikipedia operates. If you want this, go to another wiki like Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Evolution is not responsible for eugenics or Naziism." Why mention Nazism at all if not to cast blame by association, the Nazi party never published research on evolution, the only reason this film is fronted by someone of Jewish origin is to push this Evolution => Holocaust lie. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconding, this view. You guys really need to can your nonsense, Davidp & IronCrow. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "seconding" an empty statement doesn't really mean anything. Really folks, let's sharpen our pencils! I'd love for someone to counter my arguments rather than make a gratuitous assertion. I have backed up my argument. Please do the same. This mob-rule thing is dumbing down the article. --Davidp (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

David you seem to have difficulty understanding what blame means so heres a link to wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blame . ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually as the main author of the article (the one with the most edits at least), I have my own impression of what is "dumbing down the article". But it differs from yours.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Davidp. Funny, Ben Stein has stated in interviews that he does not blame evolution, but believes it to have been needed. But this is the article on the film, not the theory, so... Regardless, if professional reviewers state that he blames it, why not Do something like this: "Some reviewers state that the film blames the theory of evolution as the cause of various atrocities (insert sources, can substitute atrocities). The film, however, does not state that the theory is to blame, instead, it claims/states/notes that the theory was a necessary part in the foundations/extension/operation of these events." I hope that doesn't sound biased... because the movie doesn't "state" or "claim" that evolution was the cause. But I can see how it can be seen as such when assuming that it does. I could show an interview linked on youtube, but odds are, it's not sopposed to be there. I think it was on Hannity and Colmes.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is typical for IDists to say one thing and do another, and then deny what they just did. Ben has been doing this all along. I think having a discussion on this during the hours where more editors are awake and stop re-inserting material that is heavily objected and has been reverted now by at least 3 editors until we have time to discuss it in more detail would be a good first step. Angry Christian (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• AC - I'm willing to let the article be until tomorrow. I look forward to actual substantive debate on the specific edits I'm making rather than reliance on film critics, other spurious interpretations, or blatant anti-ID POV. And I don't even think ID is science! I do worry about the ever eroding credibility of Wikipedia due to the fact that the "most emphatic mob", regardless of logic or lack thereof, wins by nature of the organic editing model. I will re-engage tomorrow. --Davidp (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to rely on film critics and reviewers. That is how Wikipedia operates. It is part of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:V etc. Please learn that or else feel free to leave. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone on Wikipedia lives in the same Time Zone... oh well, I'll do the same, though I wont really pay too much attention to this article because my expertise is more along the lines of history and music. But, I find Davidp's arugment more convincing though, because he's not stating that ID is better or worse, just stating that we should look at the film with a film article in mind, not something else. We shouldn't even be having this debate. I'm going to stop debating on what to do, because it just seems to me that it won't make a difference. Still, If anyone needs me, just post a comment on my discussion... also... Does anyone want to archive this discussion page? It's huge. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. Sorry.--Filll (talk)

Ben Stein said: "Darwin had ideas which when implemented led to the Holocaust." That is blaming the Holocaust on science/evolution NOT just linking the two. Paper45tee (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

The idea that a transcript of the film would reveal the truth of the critics' unerstanding is flawed – film is a visual medium, and messages have been conveyed by cutting between images since Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin. Reading and interpreting the transcript would be original research, and would give undue weight to the weasel phrases scattered through the words used. We must use reliable secondary sources for such interpretation, and the message from such sources is clear. A further piece of misdirection is the use of the term Darwinism with the meaning Social Darwinism which was coined in 1944 to criticise the excesses of both rampant capitalism and the Nazi enemy, and refers to Malthusian and Spencerian ideas that predate Darwin's publication of his theory. A common creationist ploy. .. dave souza, talk 07:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll pass on the "blame" debate but, Davidp, the text you were attempting to improve was explicit sourced, sourced to the movie's own website no less. Your change was actually moving away from the the movie's own description of itself. The source text read in part: fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” The movie's charge is that people are being persecuted for mere "belief". If that part comes across harsh, extreme, or unreasonable... well there's no fix for that. I agree with you that a fix needs to be done, but you aimed at the wrong target. I'm mulling over what I suspect the right fix may be, but to be honest I'm not sure I even want to suggest it. On one side there are frothing-at-the-mouth irrational lunatic "bad guys", and on the other side there are "good guys" who are so frustrated by the "bad guys" side that they will go triple-berserk frothing-at-the-mouth irrational lunatic at the slightest hint of what I have in mind. I need some sleep and some more thought, and maybe tomorrow I'll stick my head in the guillotine. Or maybe I'll go quietly and safely edit fluffy pink bunnies instead. chuckle. Alsee (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an exceptional article by the Waco Tribune which has been covering ID controversise ever since William Demdski was hired at Baylor years ago Review: Baylor officials among those attacked in 'Expelled' and they say "Viewers also are treated to Stein’s argument that evolution leads to disbelief in God, the loss of ethical and moral standards, eugenics, Nazism and the Holocaust, Planned Parenthood and abortion, before returning to the issue of academic freedom and equating science’s resistance to ID as a Berlin Wall that needs tearing down." I also like this quote, "That’s the real issue of Expelled — atheist scientists versus God — even though it wholly undercuts statements by intelligent design researchers early in the film that ID has nothing to do with religion." Enjoy! Angry Christian (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"...and blames evolution for a range of modern movements from Nazism to Planned Parenthood."

This phrase from the first paragraph doesn't appear to be backed up by the sources provided. I cannot find any mention of Nazism (Hitler, yes, Nazism, no) or Planned Parenthood. 67.135.49.78 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WorldNetDaily, conservative Christians promoting Expelled, said: "Planned Parenthood is a direct outgrowth of Darwinism," said Mathis. "Sanger was an open proponent of eugenics, and Darwinism is an idea that naturally leads to eugenics, which they are denying," said Mathis. "But they are compatible."[18] Mathis, refers to Expelled producer, Mark Mathis. Paper45tee (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

About the end of March, there was a major restructuring of this article which lost the source for the statement and the expanded clarification which this statement was briefly summarising. The source says "After a half hour or so, "Expelled" wanders off to blame the theory of evolution for Communism, the Berlin Wall, Fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood."[19] and I've modified the lead to reflect that more closely, leaving out the Berlin Wall which is covered by communism, and combining Fascism and the Holocaust as the Nazi Holocaust. Doubtless more sources can be found if desired. . . . dave souza, talk 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave souza, et al - You are using Colorado Confidential as a source. Are you suggesting that this is an impartial source? The film simply does not "blame" evolution for the movements you mention. It links them as necessary foundational thought for the next to follow. This is tantamount to blaming global warming theory for the modern green movement. You choose the word "blame" for a specific POV purpose. How could you possibly defend that? Can anyone avoid the red herrings and defend this with a little logic? Thank you. --Davidp (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of endlessly bitching about "blame" and "link" why don't we look for a better term that is less controversial here on the talk page? I'd go for "attemps to link" and I'm open to other suggestings but clearly many editors feel "link" is misleading and at least a few editors feel the same about "blame". Those are not the only terms we can use. So I propose we look for alternatives to both terms. Does that seem reasonable? Angry Christian (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it actually does. I did not realize you viewed "link" as being strong or factual. I am viewing link as rather weak. So, yes. I suggest we use "attempts to link". --Davidp (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear, Davidp. My concern is by saying "links" suggests he accomplished this. The fact that most everything in the film is demonstrably false leads me to be sensitive about how we frame what Ben is doing. I would not have an issue saying "attempts to link" nor would I have an issue saying "Stein protrays evolutution as a neccessary component to blah blah" I am one of many, let's hear what others think Angry Christian (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated above, the film uses techniques to create a much stronger impression than "link". Davidp clearly wants a weaker term than "blames", in my opinion that misrepresents the film and would have to show more context if used. He's not provided sources, what came to hand is shown below. .. dave souza, talk 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And, in my view, blame is excessively strong. Stein/the film definitely draws a line between the two, but assigning blame is not what the film accomplishes or even tries to do. The film states that evolutionary theory is a prerequisite for eugenics and the Nazi's implementation of it (master race, etc.). Without "Darwinism", it would have been fantasy for eugenics to cook that up out of thin air. There just really isn't blame there, though I understand this can be an emotional topic with implications. --Davidp (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you think the Spartans managed to introduce a form of eugenics, the Bible instruct massacres eliminating other religious groups, or Luther call for killing Jews? Think Darwin was a time traveller? .. dave souza, talk 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Arthur de Gobineau for the origins of the "scientific" "master race" idea – note the publication date and remember that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859. ..dave souza, talk 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that Mackan changed it to "and connects the theory of evolution to the Nazi Holocaust, etc" which to me wrongly suggests that he succeeds in showing a real connection. I thought of making it "and portrays the theory of evolution as having causal connections to the Nazi Holocaust etc" but decided it was simpler and as accurate to have "and portrays the theory of evolution as having caused the Nazi Holocaust etc". .. dave souza, talk 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-requisite was an imprecise word choice on my part. I think connecting or associating is reasonable. There are various school of thought that are energized or accelerated by virtue of the prevailing intellectual winds of the time. I believe this is what the movie was suggesting. However, it does not blame evolution for eugenics and Nazis and planned parenthood. That kind of inane, directly causal relationship is not set forth in the film. --Davidp (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is he doesn't blame evolution for all those things -- certainly he doesn't blame evolution for atheism. Does he say what the connection is between all these things? The only thing that seems certain is that he links/connects them. Otherwise you'd have to specify what the connection is between each. As to your point, I guess it's subjective, but I have a hard time imagining anyone will assume we think the connection is compelling. Are there other options? Mackan79 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the film blames evolution for atheism, or strongly implies that evolution is to blame for atheism. This is well documented.--Filll (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? Saying Darwinism leads to atheism, or compels atheism, or that the two are intertwined, isn't the same as blaming one for the other. Obviously atheism existed before Darwin, for one thing. Not that the arguments have to make much sense, but from anything I've seen this would be a misrepresentation of what they are saying. Mackan79 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan - I agree. That is my only point in this "blame" versus some other NPOV language. Emotion is clearly clouding the majority's judgement here. I am not suggesting we write a fluff piece on the film or say it's without logical fault. --Davidp (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blames evolution for the Nazis? What the reviews say

From the reviews that came to hand – dave souza, talk 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Time – Stein argues that there is a clear line from Darwinism to euthanasia, abortion, eugenics and--wait for it--Nazism. Theories of natural selection, it's claimed, were a necessary if not sufficient condition for Hitler's killing machine to get started.
  • Blame. "necessary if not sufficient conditions for" --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Orlando Sentinel – Using loaded language and loaded imagery, Stein and Co. (Nathan Frankowski is the credited director) equate evolution with atheism, lay responsibility for the Holocaust at the feet of Charles Darwin, interview and creatively edit biologists and others (scientists apparently "cast" for their eccentric appearance) to make them look foolish for insisting that science, not religion, can explain creation.
  • Blame. "lay responsibility for" --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Beliefnet – he is also associating Darwinian science with Godlessness, communism, and totalitarianism, with detours into Nazi atrocities and atheism so over-the-top that it becomes shrill and irrational.
  • Link. "associating" --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• The Seattle Times – ...Darwinism, described as a philosophy that posits the pointlessness of life and encourages the "de-privileging of human beings" — and as such is responsible for everything from atheism to abortion, euthanasia to the Holocaust.
  • Blame. "is responsible for". --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• The Salt Lake Tribune – Through fast-cutting of interview snippets and movie images, the movie links Darwin to eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, Planned Parenthood, the Soviets and that old argumentative trump card, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
  • Link. "links". --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Portfolio.com – Stein talks at length about the Holocaust and blames it directly on Darwin, who is called "a necessary condition" for National Socialism. And then, just to make matters worse, Stein extends that theme to include abortion rights in general, and Planned Parenthood in particular: he's basically saying that all pro-choicers are Nazis.
  • Blame. "blames". --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Fox News – there’s a visit to a concentration camp and the raised idea — apparently typical of the intelligent design community — that somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the Holocaust.
  • Blame. "it caused". --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• New York Times – Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.
  • Link. "construct an inevitable connection". --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is borderline "blame" though: "inevitable connection". --Merzul (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• New York Post – In a long, greasy detour, Stein shows that the Nazis were Darwinists. So what? They also liked skiing. Having Nazi fans doesn't make Darwin wrong.
  • Dunno. --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Variety – Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust), complete with solemnly scored footage of the experimentation labs at Dachau.
  • Link. "attempt to link". --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In my count, blame wins 5:4... Of course, I'm not naive enough to think that this count will settle the matter; but it was enough to convince me that "blame" is appropriate. --Merzul (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I did this silly count is that technicalities about "necessary condition" not really meaning to blame, or not important. What is important is what impression the movie is trying to make, which is why judging the impressions of the reviewers is more relevant than arguing whether "a necessary condition" really constitutes responsibility and what not. --Merzul (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stein is a sneaky little bastard. Forgot about his ignorance of history, and see if you can stomch the following garbage (keep in mind this is one example, he's said even more ignorant things in numerou sinterviews):

"Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism...Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process....And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force."[20] This, friends, is called propaganda it has not historical basis, he has no idea what Darwin wrote about, and he blames Darwin's ideas as causing more bloodshed that imperialism. The stupid, it burns! Angry Christian (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ben Stein is a sneaky little bastard." Ad hominem attacks are invalid and the fact you aren't called on them is troubling. I do not believe in "Intelligent Design", but ideally this should be treated like any other documentary on a political topic. As far as I can tell this is not really happening. Instead the article is being used, in essence, to show that Ben Stein is a sneaky little bastard. Even if this is true, and it may well be, it's irrelevant. At present the article is extremely one-sided and based in debating things almost totally extraneous to the film. It also has taken historical positions, like Nazism being against evolution, that are flat-out wrong. Nazism was based only in pseudo-scientific variants of evolutionary thought, but to deny any connection is simply false. The link that states they burned Darwinist books has one segment that states burning of "primitive Darwinist" thought. This does not mean they burned anything based in any form of Darwinism, the Nazis certainly did not, but the implication they did is there. Anyway the article should discuss the film, mention the critical/audience response, and mention a few incidences. Telling us what it should've done or that Ben Stein is a jerk or that Scientists are above reproach is not useful and potentially libellous. (Note: I'm well aware I will now be shouted down)--T. Anthony (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

:) But whatever Ben Stein intended, be it is deception or intellectually honest philosophical speculation about counter-factuals, the question is what does the movie say? And reliable sources feel that it places blame, or at least, responsibility. The intentions and sanctity of the creator of this work is irrelevant to the sentence under discussion. Agree? --Merzul (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I throughly disagree with the theory of macroevolution, but the article above posted by AC shows the ignorance of Ben Stein. To confuse Social Darwinism and eugenics is one of histories cardinal sins. Darwin did not give us Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer gave us Social Darwinism. And Social Darwinism still has nothing to do with eugenics (which is the racism he speaks of) or Nazism. It's people like Stein that make me hate my own Christianity. If I can have a say, Stein blames Darwinism. Need we remind everyone the definition of blame, "Attribute responsibility to." -Princeton University InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's be honest. The "links" that the movie implies are not that Nazism caused Darwinism, or that both the Holocaust and evolution have a common cause, or both of them caused something else. The "links" the movie suggests are that Darwinism caused the Holocaust, or at least contributed importantly to it. As Stein has said, "No Darwin, no Hitler". Stein even wanted to call the movie "From Darwin to Hitler".

This "blame" is all in the interviews and promotional material. And let's face it; this article is not just about the film. If you want an article just about the film, go to IMDB. This article includes material for balance and NPOV, it includes the reviews, it includes material about the controversies surrounding the film it includes material about the film's promotion. As it should. This article is not a film review; it is about a cultural event that the film is central to.--Filll (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with the current version: "portrays the theory of evolution as having caused"? --Merzul (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am satisfied with that description, Merzul. Angry Christian (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting forth an argument is one thing, but Stein takes manipulative avenues in an attempt to vilify Darwinists as not just fascistic thinkers but proponents of ethnic cleansing. Does the film ever mention that evolution, as put forth by its advocates in science, is an unconscious process, larger than any acts of man? No, but Stein visits concentration camps to exploit the Holocaust for a cheap emotional response and does so while standing on an intellectually precarious argument. Now, I'm all for a good discussion. Debate exists at the heart of all healthy inquiry. But "Expelled" is slick and slimy, and anyone wanting a proper response to the onslaught of leftist documentaries -- or harboring a similar viewpoint of man's origins -- likely will be put off by Stein's smug tone and his disigenuous suggestion that not just Darwinism, but science itself is a dangerous tool of evil minds. Hmmm...Angry Christian (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that we have to debate the word choice of blame here. It's clearly POV. And the sources cited here are largely opinion pieces ("When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious." - Wikipedia:RS). I found the entire segment on eugenics and Naziism rises to the level of Michael Moore-ism. But it's similar to saying that Michael Moore blames the 2nd Amendment for the incident at Columbine. (He may - I am using an analogy here) Do you believe he did that? In my loose recollection of the film, I don't. I think he connects the culture of gun ownership to the societal conditions that make a Columbine incident more likely. Frankly, I think that's still slippery BS, but it would be very biased of me to go and insert the word blame into the BFC article. While you may see a fine distinction here (or not), I see the use of precise language to be quite important in achieving an NPOV article. --Davidp (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the Bowling For Comumbine article, and I have seen that movie 4 times (I own a copy) and I still can't figure out what MMoore is saying, and I'm a card carrying NRA member and a huge fan on the 2nd ammendment. :-) It's funny, when we cite the science community who correctly says Ben blames the Nazis on Darwin everyone goes nuts and says we shouldn't use scientists as a source. When we include the perspective of professioanl film reviewers (who coincidentally have come to the exact same conclusion that the science dudes did) we're encouraged to ignore them as well and instead rely on a wikipedia editor's POV. When does this POV pushing stop? Angry Christian (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I ask the same question, Angry Christian. When will this POV pushing stop? You're saying the word choice of "blame" is not POV? Despite the fact that film critic's opinion pieces are just interpreting this as blame to make their point? Where is the word blame used in the film? What portion of the film blames evolution for eugenics and Naziism? I don't think you can actually answer that because it simply is not assigning blame. It contributed credence to those perverse schools of thought. How do you disagree with how I've characterize it? Explicitly, please. I challenge anyone to establish blame as being the best word choice for the connection that the film makes (not what some critic evokes from their own imagination). --Davidp (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Davidp wants to wikilawyer and reinterpret ad infinitum, he is a perfect example of someone who engages in "CIVIL POV pushing" that there are current calls to sanction. This disruption needs to stop. Davidp, if you cannot or will not understand what NPOV etc means, then there will be consequences. Fair warning.--Filll (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated below, I think this warning is out of place and inappropriate. The best approach for everyone, including Davidp, is to follow WP:Consensus, which recommmends civil discussion toward finding generally accepted ways of improving the page. All editors are equally welcome, and should be encouraged to do this. Mackan79 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Where is the word blame used in the film?" The film is a Primary source, wikpedia uses Secondary Sources thats the Critics and scientists if you are unsure what Secondary Sources are. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll - Does wikiintimidating trump wikilawyering? I'd love to understand the logic of your assertions and how they fit in with Wikipedia policy. Thank you. I believe my arguments are sound and are not obfuscating the issues here. I am attempting to insert some logic and facts into the article, which seems to have a legion of protectors and POV sentinels ensuring even the most obvious POV is not corrected. --Davidp (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You want to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:RS. Just not a good idea to keep arguing these things over and over and over. That constitutes WP:DE. So stop it. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to state my strong disagreement with Filll's warning, as I haven't seen Davidp argue anything inappropriate. I'm also frankly getting tired of these out of place warnings; people should be able to discuss and disagree without this kind of commentary. If there is dispute resolution at any point, these are likewise issues that I'll raise, but let me say I don't think the constant reference to dispute resolution on this page is helpful for anything. Mackan79 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mackan79. I've seen nothing inappropriate from Davidp.

Also, Filll is mistaken about the definition of disruptive editing. Disruptive editing has little to do arguing a point persistently. Disruptive editing is editing of articles (not Talk pages), and it "concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree." There is no fundamental policy against persistent arguing on an article Talk page. By definition, disruptive editing also fails WP:V because it alters or inserts material in an article which "fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research."

Talk page comments are, by definition, never "disruptive edits."

Article edits are not "disruptive," either, unless they violate fundamental Wikipedia policies, and unless they do so obviously and repeatedly.

What's more, article edits are not "disruptive" unless they also fail WP:V.

Edits which are not well-described by all of those tests are not disruptive. Davidp's comments do not meet any of those tests. Please be more careful with your accusations against fellow editors, Filll. NCdave (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative structure: background section

Hi, I just want to point out that there is an alternative structure that is more consistent with how we do documentaries, such as The Root of All Evil, while still respecting WP:DUE. The key idea is to introduce a "background" section right in the beginning, we have this in The God Delusion too, where the movie is set in historical context. The article could then proceed as follows:

1. Background. The definition of ID is given, it is cited that it is junk science, and the history of the ID movements attempts to subvert science is described per NPOV and DUE. No need to try too hard to debunk, sometimes less is more, at least the court ruling should be quoted, so their finding, based on expert evidence by atheist and religious scientists, is prominently featured.
2. Synopsis. And here, as much as possible, try to avoid judgments, such as "junk science" and "deceitful editing". Try to give an NPOV account of what is shown in the movie without caring about the truth of it all. Now, since it is a deceitful propaganda movie (all WP:RS say that), we can't say "In the interview, Dawkins' says X" but we can say "Dawkins is portrayed as saying X" without having to immediately expose the deceitful editing.
3. Factual accuracy. An NPOV discussion of the factual accuracy, where all inaccuracies and deceitful editing are exposed. Here of course, NPOV and DUE allows you to completely trash the movie. You could of course include possible rebuttals as these are often interesting. I'm sure you know how to do this.
4. Critical reception. An NPOV account of critical appraisals as a documentary movie. This is fine as is now, etc.

And so on... In this way, you can give a fair description of the movie, while still making sure the innocent reader is not immediately misled because the history of this movement and their deceitful tactics are explained. Best of luck, Merzul (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a helpful and positive suggestion. I'm not sure that The Root of All Evil? article has quite the structure you suggest, which is closer to the structure in The God Delusion. The Promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution section could logically become a new introductory Background section. A present the Overview introduction shows a brief neutral synopsis, followed by examination of the main arguments made by the film. That could be made clearer by having a Synopsis main section, then introducing a new main heading such as Arguments put in the film. .. dave souza, talk 10:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's wrong to describe the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial conclusion as "based on expert evidence by atheist and religious scientists" – the leading scientist giving evidence supporting the plaintiffs was Kenneth R. Miller, a noted Roman Catholic, and as far as I know there was no testimony from atheist scientists. The finding, however was also based on testimony from theologians, historians and philosophers. .. dave souza, talk 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just want to point out that The God Delusion is a book, not a documentary. --RenniePet (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I see, so it's even more obvious that it's not some atheist conspiracy. You obviously know how to do this all, if you warm up to the idea that WP:DUE can be respected, even with a more charitable synopsis. Rennie, I'm suggesting that it is nicer when articles on non-fiction (is this non-fiction?) give summaries of the work before assessing its validity. If my tone indicates that I know what is the best solution and how things should be done around here, then I apologize. --Merzul (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note "junk science" is an exact quote from that famously left-wing source Fox News. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how ID being "junk science" relates to the structure of the article. Sure, it is attested by all reliable sources, but what I ask you is to read this article with the eyes of a person who comes from a humanities background, e.g., a lawmaker or educator, undecided on the matter of ID. He needs to know what to think about the arguments in the movie. This person is not so much trained in evaluating empirical evidence, but instead in critically examining argumentation. They might ask questions like:

• Has the author understood the position they are criticizing, or are they attacking a straw man?
• Do they commit informal logical fallacies, appeals to authority, ad hominem arguments, and so on.

What conclusion do you think they would reach about this article?

I'm suggesting that giving some room to properly explaining the film without immediately rejecting its message could increase the readers confidence in the presentation of facts that follow and precede it. Does this sound reasonable to anyone, or am I just presenting more propaganda? ;) In any case, now I leave it up to you to decide, Merzul (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Section: Claims that film producers misled interviewees

There are two pieces of information that directly go to the untrustworthiness of the producers of "Expelled" that do not appear here. First, there is the verifiable early acquisition of the "expelledthemovie.com" domain, and that predates any of the invitations to interview sent out to the "atheist" contingent. Second, there are the interviews with Ben Stein that indicate that he was recruited with the "Expelled" concept, not the "Crossroads" concept, back in 2006, again predating any contact with the "atheist" contingent. See here and here. The claims mentioned in the section title come with evidence, but readers of Wikipedia at the moment would not know that. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Both important points that should be included, in my estimation.--Filll (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific reviews in the lede

Is it appropriate to have specific reviews in the lede? I know the WikiProject film style guidelines state to note the general reaction, but specific reviews? Also, it may be of interest to include another sentence at the end of the second lede paragraph saying something like:

A significantly smaller group of critics gave the film postive reviews, calling the film "funny", "powerful", and the "best thing that has been done on this issue". (with the appropriate refs, of course)?

I don't think this violates undue weight since it could be argued the undue weight is the current inclusion of specific reviews. I don't think this violates the neutral point of view since this is all verifiable, and not trying to say there is an equal balance of positive reviews. But to dismiss all the positive reviews seems slightly askew. And of course, that's why I came to the talk page first. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead states that the reviews were broadly negative. Now if you remove the specific reviews then you weaken that statement. But if they are in then they back the statement up. As for the positive reviews, I would say it depends on who is giving the review. If they are in quality newspapers then I think that one should also go in the lead section for balance. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What I would do is state that most mainstream media reviews have been negative, with 5 to 10 examples cited (NY Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc). And I would state that most scientific reviews have been negative with a cite to a few examples. And I would state that most right wing and Christian media reviews have been positive. With a few examples cited. And you are done, in 1 or 2 sentences. --Filll (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kinda goes without saying that a film like this would receive positive reviews from the right wing criistian media and negative reviews from the science media. Obviously worth including in the article but in the lead? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem particularly unusual. Let's look at a couple of other films that were received either very well, or very badly, by critics. Atonement (film) says in the lead, "The movie won an Oscar for the best Best Original Score at the 80th Academy Awards, and was nominated for six others, including Best Picture, Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay) and Best Supporting Actress. At the 61st British Academy Film Awards, it won the Best Film of the Year, and the Production Design award." Plan 9 from Outer Space says in the lead "By merit of its writing, unconvincing special effects, and multiple production errors visible in the final version of the film, Plan 9 from Outer Space is sometimes regarded as a leading candidate for the title of "worst movie ever made". It has also earned Edward D. Wood, Jr. a posthumous Golden Turkey Award as the worst director ever." Quite a lot of film articles mention Oscars or Emmys quite prominently. It seems fairly normal for a film that provokes strong opinions (good or bad) among critics. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Awards I believe Ben Stein won the Philip E Johnson award for the film. I think Philip E Johnson is the only other person to have ever won it. I know it's a total scratching each others backs crack up but we should probably include it somewhere. Angry Christian (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to awards won, I was talking about quoting specific reviews. I have to think about this some more. --Ali'i 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to side track your point :-) Angry Christian (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote about the Chicago Tribune review, "1 star (poor)". Someone else has removed the quotation marks, so it now says:

The Chicago Tribune rated the film one star (poor)

This sounds slightly strange, and can even be misinterpreted to be an indication that it was poor that the Chicago Tribune was so negative. An exact quote would be best, for example:

The Chicago Tribune's conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)"

--RenniePet (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The movie appears to have done well.

A number of independent sources have described the movie as doing well overall. See for example this. We should presumably note that in the article yes? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We should. But it did not do as well as predicted by Ruloff, and that should be mentioned too. And several sources pointed out that it did about 10 percent of the opening weekend business of Fahrenheit 911, which it was expected to eclipse by many fundamentalist and creationist sources. And that might be mentioned too.--Filll (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

XVIVO

This sources [21] suggests XVIVO is unfortunately backing down from their lawsuit threat, or at least asking for help to continue and also over some explaination of why XVIVO feel their copyright was violated. Also, this source[22] has a response to the backdown and is rather funny, it's commenting on the backdown by XVIVO and makes some rather dumb claim about how XVIVO is using 'CSI and the Explanatory Filter' to support their copyright claim so they're IDers even if they don't know it... Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to use this kind of copyright intimidation to suppress a film is rather pathetic. It is unethical and against the spirit of free culture. If you disagree with what the film is about, don't try to get it banned, but rather let people see it and present your case to the public. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a communist culture? Because intellectual property rights are a basic of the US Constitution and most free countries. If you cannot own your own copyrights or intellectual property, then there would be no profit in creating new things. No one is banning the film. Maybe you should review the article and the references a bit more closely. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Not sure where you get the impression they're backing down, Nil. The report you linked was dated Friday, April 11, 2008. Since then the film's come out, apparently with a different cheapo style animation. After a press release from the film promoters announcing a Texas lawsuit without actually serving suit on XVIVO.[23] Typical of the DI and their cronies to say one thing and do the other, and it appears that it was the film promoters that backed down. .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"XVIVO has no intention of engaging alone, in asymmetrical fighting against an ideological entity with orders of magnitude more resources than we have. That might make great theater, but would resemble a hugely expensive game of whack-a-ID. Boring!" & "Why should I try to take you guys down when you are doing such a splendid job yourselves? For free!"

Suggests to me that XVIVO are not planning to engage with the filmmakers unilaterally. It appears to me they are hoping Harvard, or someone else will come to their aid. If the GLADD lawsuit ever goes ahead, then I guess XVIVO will have no choice to pursue this of course. Unfortunate perhaps, but not surprising. This is also the intepretation from Demeski (as shown in the second source) although obviously not an unbiased source Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't ever call me a communist. I am a liberal/green who abhors any form of totalitarianism and censorship, including the use of copyright threat (The director of this movie clearly did not have intention to plagarize the clip, merely borrowed the idea). This reminds me of past years reading Larry Lessig's Free Culture and saw a story about how FOX company was suing a producer of a videotape that incidentally captured a copyrighted footage playin on a corner TV! We see copyrighted materials casually displayed everywhere on the web and other places (like if a film shows the cover of a book a character is reading, that cover is obviously copyrighted). But no book cover illustrators would ever sue over that kind of "copyright violation". In this instance, the biologist is surly trying to intimidate the filmmakers by using a tactic similar to the ones of RIAA: selective and vindictive prosecution and spamigation. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Try distributing the film without the permission of Rocky Mountain and see how far you get when they come after you and you scream 'copyright intimidation'. BTW, William Demeski, a strong support of the film strongly argues it was intentionally plagarised. Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is contributing to the article..But I have been involved in several law suits in my day. They are extreemly time/resource consuming and very expensive. Like the cost of a lawsuite can be more than the total value of the business doing the suing. Rarely does it make any senseAngry Christian (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was that if XVIVO are backing away from a lawsuit then this should be in the article but it appears people don't agree with my interpretation of the source so I guess it's best to leave it out for now Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that the article should show the outcome but I'd like some more confirmation that the "Toddler animations" effort has actually replaced the recoloured XVIVO ripoff in the film as shown. If you look at the Get Expelled - Cellular Animation Movie Clip uploaded by "getexpelled" to YouTube on April 15, 2008, that implies that it's what's in the film uploaded by a promoter of the film, but that's a bit too near OR for my liking. .. dave souza, talk 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of confusion about the capitalist free market system here. Wow.--Filll (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dissenminating a whole copyrighted film is vastly different from making a reference to a clip or a book cover. No one here is suggesting here we should be allowed to massively reproduce and hand out movies that are copyrighted. What I said is a casual and incidental flash of copyrighted material should not be gone after. Like if my videotape showed my girlfriend reading a textbook that has a famous picture on it, I would doubt the photographer of the picture would send me a cease and desist order. Chimeric Glider (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last thing I will say about this since it is getting too OT. You seem to have misunderstood the problem in question is that Expelled is accused of wholesale copying of a video produced by XVIVO for an entire scene in the movie. The XVIVO video isn't just a picture that occurs in the background. If your girlfriend publishes a book and uses the famous picture on the cover of her text book then she's gonna get in deep shit too... Or a better example try re-writing a book modifying the wording slightly, page by page and then publish the whole thing and see what the writer or publisher thinks when you say your book isn't a copyright violation. Or do your own rendition of Imagine or some other copyright song and sell it and see what happens when you don't get permission from Yoko Ono (or whoever). If you still don't understand the difference, perhaps try reading the article and associated sources? It often helps... Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ebert's input

The foremost revered film critic authority Roger Ebert, whom I deeply respect, has been as of now silent on this film, which seems out of his character. Does anyone know if he has spoken on it lately? Chimeric Glider (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The film only came out days ago and Ebert broke his hip - he may even still be in the hospital. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Adding NPOV tag to article. The article violates NPOV by excessively citing negative reviews and opinion pieces as well as red herring arguments (related to ID's merit as verifiable science as opposed to the positions directly raised in the film). --Davidp (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am telling you, this is not a very good idea. Please do not get yourself in trouble. This is a very bad move.--Filll (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? Is there not significant disagreement shown here on this Talk page to establish that the neutrality of this article is in dispute? --Davidp (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Its wikipedia's fault that movie reviewers are critical of a movie that argues in favor of pseudoscience? Should we ignore the negative reviews and expell them because you simply don't agree with the consensus? Paper45tee (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I read, the film is garbage. Credible reviewers are saying, "this film is garbage". What should Wikipedia do, other than to say that credible people are saying the film is garbage? --RenniePet (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably should say that, yes. But, it should also provide encyclopedic information that is absent POV. It is currently a hatchet piece written with no understanding of the primary source.--32.167.139.91 (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as the sources are reliable and verifiable, it does not matter whether it's a secondary or primary source. --BirdKr (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's neutrality is obviously disputed, so it needs the {{POV}} tag. NCdave (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually secondary sources are generally preferred by far on wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been disputing this for months now! Why do you continue to insist that it is not disputed?Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims that the film misquotes Charles Darwin

Hi lovebirds, I have a question. Should we come up with a better title for this section since it is not a claim but a fact? And it's not a fact that anyone could argue, it's pretty black and white. The film quote mines Darwin to portray something completely different than what Darwin actually said and meant. Just curious if calling the fact he quotes mined Darwin a "claim" makes sense? The film does in fact quote mine Darwin. Angry Christian (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and for the record, I am not suggesting we say "Ben Stein is a quote mining prick". I'm just curious if anyone else thinks the title is less than precise and if so does anyone have a good suggestion. Angry Christian (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am with you on this, clearly a fact and not a claim, it cannot be argued that the film doesn't implies the opposite of what Darwin was impling. Section title should read "Misquotation of Charles Darwin:. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk)02:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Misquotation of Charles Darwin" is OK with me. Also I think we should bold or change colors on the missing text in the quote since the italics don't show up very well. Paper45tee (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But is a quotemine technically a misquote? I'd prefer "selective quoting." If the quote has been elided without acknowledgment then it is not just selective editing, it is a misquote. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's one big problem with that: the film did not misquote Darwin. Nor did it take his words out of context to change their meaning. The quote was perfectly accurate.

Rennie and Mirsky's SciAm complaint was simply that the film did not also note that Darwin mentioned the downside of neglecting the weak and helpless. Here is what Darwin said about that:

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy... Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. ... [If] we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Rennie & Mirsky's SciAm article misinterprets those words as meaning that, "Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the 'weak' as dehumanizing and evil." But that isn't what Darwin said:

Firstly, Darwin's words were about "neglecting," not "eliminating," the weak.

Secondly, Darwin's words reveal ambivalence, not opposition, to the idea neglecting the weak and helpless. Does anyone doubt that the NAZIs thought their eugenics programs had "contingent benefits?"

In light of what Darwin actually said, Rennie & Mirsky's complaint is spurious, because most eugenics programs did not work by neglecting the weak and helpless, and the movie does not claim that they did. Even the NAZI's eugenics and extermination programs did not work by neglecting the weak; they worked by sterilizing and murdering them.

Most eugenicists thought of themselves as humanitarians. Instead of neglecting the weak and helpless, they used "humane" methods to "improve the breed," such as forced sterilization of "defectives," and Margret Sanger's practice of putting birth control clinics in black neighborhoods.

The current version of the Wikipedia article calls the movie's use of this quote a "misleading selective quotation." That is simply untrue. The movie's quote was neither misleading nor inaccurate. NCdave (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC), 04:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version also arguably plagiarizes John Rennie and Steve Mirsky's SciAm OpEd piece, rewording their argument, but duplicating it in its essentials, and even duplicating their use of italics to highlight the material that the move elided from Darwin. NCdave (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Rennie & Mirsky didn’t read Darwin carefully. What Darwin called "evil" wasn’t neglecting the weak & helpless. That was Darwin’s description of problems that could JUSTIFY neglecting the weak & helpless. Intentionally neglecting the weak & helpless, in Darwin’s view, should be contemplated only if it conferss a real "benefit," and combats an "overwhelming present evil." NCdave (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

...You FAIL at reading comprehension. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, do I? Then explain his use of the word "present."[24]

(BTW, if you find his use of the word "contingent" confusing, an old dictionary might also help with that, too.[25]) NCdave (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to being a quotemine (carefully removed from its context to create a misleading impression), it was also an actual misquote, because chunks of text had been excised from the quote itself with no indication that this has been done. To quote NCdave himself (from the above contribution): "the film did misquote Darwin. The movie's quote was inaccurate. The movie's use of this quote is an overwhelming present evil". --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the unambiguous "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." which comes before it, what he is saying in that last sentence is that if some benefit for the future was achieved by such a means, it would require [be contingent on] great evil in the here and now [present]. This is the plain-language interpretation, NCDave's type of reading is one I have hitherto only seen in the convoluted logic of the most committed advocates for biblical inerrancy in the midst of trying to twist contradictory parts of the gospels, etc, into something - anything! that makes them compatible with each other. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You may validly call this a selective quote in the heading and it may be a misquote of some sort by not following technical convention (using ellipses or what have you). I don't really care about that. Substantively, however, Darwin is, in fact, a bit disturbed in his narrative that sympathy is getting in the way of genetic progress. In any case, it is incidental to the actual affect of Darwin on eugenics and the Third Reich, which implemented ideas related to this. The fact is that eugenics and the Nazis took Darwin's research and applied it to their ends. It doesn't really matter what Darwin may have felt about the poor, sick, etc. That is irrelevant to the premise here. Get it? --Davidp (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein misuses this selective quotation to give viewers the idea that Darwin sanctioned Nazi murders. Get it? As it happens, the SA article doesn't note one aspect of the selection - the omission of the start of the paragraph, which says "Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.—In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind...." This is Darwin summarising the views of other authors, then in the next paragraph, as shown, he shows their problem with the "noblest part of our nature". In corrspondence, Darwin described Galton's ideas as too "utopian", as the voluntary schemes both thought the only proper use of the science would be unlikely to succeed, and enforced schemes were morally wrong. The eugenics enthusiasts in the US discarded that part. ... dave souza, talk 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the Nazis took the name "eugenics" but disregarded Darwin's research, preferring de Gobineau's ideas of "master race" and "corruption through racial mixing". Hitler was a creationist who believed he was doing the will of the Creator, defending the pure created races from corruption by mixing with lesser created kinds. That doesn't mean that creationism is wrong, any more than his misuse of biology means that Darwin was wrong or that evolution is "wrong". this series is quite interesting. .. dave souza, talk 12:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nazis took Darwin's research and applied it to their ends" That's like saying the guy who pushed his wife off of a bridge applied Newton's research to his end, or his wife's end actually. Nonsense. Angry Christian (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is the nonsense I'm afraid. --Davidp (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey NCDave, based on your opinion the Spartans also applied Darwin's research to their ends. Were they time travelers? How the hell did they do that? At some point we should consider allowing at aleast a little common sense to take root on this talk page. Angry Christian (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler uses evolutionary concepts in both Mein Kampf and Zweites Buch to make his points on struggle and race. He more directly draws on Ernst Haeckel, who promoted Darwin in Germany. Embrace fact! It doesn't discount evolution. It was simply used to justify his intellectual perversions. --Davidp (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

...What "evolutionary concepts"? Hitler was advocating artificial selection, which certainly wasn't invented by Darwin. How could he have "used" natural selection? As previously noted, that "master race" stuff was from de Gobineau. I think you're using a very elastic definition of "evolutionary concepts" there. Species is a concept used in evolutionary biology: so does that make it an "evolutionary concept"? If so, was Linnaeus (who died 72 years before Darwin published Origin of Species) using "evolutionary concepts" too? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mein Kampf Um, if you read Mein Kampf you'll note Hitler argued they should exterminate the weak to glorify god. He also railed against athiesm. And everyone back then thought Haeckel was on to something, until they realized he wasn't. Again, common sense is not our enemy Angry Christian (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In the introduction to Zweites Buch, Hitler deals with the "the compulsion for the struggle for survival" and how this, in turn, contains the "precondition for evolution." The master race moniker was Gobineau, yes. Linnaeus was about classification, not about adaptation or the Will to Power (to inject some FN). The evolutionary concept here is natural selection, not unnatural selection. Society had/has subverted natural selection. Darwin provides the ammo. Gobineau loads the gun. Hitler shoots. It doesn't logically follow that Darwin is to blame for Hitler and the film only draws the line between them. In the Gobineau wikipedia article, it states:

When the Nazis adopted Gobineau's theories, they were forced to edit his work extensively to make it conform to their views, much as they did in the case of Nietzsche.

This does not disconnect the line between Gobineau and Hitler, however. --Davidp (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with misquote, though I don't think it was a terrible misquote, the film version and the original mean exactly the same thing! Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Darwin provides the ammo" Made me smile :-) Hey I have to run, I'll miss the show! Angry Christian (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins takes up this very subject here. Angry Christian (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The movie did not misquote Darwin at all. It is a perfectly accurate quote. The movie did not take Darwin's words out of context or "create a misleading impression."

The movie did elid some of Darwin's words, but there is no pronunciation for ellipses, so it is not a distortion to fail to pronounce them, so long as the intended meaning is preserved, which it was.

Darwin noted that neglecting the weak and helpless would result in "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature," which he said should only be contemplated if two things were true: 1) if there were likely ("contingent") benefits from doing so, and, 2) if it were done in response to a great existing ("present") evil.

Note that Darwin used the word "evil" in reference to the problem that might justify neglecting the weak and defenseless. Rennie and Mirsky apparently didn't read the paragraph carefully, because they wrongly claimed that Darwin used the word "evil" to describe "the idea of eliminating the 'weak.'" Darwin did not use the word "evil" in connection with the idea of neglecting the weak (and he said nothing about "eliminating" the weak).

Rennie & Mirsky seem to think that the words which movie elided n some way negate the words that they movie quoted. They're wrong. There is no incompatibility between the two sentiments that Darwin expressed. Darwin worried about coddled weaklings reproducing, but he had reservations about neglecting them.

However, most eugenicists did not advocate neglecting the weak and helpless, anyhow. They advocated surer ways of making certain that such "defectives" did not reproduce. In the same way, a dog breeder might sterilize a puppy with a genetic defect, but still seek a loving hope for him, and still be horrified if such a dog were the victim of neglect.

(Aside to AC: sorry, I don't understand your reference to the Spartans.) NCdave (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article I linked to, NCDave? Angry Christian (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analysis, NCdave. After re-reading this and doing a little language research, I'm in full agreement that Darwin was, in fact, conveying his point as you have said. --Davidp (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Davidp. <blush!>

AC, I skimmed, but Dawkins' nasty attack on Stein doesn't seem to have anything to do with the issue here, which is whether the film's quote of Darwin was accurate and fair (it was).

Dawkins makes some really silly statements there, though. For instance, he absurdly claims that Hitler (who ordered the murder of thousands of priests and nuns) was Roman Catholic.

Dawkins also wrote that, "Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind." But, then, what are we to make of this paragraph from Darwin's Descent of Man?

The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our standard, are, firstly, the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe. Secondly, powers of reasoning insufficient to recognise the bearing of many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general welfare of the tribe. Savages, for instance, fail to trace the multiplied evils consequent on a want of temperance, chastity, etc. And, thirdly, weak power of self-command; for this power has not been strengthened through long-continued, perhaps inherited, habit, instruction and religion.

It is hard to imagine that Dawkins, himself, has never read Darwin, but perhaps he assumes that his readers haven't. NCdave (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday, you have it almost right. You wrote, "...what [Darwin] is saying in that last sentence is that if some benefit for the future was achieved by such a means, it would require [be contingent on] great evil in the here and now [present]. This is the plain-language interpretation..."

Based on your personal attack which followed, I'm guessing that you didn't notice that your reading is very close to mine, and contradicts that of Rennie and Mirsky. You see, Rennie & Mirsky misread Darwin's sentence to mean that Darwin was using the word "evil" to refer to neglecting the weak and helpless. But that's wrong. Darwin was actually using the word "evil" in his description of the circumstances which could justify neglecting the weak and helpless.

Rennie & Mirsky's summary of what Darwin said was, "Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the 'weak' as dehumanizing and evil." That is wildly inaccurate, in part because, as you noticed, that is not what Darwin called "evil."

What's more, Rennie & Mirsky omitted the final sentence of that second paragraph, probably because it repeated the sentiments of the first paragraph, that the effects of "the weak surviving and propagating their kind" were "undoubtedly bad," and that it was to be hoped that "weaker and inferior members of society" would "refrain from marriage."

Your interpretation of Darwin's words is much more nearly correct than Rennie & Mirsky's, but it is just slightly off, because you assumed the most common modern use of the word "contingent." As Darwin used it, it meant "possible or likely, but not certain." It did not necessarily imply causality.[26]

My guess is that Rennie & Mirsky's erroneous claim that Darwin called eliminating the weak "evil" resulted from a careless reading of 19th century prose. But I'm surprised that nobody caught the mistake before their editorial was released.

Intentionally neglecting the weak & helpless, in Darwin's view, should be contemplated only if it confers a likely "benefit," to combat an "overwhelming present evil." But that wasn't an expression of reservations about eugenics, because eugenics programs didn't work by neglect. Most eugenicists considered themselves humanitarians, and they didn't advocate neglecting the weak and helpless. Eugenics programs commonly used much surer and more "humane" ways of ensuring that "defectives" did not reproduce, such as forced sterilization. Even the NAZI's didn't neglect "inferior" people, they sterilized and murdered them!

The bottom line is that the film's quote of Darwin accurately reflects Darwin's stated views, and Rennie & Mirsky's paraphrase of Darwin badly misrepresents those views. I am struck by the irony of Rennie & Mirsky's criticizing the film for supposed inaccuracy, while being far less carefully accurate than the film which they criticize. NCdave (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you have time to explain this clearly. I, unfortunately, do not. The important question is that, if you disagree with this interpretation of Darwin's quote, why is that? And, specifically, I think careful parsing of the sentences in question (with an eye on cohesive thought across paragraphs) is warranted, however tedious that may be. --Davidp (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's made quite clear in the article already, especially with the italics and the bolding. Darwin clearly does NOT approve of the neglect of the helpless: it would involve "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature". The context should clear up any ambiguity regarding "overwhelming present evil" (it's the evil associated with this neglect and deterioration). He's saying there are two consequences of this neglect, a "contingent benefit" and an "overwhelming present evil" (contrasting the possible long-term benefit with the immediate evil, in the present). The notion that he would actually approve of murdering the helpless is plainly absurd, if mere "neglect" is so bad. The notion that he would approve of sterilization is completely unsupported (and quite out of character for him). Stein's misquote was both incorrect and out-of-context. NCdave is mistaken: the evil is not what "justifies" the neglect, it is a RESULT of the neglect. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidp, your argument is in a way amusing, and it's telling that you try to augment it with a standard creationist quotemine accusing Darwin of racism. However, it's original research, and far from us having to disprove your "interpretation", it's up to you to verify it with a reliable source directly related to the film. And a hint – Answers in Genesis or the opinions of right wing politicians don't count as a reliable source. .. dave souza, talk 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Robert, you did not read it carefully. The "overwhelming present evil" was Darwin's reference to an hypothetical justification for neglecting the weak and helpless, it was not descriptive of the result of doing so. A "present evil" is one that is already in the here-and-now. An anticipated policy of neglect cannot be the cause of an evil already present.

Darwin expressed ambivalence about the idea of neglecting weaklings, but he was emphatic in his desire that they not breed. His words gave great encouragement to the eugenics movements which followed.

The Expelled film's quote of Darwin was perfectly correct. Rennie & Mirsky's summary of what Darwin said was wildly inaccurate, and their accusation against Stein and the film's producers was false. NCdave (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. you are entirely incorrect. The "neglect" could only be FOR a contingent benefit, but this comes WITH an overwhelming present evil. The "neglect" is not to COUNTER the evil, it CAUSES the evil. And Darwin uses the example of surgery, where again the actual performance of the operation CAUSES the "evil" (suffering of the patient) that the surgeon must harden his heart against: but then goes on to declare that (unlike the surgery) the (future) benefit is merely "contingent" while the (present) evil is "overwhelming", thereby indicating that the procedure should not be followed (i.e. the pain outweighs the gain here). And nothing here says that Darwin was "emphatic in his desire that they (i.e. humans) not breed" (even if this is good policy for animal breeding, a fact that had been known for thousands of years). Unfortunately for you, he says pretty much exactly the opposite in his "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature" comment. Your inability to read English is insufficient grounds for changing the article (are you even English? I am, and I even have a qualification in English English). --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the creationist dishonesty is also evident in the removal of the specific measures Darwin was discussing: poor-laws (welfare), medicine, vaccination. Not eugenics of any sort. Stein used this dishonest, edited misquote: this fact is beyond dispute by any rational person. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor NPOV change in intro - 'documentary' to 'film' a la 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Both sides would freely admit that Expelled is a controversial movie. It is in a category of films such as Fahrenheit 9/11 that are not quite documentaries, since they contain such obvious biases and such prolific fact-twisting. Even to call such films "documentaries" is controversial. The Fahrenheit 9/11 article has devised a sensible solution to this potential NPOV classification problem. The Fahrenheit 9/11 intro does not use the term 'documentary' to describe the movie--as the Expelled article does as I write this--but instead opts for the vaguer term 'film' in the interest of fairness and NPOV. Therefore, in keeping with the precedent set by this similarly controversial film of opposite political origin, I will change the term 'documentary' to 'film' in the Expelled introduction. I think both sides monitoring this article can agree that this is a minor, honest, appropriate, and entirely necessary change. If you feel differently, I would ask that you please make an explanation here first before making any further change to that term. AdRem (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Michael Moore-style documentary" would be better. (I think it already says that in the article.) --RenniePet (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I originally felt that "documentary" was not controversial, but I just checked dictionary.com, and it defines the word to mean a recreation that does not contain fictional elements. Thus, I think I was wrong that the use of the term is not controversial, and agree that "film" should be used instead. Nightscream (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AdRem and Nightscream. A "documentary" it's not. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Overview section

I'd like to discuss this edit, and why I feel Orangemarlin's edits are POV, and not NPOV, as he insists, taking each passage from his version, one by one, and highlighting the contentious portion:

"...used to symbolise the supposed barriers to intelligent design being accepted as science."

My version uses the word "alleged", because that word is more neutral. An allegation can be a well-founded one, or an unfounded one. But "supposed" is a word that tends to be used by one who is skeptical of the idea, often to denigrate it or its plausibility. "Alleged" does not carry this connotation.

"...he gives a talk in a lecture hall, and through the film he provides narration."

Not a POV matter, but I believe that "throughout" is the more appropriate word. I'm not positive that "through" is incorrect, but would be interested in others' thoughts.

"He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution"

It is clear that this wording is meant to emphasize subjectivity on the part of the producers. If it isn't, why insist on this wording that than simply "who support evolution", as I edited it to read? ALL producers of ALL movies "select" the people that appear in it. Orangemarlin's insistence on this implies that there is something more particular to this fact in Expelled than in any other film. What do you feel would be understood by the reader if it did not include this passage? That the interviewees grabbed the cameras away from the cameramen, forced an interview that the producers didn't want, and then broke into the editing room to make sure that their interview was snuck into the film's final cut? In addition, the article is already too long; why use the longest possible wording?

"Stein then tours sites of Nazi atrocities "face in hands, bemoaning the nightmare he claims Darwin wrought",<ref name=NewScientist12April2008 />'''..."

First of all, the above passage is from the Overview section, which is supposed to be a summary of the film. It does not need this level of detail, let alone a quote from a reviewer. Why indeed would you have to quote a reviewer when merely describing the film in summary overview? Simple. Such sections should contain only factual, dispassionately and formally worded descriptions of such scenes, and Orangemarlin may think he can sneak an opinion into the article by citing it as the opinion of a reviewer. But opinions and other subjective imagery are only appropriate in sections describing reaction to the film. An Overview section merely describing it should not have emotionally-charged scene-setting, and certainly don't require it.

"...followed by a "triumphal" scene of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall..."

Again, same problem. There is no reason for "triumphal" to be in quotes, as this is a literary device used when the writer is doubting the appropriateness of the word in question, and again, in a merely descriptive section, the word itself (which comes from the same source as the "face in hands" quote above) isn't even needed.

"then returns to the lecture hall for his closing statements."

Not a POV issue, but I believe the word "and" would be appropriate before the word "then". Orangemarlin says "We're keeping it NPOV." Really? Okay. Please tell me how "alleged" is POV, and "supposed" is NPOV. Please tell me how emphasizing the producer's selection of the interview subjects goes to NPOV, but concluding that this is unnecessary detail is POV. Please tell me how those "face in hands" and "triumphal" quotes actually makes the passage NPOV, and that removing them is POV. Not having "triumphal" there makes it POV? Really? How? Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I love being attacked by admins, so bring it on dude. It's an attack movie. It attacks science. There is nothing more to say dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No. There is much to say, since your personal opinion on the movie and the manner in which an encyclopedia describes it are not the same thing. If you could refute a single thing I just said, then you could've done so. But the anti-intellectual rant you instead responded with will only make it clear to others that you do not understand the NPOV policy, and the fact that you see an attempt by me to discuss this dispute here on this Talk Page (as opposed to engaging in an edit war with you) as an "attack", raises the question of whether you're able to work with others in a civil manner. Nightscream (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever dude. You're going to block me I suppose, since you enjoy blocking people with whom you have had involvement. I've got some business travel this week, so I don't mind the block, because it apparently increases your cred with the Fundies. Oh, calling me an anti-intellectual is a personal attack--I am so far from that I wouldn't even know if it's on the same planet as I. Well, slap me silly with my anti-intellectual hand, maybe I can get you blocked for making a personal attack!!!! What a thought. Nevertheless, this article is accurate, well-sourced, well-written, and clearly states, in a neutral manner, the rottenness of this movie. Perfect.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice you're canvassing. Excellent news, because I would trust many of these editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, edits like this are totally unacceptable:

Orangemarlin may think he can sneak an opinion into the article

To begin with, it's a total mischaracterisation of the actions taken - OM was undoing an edit of yours - how can you call that an attempt to "sneak" something into the article? Worse yet, he is undoing an edit which has serious POV problems by an editor whose editing history on this article includes a history of POV edits and abuse of admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Given your history here, you have shown that you are far too involved in this article to abide by Wikipedia policy. Please take a break from this article for a few days so that you can calm down. This sort of behaviour is totally unbecoming of someone the community has given the privilege of admin tools. If you can't control your behaviour, you need to step away. Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to block you, since this is an content dispute, and admins are not supposed to block people for this reason. I have no idea what you mean by "cred with the Fundies", as I'm an atheist, and have little sympathy for fundamentalists. And I did not call you "an anti-intellectual". I said that your response was, which it obvious was, and which your responses continue to be. A constructive response would be to remain polite, and discuss the passages in question. Saying, "It's an attack movie. It attacks science. There is nothing more to say dude." is not an constructive response. You are essentially saying that you cannot or will not respond to the individual points. That 'is an anti-intellectual response, and is a sign that you know that you're wrong, and can't refute the truth behind my assertions, and saying so is not an insult or attack.

I have not engaged in canvassing, since that requires that I contact people who I somehow know or think will respond favorably to me. If you don't believe me, just read that policy page. I have not done this, of course, since among the people I contacted were those that disagreed with my block of Angry Christian, which I did in part because I wanted objective people. You yourself prove this point when you stated that you trust the people I contacted.

Guettarda, I explained in detail above how the edit in question was an attempt on his part to sneak an opinion in the article. Please respond to that reasoning. As for your assertion that this cannot occur in a revert, this is obviously not true, since whether the material is being inserted for the first time or reinserted on a revert is irrelevant to this intent. The overview should explain the film in summary, and not use loaded language, which is unnecessary for that section. If you disagree with this reasoning, then why not explain the basis for doing so? Why would you instead ignore it, and then ask me "Hey, how does is this an opinion?" Isn't refuting the reasoning of the person disagreeing with you the proper way to go about a dispute? Or do you prefer OM's anti-intellectual refusal to discuss these points, his incorrect citation of WP policies, his deliberate distorting of my words, etc.? You have not established any history on my part of POV edits, much less admin abuse, as the record both on this page and the article's history shows the opposite, that I've been trying to remove POV edits. If this is not true, then why not respond to my reasoning regarding the passages I listed above? As for admin abuse, I responded to the discussion on Angry Christian on that notice board, by pointing out the three warnings I gave for on this Talk Page for inappropriate comments, and the fourth final one to AC and others on their own Talk Page, thus disproving the notion that my block of him was legit. Even if this were to be judged to be uncalled for, this hardly constitutes a "history" of admin abuse.

I await your responses to the passages I listed above.Nightscream (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream's characterization of the edits is perfectly accurate. Most obviously, OM's "supposed" is a scornful, POV-laden characterization, "alleged" is neutral. Nightscream made the article a little less POV-biased, OM made it even more so.

Also, OM deleted the {{NPOV}} tag, even though we all know that the neutrality of the article is disputed. That is not acceptable behavior. The tag is not supposed to be removed until the dispute is resolved.

OM says, "the article... clearly states, in a neutral manner, the rottenness of this movie. Perfect." That says to me that OM does not understand what "neutral" means. (It also says the article is far from neutral.) Please, OM, consider editing articles about subjects in which you do not have such a strong emotional investment.

Also, I wish that everyone here would refrain from personal attacks. Nightscream's opening comment was good, but OM's goading "I love being attacked by admins, so bring it on dude" reply seems to have set the tone for the rest. Really, OM, how was that constructive? Nightscream wants to talk about the article, let's do so. NCdave (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. . . dave souza, talk 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said. NCdave (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From a quick read of the talk page, it seems in general NPOV is not brought into question, simply wording of several sentences that revolves around NPOV of the current perspective/stance of the article. The rational seems to be that since almost all major reviews and media is criticizing the film, the significant view is that the movie almost crosses the line of propaganda, with the article reflecting that and the significant opposing view by following a rebuttal in almost in every sentence about the movie. --BirdKr (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As requested, I've had a look at the section. I've made some edits[27] relating to the points raised by Nightscream. To avoid edit conflicts I'll post commentary on these changes in a minute. .. dave souza, talk 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also NCDave, looking at your talk page and reading your message to one of the users saying:

• Be aware of the fact that Wikipedia is a very left-of-center institution. The admins here are overwhelmingly leftist, and you will discover that Wikipedia's rules tend to be very strictly enforced against conservatives and Christians, and often not enforced at all against liberals and atheists. In fact, some admins just invent totally fictional offenses by people with whom they disagree, as excuses to "punish" them with blocks and bans. Get used to it, that's just the way it is.[28]

seems to give the perception that your opinion is already fixed on this matter and the editors who "contributes" (take it however you read it) to this article. If possible, try to detach away from such view on this article. I don't mind you contributing at all however so long as the article improves. I myself will be contributing soon after all my college work is done--BirdKr (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on changes as promised:

I've changed "supposed" to "what it alleges are",[29] making it clear who's doing the alleging. I've left "through the film he provides narration" alone as, though I might use "throughout" as a word outwith Wikipedia, Tony1 has a thing against old fashioned terms a bit like this so that's uncertain, and I don't know for sure that he does all the narration though that seems probable.

These changes:[30] Regarding "He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution", I've clarified this to "He interviews those claiming to have been victimized, and several scientists who are atheists, selected by the producers to represent those supporting evolution" which is the essence of a major plank of the film, that evolutionary scientists are atheists. At the same time it must be made clear to uninformed readers that scientists who are Christian support evolution. As shown at #Alternative structure: background section above, well meaning people with no axe to grind still get the mistaken impression that evolution is only supported by atheists.

"Stein then tours sites of Nazi atrocities "face in hands, bemoaning the nightmare he claims Darwin wrought" " is rather poetic, I've I've changed that to "Stein then tours sites of Nazi atrocities emotively bemoaning the nightmare he implies was due to Darwinism.", and have changed "triumphal" scene of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall" to "symbolic".

Hope we can agree on these points, .. dave souza, talk 09:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original ones were quotes - I don't really think that your renditions are better, in this case - the one about Stein facing the Nazi atrocities might go a bit beyond the sources: "emotively bemoaning" has some connotations of intentional melodrama that aren't in the original. Do you have the New Scientist review the quotes are from? I could mail it to you if not. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also "triumphal" in this case is a quote from that review. If I might:

If paraphrased, we'd be open to accusations of Original research, but this is a movie which several reviews point out uses strong pulls on emotions in order to create its arguments, and hence the emotions are an important part of the summary. By using quotes, we make it clear that it is NOT original research - it's what a notable reviewer said! And that's fine, so the emotional content is dealt with in an NPOV manner, and all is well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise the "selected by the producers" bit was, as I recall, because the original phrasing implied that the people interviewed were representative of evolutionary biology. They are not - Shermer and Eugenie Scott are not biologists in the first place (Shermer is a historian of science, and Scott is an anthropologist (which has overlap with biology, of course, but is not quite the same)) and no theistic evolutionists appear [Or, at least, as far as I know - this article doesn't even have a full list of people interviewed - we really, really need to fix that.] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this brief outline should paraphrase sources rather than quote one, other sources are available and the wording can obviously be reconsidered. .. dave souza, talk 11:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we'd really need to be referencing anything that looks like OR with a ref listing quotes that support it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not OR, nothing new is invented that isn't in the source, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the poetic "face in hands" and the more encyclopedic "emotively". It is a great paraphrase. Dave Souza's mild changes are much appreciated, Merzul (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'd have read "face in hands" as descriptive, e.g. his face was in his hands in a significant part of the scene. "Emotively" seems a judgement call on the effect of this on the viewer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One last thing: for the record, I added "supposed" - I think the original phrasing was suomething like "shows scenes of the Berlin wall, used to symbolise the barriers set up by science against Intelligent Design" or something like that - that seemed to be presuming the barriers existed as described in the film. I think it's gone through several tweaks since then. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I checked, and while I did add it, I evidently added it at the same time I added the rest of the phrase and a ref showing it's meant as a metaphor for barriers to ID. I think I was confusing it with some other edits. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is not OR, and is the type of summarization of which most of the prose content on Wikipedia is comprised. Most of its text, after all, is not direct quotes, and certainly that is the case in this article. Again, the Overview is simply a summary description of the film, and I don't see why such a section would need quotes in the first place in describing it, let alone two. Then again, given how huge this article is, and how it'll eventually be pared down, I have a feeling that the Overview section will eventually be merged with the Intro anyway, but that's a separate issue. Nightscream (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR, but can give the appearance of OR if not done with care. In thics case, I'm worried that a paraphrase will not easily be identified as consensus of reliable sources, but instead be viewed as OR and removed down the line, unless we provide, in the refs, the quotes that support the statement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the following:

It is clear that this wording is meant to emphasize subjectivity on the part of the producers. If it isn't, why insist on this wording that than simply "who support evolution", as I edited it to read? ALL producers of ALL movies "select" the people that appear in it. Orangemarlin's insistence on this implies that there is something more particular to this fact in Expelled than in any other film.

The issue is exactly that the "Expelled" producers did select a biased sample from the population of scientists who support evolutionary biology. They selected only people noted for making public the fact that they are atheists. They either discarded interviews with those who were theists or repudiated the premise that IDC advocates are locked out of academia, or chose not to pursue interviews with them. It is completely accurate to note that the selection made by the producers was one that served their agenda, and failed to inform the public of the true state of affairs. It is misleading to whitewash that action on their part. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Instead of merely describing the film in summary, which is what the Overview section is supposed to do, those who favor this "selected" version of the passage are trying to make a point about the biased nature of the selection. You can't do that. It's a direct violation of Wikipedia: POINT. Any criticism of the manner in which the producers handled the interviewees should be made A. in sections devoted to such criticism, and B. by properly attributing those accusations to those sources as an accusation on their part. NOT as a matter-of-fact description in a summary of the film. This is what I'm talking about when I mention editors using weasel words and other such phrases to sneak POV into the film. The fact that the filmmakers and their advocates obviously have one position regarding these aspects of the film, and its critics have another, is a CONFLICT. WP editors cannot take sides in that conflict, even if we happen to know for a fact that one side is clearly wrong. Look at the article on flat Earth and the Flat Earth Society. Their idea is completely bonkers, but the article does not say this. It only states documented facts, and where it mentions criticism of their ideas, it only does so by attributing that criticism to its sources. Failure to do this gives the impression that Wikipedia itself is taking a position against the idea. Wikipedia cannot do that. It only REFERS to what each side says. That's why an encyclopedia is called a REFERENCE source. The same holds true with this film. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to note the producers' selection served their agenda. It is our job to cite CRITICS who do this, and only in the proper SECTIONS for that material.

I edited the article to remove such editor POV. This includes the Darwin quote section title, the "evolution as atheistic" section, and the material on the Scopes monkey trial, which has nothing to do with the FILM. Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the POV edits are still being reverted into the article, with Orangemarlin complaining that my NPOV reversions are actually "POV" edits. Let's try and discuss them:

Disputed edits

Here are the following edits that are still being disputed:

Portrayal of science as atheistic Does the movie actually portray science as atheistic? Because the lead sentence in that section makes it clear that it only does this with evolution. Indeed, this is a common creationist argument. So why is "science" a better word for the title? How is my version POV?

From my impression, it seemed the movie portrayed itself as going against "big science" and its "supposed prejudice", the epitome of it supposedly being evolution. It's quite easy to talk about the battle between religion vs. science (even though both are not categorically the same) simply by pointing out the political and religious incidents of evolution surrounding it. For the article itself, reading the section, it seems "evolution" seems a better fit than "science". If the movie directly claims that science itself or the current state of science and its community is atheistic, then the editors need to write more on that section that is beyond evolution to reflect the lead title. --BirdKr (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Misquotation from Charles Darwin I get it. Stein and the filmmakers misquoted Darwin. I'm not disputing this. But this is an accusation/criticism from the film's critics. As such, it's a conclusion that the article itself cannot make. By doing so, it gives the clear impression that Wikipedia itself is concluding that it's a misquote. WP article's can't do that. It is best to title that section something neutral, and then explain what the critics are saying regarding it. What exactly is wrong with titling that section "Darwin quote", and then explaining that Stein falsely edited the quote? How is changing the section title to something neutral a POV edit? Guettarda argues in his Edit Summary that "quote mining is misquoting". Yes, it is. But that's a personal observation on the part of the editor. Only the critics you cite can be quoted as such in the section's text. Putting your own observations and conclusions into section titles is a direct violation of WP: NPOV and WP: POINT. In what way do you dispute this?

Scopes Monkey Trial The same passage makes mention that the same misquote was made by Bryan in the Scopes trial. Can you please explain to me how this is relevant to the article about Expelled, and not simply an attempt to embellish your point about the quote?

Failure to represent theistic evolution Same problem as the Misquote section. Describing the criticism that the film does not mention theistic evolutionists is valid. But to title the section as such again gives the impression that Wikipedia sides with these critics. This is unacceptable. Again, please explain how simply mentioning Theistic evolutionists in the title, and then elaborating in the section itself with the critics complaints, constitutes a "POV" edit. Nightscream (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream, I'll chime in on this one and I think I see where you're coming from. To me the fact that they purposefully excluded Christian or religious biologists who do not have their panties in a bunch over "Darwinism" is a very significant part of the story. However, I share your concern that we should not "write the story" so to speak. What comes to my mind is we look at changing the title to something more encyclopedic and find some additional sources that will tell the story for us. As a starting point, how does that sound to you? Additionally, there is currently so much hostility on the talk page that it's really difficult to dig very deep on any of these subject (simply an observation). Anyhow, do you have a take on my initial suggestion and do you have any solutions for the "theistic evolution" section? Angry Christian (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair suggestion (don't you have a name to uphold?). Anyway, I'm discussing the science issue above. I think the Scopes thing digs a little deep, but was pleased to see that at least it comes from a site about the movie. In terms of the "misquotation," I think we'd need some better option, like "Alleged Darwin quote controversy," except that's worse than the original. Otherwise "quote" is perhaps misleading, whereas I think it's basically fair to call it a misquotation unless we have a better option. I could try to comment more specifically, but that may require that we split the points apart. Mackan79 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Last comment from me tonight. This article is becoming more like gridlock traffic. I see very good editors reverting other very good editors - endlessly. We seem to be arguing over and over and over about petty points and reverting one another over stuff that in the grand scheme of things seem pretty meaningless. We've already lost several good editors with good ideas because they cannot stomach the talk page. Compromise is not a naughty word and it can be done without violating policy. I really think we should request a peer review and keep our fingers crossed that we can get someone who will be helpful. Worst case is they'll get their ass kicked too. :-) What's one more person to beat up on? Seriously. Where do you go to request a peer review. And note I am not so naive to think a peer review is going to solve all that ills us, but a fresh perspective *might* help get us past certain obstacles. I mean how many more weeks are we going to argue about the exact same points? How many more editors are going to throw their hands up and walk away. I'm all for requesting the opinion of some fresh eyes. Night night you crazy people. Angry Christian (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Misquotation from Charles Darwin." The film's Darwin quote was accurate. It's Rennie & Mirsky who rewrote Darwin. NCdave (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the =atheism section appropriately, merging in and deleting the Failure to represent theistic evolution section. See the references and note that we should not be giving "equal validity" to the claims of pseudoscience. The source, Rennie & Mirsky, made the point about the Scopes Monkey Trial, which is their way of noting that this is a longstanding example of creationist quotemining. Their interpretation is accurate, and supported by expert historians whose books I have to hand. . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work Dave and how you combined the sections is much more effective and seems to eat up less space. Angry Christian (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

AC, thanks for participating. I hope that despite our previous conflict we can work together on this. And yes, I agree with you that the titles should be more encyclopedic. This is why the Darwin quote section should something like "Darwin", and not "Misquotation from Darwin". I notice some people here are arguing whether it really is a misquote, but to me, that's not the point. As I read the original quote and the filmmaker's version of it, is does seem to be a deliberate misquote. My point is simply that the article should not take a position on that point ITSELF, because it would violate NPOV and WP: POINT. The title should be something neutral, and then the critics' pointing out that it's a misquote be included in that section. The readers don't need us, the editors to conclude that the critics are right via the section title.

Similarly, the last part of that section, which mentions that Bryan used the same quoted in the Scopes trial, should read, "The Expelled Exposed website also pointed out that the same misleading selective quotation from this passage was used..." Instead, the only the non-bold passage is used, which poses the same problem. I edited that passage to include the attribution. What does everyone think? Nightscream (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

footnote cleanup

at least two footnotes (about box office results) are duplicate. Can someone fix that, please? Northfox (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

rush limbaugh

I noticed the note about his review was removed from the intro. If negative reviews are mentioned in the intro, should at least one positive? Saksjn (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is regarding whether summary sections like the Intro need to be sourced if they refer to content further down in the article, but if the NY Times and Tribune quotes are noted, then yeah, I don't see why the Limbaugh one can't. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If a notable movie critic says it's good: why not? The lead currently only mentions "neutral" newpaper movie critics, saving both the religious and the scientific opinions till later. Limbaugh is hardly comparable in notability or objectivity to the Chicago Tribune and New York Times. Several people are arguing that the lead should be "about the film": are we really going to open the floodgates here to those with an agenda to push? --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course Limbaugh is going to praise it along the lines of the Discovery Institute. I think it should have a positive review in the introduction, but one from a better source than Limbaugh. Paper45tee (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree to include Limbaugh would be out of place, unless perhaps there was clear evidence of some large schism between Christian sources and the media. I haven't really seen evidence of this; Limbaugh may have supported it, but I don't think he and others are making a big cause of it. Lacking that, I think Robert's caution makes sense. Mackan79 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a little, I say this based on a lead of the current size. If more of the controversy were added then some support would be appropriate, but currently we're not really discussing controversies around the movie in the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, objectivity, yes... notability, no. Limbaugh has more listeners in a day than the Trib has readers (even for Sunday papers). And I think for the NY Times (perhaps excepting the Sunday paper). :-) But really, see also my original comments a couple of sections above "Specific reviews in lede". Although I am still thinking whether we need a specific quote. --Ali'i 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there might be an issue even if someone can find one positive review from a non-partisan source: the WP:UNDUE policy. If 99 non-partisan movie critics say it's bad and one says it's good, quoting both would imply a false degree of parity between the two views among movie critics. Not sure what the best solution to that is, as the movie-critic reviews seem pretty negative up to now: the whole balance of reviews would have to shift. --Robert Stevens (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead currently only mentions "neutral" newpaper movie critics... Actually, it mentions "conservative and Christian media outlets". Limbaugh is a conservative media personality, which is why I figured it was not unreasonable to cite him. True, he's not a movie critic, but then neither are the scientists mentioned subsequently. Nightscream (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead currently does not specifically name or quote any scientist. Therefore it shouldn't name or quote Limbaugh either. Add Limbaugh, and we'd need to start adding scientists: and the result would be an inflated lead (again). --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

External links question

Seriously, e kala mai, my apologies, for starting another new section (maybe up the archival rate to 5 days?), but I have a question about the external links. Currently, there are two links I am unsure should be there:

• Counterevidence to AI abiogenesis claims at Talk Origins
• Counterarguments to claims of immorality at Talk Origins

I get that this movie is about evolution, et al., but do not see how these fit in this section. They are not about the movie, and they are not in any kind of context. I would say that perhaps some of our more courageous editors could work them into the article as references, but I fear that would be a violation of the synthesis rule regarding no original research. At this point, I support the removal (or at least the commenting-out using the <!-- and --> tags) of these links. Any ideas? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they clearly do not belong in the article. Feel free to remove them. Nightscream (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Paper45tee (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Box office numbers

The weekend gross is $2,970,848 in this source here, which is lower than what the article says. Paper45tee (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All of these are estimates at this point. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Satire and Techniques

the film is described as satirical, what type of Satire is used. except the descriptions by the opponents of the film, there is no description of the techniques used. Is it amateurish? Is it funny? Also, I repeat my claim that the position that opinion of the movie makers is being stated by the opponents of it, who are also the targets of it's criticism. It appears to me that the target audience of the movie, is normal people, which would explain it being in theaters, use of graphics, and unscientific nature. It isn't meant to prove anything, just get people to ask questions. Rds865 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr] –noun. 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

It definitely uses irony (ironic how supposed intellectuals are supposedly reject intellectual inquiry) and ridicule. I recall a bit of sarcasm as well but can't cite that at the moment. I'm not necessarily discussing the quality of the satire. --Davidp (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cause, vs. a a cause

I thought I read some where that Ben Stein said he doesn't believe Darwinism caused the Holocaust, but was a factor in it. It also seems to me that the argument is being made that Darwin would not have supported the holocaust. Well a good point, I am not sure if it is relevant, as even though Darwin himself may have been against Eugenics and Social Darwinism, they were based on his research. So the claim that Darwinism influenced Nazi's is not unfounded. Rds865 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But railroads and other features associated with the Industrial revolution were a cause of the Holocaust. And centuries of Christian-based discrimination against Jews was a cause of the Holocaust. And Jews living in Europe was a cause of the Holocaust. And the defeat of Germany in World War I was a cause of the Holocaust. And so on. All these were necessary but not sufficient. And many of them are far far more significant than a book about the origin of species by an antislavery advocate.--Filll (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stein said: "Darwin had ideas which when implemented led to the Holocaust." Clearly he thinks Darwin's ideas "led to the Holocaust."Paper45tee (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Stein insists that he isn't accusing today's Darwinists of Nazism. He points out, however, that Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism."[31] L. Brent Bozell III, one of the few "good" reviews, from a conservative. Stein is misinformed or lying, all the ideas that the Nazis took from the science of evolution were around before Darwin, and indeed were popular in Germany where Goethe had such ideas, to name but one. .. dave souza, talk 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source about Nazi raceology? I think it may have been influenced by Social Darwinism, and Eugenics, but not based solely on that. Rds865 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Numerous sources. For starters try [32] and this series: [33], [34], [35]..... dave souza, talk 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting one – this shows Hitler getting his ideas of exterminating "disease" from the body of the Reich from Pasteur and Koch, borrowing non-evolutionary medical ideas with no reference to, guess who! . . dave souza, talk 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed

The information is long and negative. The only thing that sticks out about the Expelled movie evaluation on this Wikipedia site is the negative attitude from beginning to end. I guess that is the right of those who give information into the site. At the bottom of the Expelled page is a reference to another movie called "Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial. Click on the Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial sight and you will find a glorification and praising of the movie. All I ask is that "FACTS" be given not a predisposition attitude towards the subject being identified and informed upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.12.218 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires verifiability. Go find reports or reviews by professional movie critics (not opinion pieces by conservative hacks) and provide the evidence here. .. dave souza, talk 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When all we had was a few interviews with the producers and some Christian articles about it, it was more positive. Nevertheless, even then, a few months ago, people complained that it was negative. Now the reviews are out, and many mainstream reviews are negative. Are we supposed to ignore those? Ignore the mainstream? That is against WP:NPOV. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone catch Ben Stein on Trinity Broadcasting Network today?

I watched most of it. I have been on the TBN website to see if it's available or if there's a transcipt and I can't even see where they show the interview was shown today. I did notice on the www.creationevidence.org site says Expelled "spells out the academic issues that Creation scientists are facing" Nice that people like Ben Stein and the other creationists are being open that ID is about god and creationism and don't use the common tricks to suggest otherwise that the DI does. Anyone, did anyone else see Ben on TBN today? Angry Christian (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found it, I must have seen a rerun from yesterday (21st). Look for Paul Crouch Jr Hosts Ben Stein here. It is an interview that also includes clips from the film. Angry Christian (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So what does this have to do with the article?--BirdKr (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein. The TBN episode that I linked to is an interview that is conducted with Ben Stein. The subject of the interview is the movie that Ben Stein stars in and is promoting which is also the subject of this article. Placing this link and info will help other editors who may not have known it existed to see and hear it and decide if they think any of the material should be included in the article. Make sense?. Angry Christian (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a long interview with Stein about the movie. Stein makes some incredible statements (1) one of the scientists expelled lost his life because he was expelled for believing in ID (2) science is all about killing people. Wow.--Filll (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it does. The section title and your initial first comment seemed to make this section as something of a forum than a notice that could be an interest to the article. --BirdKr (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I get it. Yes the first comment by me was an inquiry to see if anyone else had seen it and also if they had located a copy to or transcript of, and also noted the queer information I saw at the creationist site. Since they have up until now always pretended ID weas not creationism it's fascinating to see them come clean now that this movie have been released. Angry Christian (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching this interleaved with Climbing Mount Improbable, and it is very instructive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More apropos to the discussion about "atheistic science", at least in the interview, Stein makes the explicit claim (well, qualified with "it's just my opinion") that "science leads you to killing people"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make a comment about this TBN interview. This gives a good example of how demonstrably dishonest Ben Stein is which makes our job as Wiki editors very difficult. How do you write about someone who's lying to the audience and do it in a NPOV manner without perpetuating the dishonesty in the article. For example Ben claims believing in or even mentioning god will get a scientist in trouble (that is not a but a summary). Well if you listen to the Mathis article he says they ignored one of the most well known Christian biologists in North America like Ken Miller because it would "confuse the audience". So Ben is clearly lying. They ignored all thge evidence that did not support their conspiracy/persecution theory. Note the Templeton Foundation pretty much only funds religious related scientific research, and they used to fund some ID research until they realized there is no ID research and ID is a political movement and Ben Stein did not mention that organization in his film. I'm not even going into the alleged victims, I'm simply poiting out the lies told by Stein to this fundamentalist audience regarding what belief in god will do to your science carreer. My point in bringing this up is to give an example of the challenge we're up against trying to write an article about a film that is profoundly dishonest. This is not easy work. Angry Christian (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just watched it again, some of the things Stein said that I found noteworthy:

On his reasons for doing the film "I also started reading more about a subject that had long interested me the uh connection of Darwinism with Nazism and this fact that uh Nazism had rested in large part on the idea of Darwinism that there are superior and inferior races and the superior ones deserved to live and they should stamp out the inferior ones"

Yet few minutes later he goes on, "Darwin was a reasonable man, he was not a crazy person" This makes me wonder about Stein's grasp of what he's even saying. How can you say Darwin is "reasonable and not crazy when you just gave him credit for the belief "there are superior and inferior races and the superior ones deserved to live and they should stamp out the inferior ones"

Later, after showing a handful of ID "victims" f persecuted by science Ben says "It's not just the scientists who are in on it. The media is in on it, the courts, the educational system, everyone is after them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised after these guys are asking some pretty dangerous questions. [the film then pans to Nazi concentration camps] Suggesting Darwinsim is not only improbable it might actually be dangerous."

Freaking weird. I understand why reviwers are saying he makes Michael Moore look fair and balanced. Angry Christian (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And oh, what does this have to do with the article? EVERYTHING, it is Ben Stein in Ben Stein's own words. I'm just too tired to include any myself at the moment. Angry Christian (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Couple of other things,

"Once this one's done we're going to work on other subjects" Expelled II? Stein says he thinks PZ Myers is an opponent of free speech PZ was tossed out of the screening because "he was not on the guest list". Here's one thing he gets right "Teach what the evidence take you to, the evidence does not take you to Darwinism-About the foundations of life, Darwin just had nothing to say about that" Yup, Darwin made no claims about the origin of life yet Ben acts as if he just discovered some secret kept amongst a cabal of evil conspirators. Angry Christian (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And Ben Stein's reason for doing the film most definetly belongs in the article (in my opinion), I have been wondering that and I'm sure it would be of interest to our readers. Not sure where to put it Angry Christian (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Science not Atheist

I changed portrayal of science as atheist, to portrayal of evolution as atheist. This is fits because the movie supports ID as a science, therefore is not accusing science in general. maybe the term Big Science could be used. Rds865 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See Gonzales. It may astonish you to learn that astronomy is not covered by the science of biological evolution. .. dave souza, talk 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My point stands, I will change it to Big Science, since Expelled considers ID a science and therefore wouldn't view Atheists of having a monopoly on science, but instead having control on Big Science. I think the basic claim of the movie is that ID is as much science as Evolution. Find one place where a filmmakers says science is atheistic without meaning Big Science. Rds865 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're framing it in the filmmakers terms, a violation of NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Reliable secondary sources describe it as an attack on science, quite rightly. Their stance that ID is science has been soundly disproved, as all the references that some people seem to object to. .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF is big science? There is science or there is...magic? Religion? Little Aliens from Area 51? Oh yeah, it's not science. Evolution is science, period. ID is not science, since it cannot be tested scientifically. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rds -- uh, no. Big Science would by necessity emcompass all science. Your logic is faulty. If the sentence is still in your form, I shall be reverting it to the proper version. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter books and films claim that magic exists and that there are wizards and witches among us. That does not make these claims reality; it is fiction, at least for most level-headed intelligent people.

This film claims that "intelligent design" exists and is science, but for most level-headed intelligent people who have not had the misfortune to have parents who indoctrinated them with superstition/religion it is fiction.

Wikipedia does not say that magic really exists because the Harry Potter films say it exists. Wikipedia does not say that "intelligent design" is science just because this ridiculous and obnoxious film says it is science. Sheesh. --RenniePet (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing that ID is science, I am saying Expelled does not claim that all science is atheistic. By the way how is Evolution tested? Not being able to be tested does not make it wrong, Expelled is not pushing magic, or even religion(as for aliens, I believe thats what Dawkins talked about). Is string theory science? it has yet to be tested. I don't know, all I know is that Expelled does not claim all science is atheistic, and believes science will support theism. Rds865 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ID definitely claims that all science except theirs is atheistic. And that includes forensic science. So empty all the jails if you want to accept ID; because the foundation of ID which they do not advertise is that they insist magic be incorporated into science, and all science that rejects magic as an explanation is evil, atheistic and wrong.--Filll (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The point was that the movie takes on "big science". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Anywat, Rds -- "a god" is lower case, "God" (no indefinite article) is upper case. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Rds, In your comments, you wrote that:

"Science is a broad term, Expelled is not portraying, the scientific method, astronomy, physics, or even biology as atheistic, just [evolution]"

The thing is, biology today and past incorporates evolution as part of its studies, it's one of the foundations principles of this science. --BirdKr (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for making unsupported claims on what ID is. That whole part about Harry Potter is a red herring, and I bet you think belief in God is belief in magic. Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents often argue that evolutionists come to their conclusions, because they start with the belief that there is no God. That is their belief. Even though biology incorporates evolution, doesn't mean Expelled is claiming if you are a biologist, you are atheist. Intelligent Design is not science, but you can't say Evolution is science. The question is whether or not they are scientific. Again, I will state, Expelled does not say that Science is atheist. Rds865 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're going against the consensus that evolution is part of biology which is part of science. Evolution is science. However, the section does indeed seem to only say that evolution is atheistic while not talking about science in general or "Big Science" for that matter at all. --BirdKr (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that evolution is a part of science, but to say Evolution is science, is according to my knowledge not correct. What is really meant is Evolution is scientific. Chicago is apart of Illinois, which is a part of America, does not mean Chicago is America. Rds865 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From that analogy, should I then say that though the law of gravitation is part of physics which is part of science, law of gravitation isn't science? Your concern can be immediately addressed with "Biology is science" => "Biology as atheistic". --BirdKr (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But Crocker is a biologist. The movie isn't saying studying life is atheistic, but rather that evolution is atheistic. Rds865 (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just saw that it said "science" again. I changed it back, though I'd imagine that someone else might change it back. Nightscream (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot pick and choose what is and is not science. Evolution is based on the science of biology, morphology, chemistry, geology, physics, and some other ologies that I just don't remember. Evolution is science. We're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is confused. Astronomy is not biology. Astronomy is not evolution. Astrophysics is not biology. Astrophysics is not evolution. Medical science is not biology. Medical science is not evolution. Celestial mechanics is not biology or evolution. And so on. Physics is not biology or evolution. And a few others. These are all subjects that are supposedly under the strictures of BIG SCIENCE where supposedly Darwinism has intruded. In some of the publicity interviews, they even include Climatology as a place with too much Darwinism (Not sure if that made it to the film). Anyway, the foundational problem is that Science rejects supernatural causation. Intelligent design and this film embrace supernatural causation. And this film implies that if you do not include supernatural causation in science, it is atheistic. And I have read all the reviews and listened to several interviews and read interviews and promotional material. That is what it is about. It is not just biology and not just evolution. The scope is far broader than that. Remember they are angry about the big bang and the fine tuning of the universe etc. And the origin of gravity and light and so on. --Filll (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please provide the sourcing on which basis we are saying the film claims "science" is atheistic? If no sourcing is provided, it should be changed to "evolution" or "evolutionary theory." To say one type of science, or even two or three types of science, are atheistic is not to say that "science" is atheistic. That has a completely different meaning. Mackan79 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Evolution = science. Therefore, if Evolution is atheistic, then all science is atheistic. You can't pick and choose. Science is science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rock n roll=music. Therefore, if Rock n roll is good music, then all music is good. Music is music. Britney Spears. Restepc (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice analogy. Also, the film did not explicitly say the sentence "science is atheistic", at least not according to my theatre-going friends who have seen it. (however, I have not personally viewed the film). Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't pick and choose, but a film should be able to try without our making these kinds of deductions for them. I wouldn't care if we removed the header altogether, but saying they claim "science" is atheistic isn't accurate. It's taking a dumb claim and making it into something totally foolish and nonsensical, like saying Al Gore claimed he invented the internet and then making fun of him for that (I think a fair claim in his case, but all the same). This would obviously be an extraordinary statement, which I don't think we can justify without some clear sourcing to back it up. Mackan79 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At the heart of the ID attack on science is that science = naturalism, which = materialism, which = atheism. Pennock discussed this a decade ago in Tower of Babel. They conflate methodological naturalism (which underlies the scientific method) with philosophical or metaphysical naturalism. The ignore the rest of science, but they attack evolution by attacking science.

More to the point, of course, is that ID isn't just anti-evolution, it's anti-science. Gonzalez was not talking about evolution. There are quite a few other areas that the creationists attack. But they use the term "evolution" because their target audience is far more willing to reject "evolution" than "science". But just because they use "evolution" to refer to "science" doesn't mean that we should - or even can - use their code words. It's misleading and inaccurate. We don't pretend that religio-political propaganda is true. Guettarda (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are fair points. In terms of "Science is atheistic," though, I don't think it can get us quite there. The thing is, Gonzalez may have a problem with "modern science" or "left wing science," or whatever he would term it, but to say he's totally against scientific inquiry would be absurd. This may well reflect an inconsistency in his position, and I can see arguing that we shouldn't adopt their code words, but the question here is whether we can translate them into something ridiculous, and that he or the rest of the film makers would never agree to. That's too far in the other direction. I actually don't think it's code -- I think they truly believe to accept evolution would be to give up their religion, and that this is their primary point that we should represent here -- but if others do we'd need either to find something else or to remove the header. Mackan79 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OM, you're arguing a point. This is a violation of WP: POINT. Do you understand that policy? It is not the place of editors to place their own conclusions in articles. The film does not say anything about science being atheistic, nor do the critics quoted mention this idea, so it can't be in the article. Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda hit the nail on the head - they are not just attacking evolution, but they are attacking the entirety of methodological naturalism, which is the foundation for all of modern science. Furthermore, (and admittedly I haven't see the movie nor do I have any burning desire to) I think I've seen it mentioned that they also attack cosmology and other fields of physics. Either of these points by themselves is enough to justify having the section header say "Portrayal of science as atheistic" instead of "Portrayal of evolution as atheistic". Raul654 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree Raul, right now that's solely an argument of editors on this page. When someone argues that evolution is atheistic, we can't decide they meant something else that they obviously wouldn't agree with. This violates NPOV for the same reason as it's original research. I've tried to find ways around several of these issues; if people don't like a heading that they portray evolution as atheistic, then we need to find something else that accurately reflects their view. Mackan79 (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

right now that's solely an argument of editors on this page - swing and a miss. "Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component." - http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution Also note the word "like" in the preceeding sentence, clearly indicating that it's not just ID/evolution they are concerned about, but other ideas in other areas of science. Raul654 (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, are you really trying to say that statement, from a critical site, is proof that they argue science as a concept is atheistic? That's what we currently have them saying, and is what needs to change. I'm concerned that people can't see the very clear problem with this, and aren't looking for some other way to address this accurately. Mackan79 (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it is other areas of science, but not all science, still note that the section which that heading is under only discusses evolution. maybe the heading should be removed, or say "the influence of atheism on science," or Intelligent design rejected due to Atheism" or "the Role of Atheism in science". Rds865 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it is other areas of science, but not all science - they object to methodological naturalism, which is the basis for all science - so yes, they do. If someone blows up the foundation of a house, you don't say they were trying to remodel the kitchen. Raul654 (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the proper way to fix that section would be to talk about the other areas of science they object to, cosmology and geology for starters. Raul654 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing is taking the critical view of them and using it as the description for what they argue. Their problem, per your quote above, is with what they consider the "atheistic, amoral scientific elite." This doesn't mean they oppose "science," regardless of whether we can argue their position ultimately amounts to a rejection of scientific principles. To say so is parody. Mackan79 (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, as requested.[36] . . dave souza, talk 10:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure the film says that Evolution is "atheistic", let alone Science. What it does is allows others (e.g., Richard Dawkins) to explain how, when they fully embraced evolution, it freed them of the perceived constraints they associated with theism. Does the film go beyond that and declare evolution to be atheistic? How? --Davidp (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The film might not "say" it. It might imply it because it is a visual medium and a lot of the communication is not just verbal. And this article is not just about the film, but many things around the film as well; the controversies, the promotion, the reviews, the screenings, the interviews of the star and producers, etc. And if you cared to listen to these interviews and read the material in the sources, the film strongly implies that science is atheistic, or leads the audience to that conclusion, and it is said over and over in the promotional materials and in the interviews.--Filll (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we cite those things as a source? If so, then "science" in the section title would be apt. Nightscream (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is meant here by science? Theology is consider a science, but not under the definition here. The orgin of the debate is that Each group has their own definition of science. Perhaps they are trying to blow up the house, but only in order to build a new one. that seems to be as a slippery slope argument, and they have not argued for the release of prisoners, or implied the scientific method and cell theory is atheistic. The argument given under the heading in dispute here, is that Evolution has an atheist or Darwinism has an atheist bias. Frankly I am surprised someone was a against the edit. Creationism is no more an attack on Science, then Evolution is an attack on Religion. Rds865 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, skeptics like Michael Shermer have argued that any attack on a scientifically rigorously confirmerd idea like natural selection, without doing so on the basis of its science, is an attack on all science. However, again, this is beside the point. I think we should be arguing whether the film makes this point. If it does, then that section title is apt. If it doesn't, and confines itself to evolution, then it should say "evolution" and not "science". Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement as it is remains indefensible. I'd like to give people another opportunity to come up with an alternative, but saying they argue science is atheistic is original research and a clear misrepresentation. Saying they argue evolutionary theory is atheistic, on the other hand, appears to be well supported. Unless something else is suggested I think we should replace an accurate version as to evolutionary theory (I'm fine saying "evolution" for short, whether or not this is exactly gramatically correct). Mackan79 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"but saying they argue science is atheistic is original research and a clear misrepresentation" - no matter how many times you say this and ignore the references presented to rebut it, it doesn't make it true. Raul654 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source, then please present it. What you've presented so far is their belief that an "atheistic scientific elite" is preventing discussion about the alleged support for ID. You've not provided anything where they say that "science" is itself atheistic. This is the opposite of what they say, and no greater a misrepresentation than they have done to others. I'm asking for other options here, but if the discussion remains on this level we'll simply have to seek wider input about whether we can say they claim "science is atheistic," based not on their having said so, but on our assessment that this is what it comes down to. I don't know what outside editors will say, but it strikes me as a waste of time when people should be working cooperatively to improve the article. Mackan79 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Consider, for example:Fundamentally, what Expelled wants to do is it wants to present the notion that there is this clash of world views, most specifically, a clash between, sort of, Darwinian biology and intelligent design, but more broadly one between big monolithic science, which is materialist and atheist, and then religion, which is presented as being open to all sorts of possibilities. from John Rennie, editor of Scientific American while in a podcast, for which a transcript is provided: [37]. There are literally hundreds of other similar statements in the interviews and reviews and promotional materials, from people in the science community, from mainstream journalists, from Christian media and from intelligent design supporters and creationists. So stop arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!--Filll (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. I am normally not into ontological debates, but here I must throw my two cents in. First, the people in the film, such as Gonzales, Croker, and Marks, are scientists in terms of profession, even people who are anti-ID vehemently would agree. And saying scientists jumping up against science is just plainly ludicrous, because nobody in a profession would run against the profession itself. It is like saying computer technicians oppose the use of computers, or economists attacking the discipline of economics. Common sense. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it isn't a coincidence that they keep saying "big science" or the "scientific establishment" or the "scientific elite" or "monolithic science." If anything, it appears they think a group of atheists are imposing their atheism onto science, not that science is somehow requiring or impelling atheism. The latter is the view they want to pin on Dawkins (and is I believe a view Dawkins actually holds, incidentally, as it happens do I), and which the whole movie is intended to criticize. The difference is big. Mackan79 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science" has a distinct meaning. We can't adopt neologisms invented in Expelled. Guettarda (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify? The edit placed the term in quotes. We're also talking about their portrayal, of course, which suggests we should be able to incorporate the neologisms they use if clarified that these are their terms. Mackan79 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

expelled leader's guide and FAQ's

The expelled leader's guide has a FAQ section that answers some question that have well, been frequently asked on this talk page. It defines both ID and Darwinism, and explains the difference between ID and creationism. Is there any way we can site this? Saksjn (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First read Troy Britain's expose' of the "Expelled Leader's Guide" as rehashed creation science here and here. I don't think misleading and dishonest answers to questions are suitable material for Wikipedia. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We can describe it and its debunking, but maybe that would have to be a separate article, or part of another article after we fork this one. It is not that we do not know the answers here. It is that some are intentionally combative to disrupt the talk page in a fit of religious fervor and righteousness and rage.--Filll (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Some sources/citations of this article, specifically blogs, are not verifiable

From Wikipedia:Verifiability

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, 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.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.

Looking at the list of the sources, some of them are blogs that cannot be verified. Blogs such as from ScienceBlogs and ChristianityToday should be taken VERY lightly, if at all. --BirdKr (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So how would we take a blog lightly compared to heavily? I'm not sure what you're advocating. And which ones cannot be verified? Angry Christian (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also would you mind providing a link to the one(s)you feel are self-published and cannot be verified? That would make it easier for folks to see what you're seeing. Angry Christian (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are certainly verifiable. And by WP:SPS some are indeed WP:RS. So, this is wrong.--Filll (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By lightly I mean simply by looking for better sources on the same subject. You may learn something from a blog that could contribute to the article, but at the same time, you should research more to find a better source. Also, I said "if at all" at the end. One example was the section about screening cancellations in which its sources were entirely on a blog of one person which I deleted. Cripes, I've been trying to post my reply for the 4th time now --BirdKr (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, so how would you classify certain blogs as reliable sources or not? The one I used as an example did not provide any verifiable source and his profession was not relevant on the issue of screening cancellation. --BirdKr (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BirdKr you quoted "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert..." then you removed a blog by an ASU biology professor from ScienceBlogs, the largest scientific blogging network. Please do not remove such sources because as your quote shows they are okay. ScienceBlogs is a WP:RS. Paper45tee (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the author of that blog is a distinguished professor in the field of biology/evolution. However, that title does not automatically verify his claims about the screening cancellations. Had he had said something about evolution/biology or anything else in the field in which he is distinguished for, his blog entry would have more weight.

However, his position is irrelevant on what he has posted when it comes to verification. He is no different than a regular movie goer who posted the same account on his/her blog. --BirdKr (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"He is no different...," not really since a week prior to it, Expelled had expelled a biology professor. But anyway, please read wikipedia's policy. They want WP:V not "truth." Why you would doubt the professor's account is strange. Do you have any sources to doubt his claim? Do Expelled producers deny it? If not, I see no reason to doubt it. Blogs from biologists about things relating to biology (a creationist movie), which said person experiences first hand are RS. Paper45tee (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're using the argument "prove ghosts don't exist". The proper question is how do you verify his account? Despite being a biology professer, that does not make his account on a movie screening automatically verified. What he says ABOUT the movie ITSELF in the area of biology/evolution will hold some reliability, but something of a cancellation of a movie screening does not hold the same reliability since these incidents are hardly subjects of biology--BirdKr (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You clearly didn't understand my point. Wikipedia does not post "truth." Wikipedia posts material which is verified with sources. While you can doubt his account and the shape of the Earth, I don't care. The claim comes from a WP:RS-- an academic on ScienceBlogs talking about he experience he had in relation to a pseudoscientific movie. Paper45tee (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you are selectively focusing on this one professor. PZ Myers posts on ScienceBlogs and his blogs are cited many times in this article relating to his appearance and getting expelled from the theater. Paper45tee (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You still didn't explain how a biologist's account of a canceled movie screening has reliability simply because that movie, which he couldn't watch, was relevant to his field. Also, please watch your tone of your voice. --BirdKr (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll walk you through it: 1) The movie is about pseudoscience. 2) He is a scientist with interest in debunking non-science. 3) He wanted to see the movie and signed up for a free screening. 4) He received a cancelled notice. 5) He received a report from someone who attended the movie anyway. If this were some random person's blog you would have a point. But its not. This is a ASU professor on a professional academic blog talking about a movie that is about a scientific conspiracy. Paper45tee (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1). True 2). True 3). True 4). True 5). Now you're going off topic- His blog, and consequently the section I deleted that you reverted was about the cancellation of the screening of the movie, not about the movie. He wasn't talking about the movie either, he was talking about the movie cancellation. If this guy wrote something about a screening cancellation of a movie called "the big fat caterpillar", would his account of the movie cancellation be reliable since after all, he's a biologist? --BirdKr (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is annoying. Its about the screening of the movie! If you want to talk about "the big fat caterpillar," I suggest you go to another page. This is about Expelled. Its a WP:RS as you've been told by three people now. Paper45tee (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to selectively focusing on this one professor because my deletion of the section about him is under dispute by you and me. Once this is resolved, I will look at the other blogs from other professors. However, this one is a special case as his account of the movie screening has nothing to do with his position other than the fact that the movie is relevant to his field which his expertise and reliability does not leak over to his personal account on an incident that has nothing to do with biology --BirdKr (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, selective. So if you remove this blog then all of them go for the same reasons? Paper45tee (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, this one's a special case. --BirdKr (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not really. Paper45tee (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually one could question the extent to which Expelled relates to biology. That is, from the descriptions it apparently is about the politics of the scientific community. which again makes biologists' opinion relevant, but also makes him no longer a third party. Rds865 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just laughable. Biology is part of "the politics of the scientific community" then. Paper45tee (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well does the movie state any biological facts? Rds865 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What branch of science is Dawkins and Myers in? --- Biology. The movie focus on what for ID complexity? --- Cells. Paper45tee (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BirdKr said "You still didn't explain how a biologist's account of a canceled movie screening has reliability simply because that movie, which he couldn't watch, was relevant to his field. It has reliability because as a prominent member of the scientific community, he is part of the controversy surrounding the film, including its promotional screenings, and the accusation that some people, like him, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, experienced or witnessed members of the scientific community being excluded from such screenings. It is in that context, rather than science, that he is reliable. If certain members of a group are controversially excluded from something, it is they that you go to for sourcing on that. Nightscream (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the resolution/explanation --BirdKr (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the evidence given in the movie for ID not even mentioned in the article? Rds865 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has added it? Angry Christian (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This begs the question, what evidence do they give for ID in the film? Angry Christian (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to write something about double standards, but I am wondering if Nina May didn't put it much better with her review not of the film but of the debate (sic)? "The great thing about this discussion, is the blatant hypocrisy when you consider the fact that this film is being vilified by the very open-minded left, who will argue to the death that alternative lifestyles should be celebrated, embraced and encouraged" writes Nina May. "Yet the alternative lifestyle of believing in a creator … is not only reviled and marginalized, but those who express this belief are condemned as not being smart enough to even engage in the discussion. We are the inner-city ideologies, while the brilliant bourgeoisie live in Beverly Hills and New York City." Asteriks (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic and wrong-headed. Why do you imagine the "very open-minded left" should therefore be happy about the promotion of outright falsehoods? And, for that matter, why do you imagine that evolution is "left-wing"? As previously noted, it is fact: and facts aren't "left-wing" or "right-wing". You seem to be projecting the "right-wing" political agenda of the ID-proponents onto everyone who criticizes them. Not everyone who opposes a specific form of right-wing politics is left-wing: to borrow from the movie's Nazism theme, that would make all the Allies in WW2 communists. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly an "alternative lifestyle of believing in a reator", see the #Portrayal of science as atheistic section for discussion of this false dichotomy. Perhaps more the alternative lifestyle of believing that it's ok to lie for Christ? Anyway, please comply with NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and stop trying to give "equal validity" to pseudoscience. .. dave souza, talk 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Subtle review.[38] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tactful and informative, already cited under #General media :) ... dave souza, talk 10:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

An NPOV tag has been added to this article to identify the ongoing dispute as logged in great detail on this Talk page. Please see Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F Wikipedia's policy:

It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.

Let's discuss how to resolve this... --Davidp (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to Robert Stevens, et al - If there isn't currently an edit war going on here, it's close. Rational debate has been avoided by some who insist on reverting very reasonable edits that remove POV. If you dispute this, please explain and do not remove the NPOV tag from the article. I am at a loss for how you imagine this article not to be in active dispute over its neutrality. --Davidp (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Tags such as this should be accompanied by specific recommendations for change. Minor tweaks are still being made, so that's not sufficient grounds to tag the whole article as NPOV. Major changes such as deletion of critical reviews, or similar whitewashing, won't achieve consensus (and would violate NPOV themselves, along with numerous other policies). If you have a change to make which is specific, then list it here. You haven't said (here) what is wrong with the article. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is something you are not understanding, which is understandable considering that Davidp has a grand total of 140 mainspace edits; hardly enough to know anything at all about Wikipedia. Let's face it. And NPOV does NOT mean neutral. If you think that, you are very very very wrong.--Filll (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at his talkpage edits to try to figure out what the problem is, but it's still not clear. Apparently he's the only other person who agrees with NCdave's misreading of Darwin, and he doesn't want the article to use the "science is atheistic" claim despite everything provided in "Portrayal of science as atheistic". He has also created a previous "NPOV" section in which he advocates removal of negative reviews and removal of information regarding ID's status as pseudoscience, calling this a "red herring". --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize I needed a large number of edits to actually grasp the policy, Filll. However, I've been here quite a long time. I am sometimes amazed at how some editors have the time to do this so often. I suppose my professional life takes precedence, which not so incidentally includes deep experience implementing wikipedia-like policies across various democratized platforms, such as wikis, inside various industrial organisations. In any case, I think the Talk Page itself references an incredibly long list of neutrality disputes. I placed this here in the hope that those of us who have time will continue actively working toward resolution edit-by-edit. And, when NPOV is achieved the tag should be removed. Removing it prematurely is clearly an attempt to establish intellectual property here, since you cannot rationally argue that there aren't disputes throughout the entirety of the article. Please continue the discussion and I am sure that someone will re-add the NPOV template tag soon to accurately reflect the disputes. --Davidp (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If I make one edit every 6 months for 6 years, correcting a spelling mistake, I could claim I have been at Wikipedia a long time. But I would not be able to claim that I knew anything about Wikipedia policies from that. Previous discussions of NPOV and neutrality often failed on the same point you are failing on; by assuming that NPOV=neutality, which it does not. It is in fact the farthest thing from "neutrality". And if you do not understand that, you do not understand one of the foundational principles of Wikipedia. If you want proof, look at the articles evolution and intelligent design, both FA rated. How "neutral" are they ?--Filll (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: this talkpage preserves a historical record of current and previous disputes: including non-NPOV ones, and resolved ones. Many have resulted in actual changes to the article. Other failed to receive consensus, or were themselves in violation of Wikipedia policies. It is not customary to slap a tag on every page where somebody, somewhen, objected to some version of the article for some reason. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as radical as davidp or NCdave, but I will agree that a dispute is and has been going on for a long time. Just read the talk page and the archives. 50% of what we talk about is POV vs. NPOV. Saksjn (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My strong impression is that the main problem is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what NPOV actually is.--Filll (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag removed. Again: what is the dispute? You're supposed to TELL US what the CURRENT dispute is: not just point us at the archives (the article has changed out of all recognition since those were archived!). What is wrong with it NOW? How can "the dispute be resolved" if nobody will say WHAT the dispute is??? --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert, I don't mean to be a problem. I don't think the blogs of person who is criticized in a movie is the most valid source. also, I said "That whole part about Harry Potter is a red herring" Harry Potter is a red herring, but when I am not questioning ID as a pseudoscience, then it is a red herring, in the debate of whether or not ID believes all science is atheistic. Rds865 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are at least as reliable as primary sources as Mark Mathis and Ruloff and Stein. In many ways, they are more reliable since their statements can be verified in other reliable sources, whereas statements made by Mathis and Ruloff and Stein disagree with other reliable sources. In addition Myers and Dawkins at least know something about the topic of the movie, where it is clear that Mathis and Ruloff and Stein do not. However, I would favor including all these, rather than trying to remove one side or the other. We do not rely only on these sources, but include a wealth of secondary and tertiary sources from all sides of the spectrum as well to make sure we do not overly rely on one side's primary sources or the others. Attempting to censor one side because WP:IDONTLIKEIT and trying to wikilawyer WP:NPOV with all kinds of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT reasoning is not going to get you very far here.--Filll (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Often the best source for the opinion of a person is that person. Note how Robert misrepresented what I said about Harry Potter, in order to discredit me. I fear that Dawkins and PZ Myers may do the same. I am not arguing that scientists are not reliable sources, however, just because a scientist says something doesn't make it scientific, such as in a peer review journal. Myers in his blog describes the Mathis as embarrassed by a mistake, yet the evidence he provides for this shows that Mathis, neither acknowledges he made a mistake nor expresses embarrassment. If Expelled uses science, such as claiming science supports ID, then a biologist can refute that. If he says he believes in a creator, a biologist can't refute that is what he believes. Rds865 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And that is why we went to PZ Myers for his opinion. And Richard Dawkins for his opinion. Not how they were portrayed in the film with lots of editing. And that is why the portrait of Darwin's theories and Darwin's quotes in the film are wrong. That is why the intelligent design definition of science is wrong and the Discovery Institute is a lousy source about science and Ruloff and Stein and Mathis have zero of any value to say about science since they have embarassed themselves by revealing their appalling ignorance. So we can go to Ruloff for his opinion and Myers for his opinion. And we go to a wide range of 2nd and 3rd party sources for balance, and diversity and verification. What is wrong with that?--Filll (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Note how Robert misrepresented what I said about Harry Potter, in order to discredit me." What are you talking about? I was referring to Davidp's comments, in the section he created, in which he used the phrase "red herrings" but nobody mentioned Harry Potter at all. --Robert Stevens (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with the quotes

Can someone please go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/official_denial_unofficial_end.php and tell me whether the word god is capitalized three times in the quote from Stein? We are using this as a source, and it is being changed to not match what our source has. If a different transcript needs to be used, then do that, but for now, the quote that we have is "God" thrice and not "god" twice with one "gd" in there.

Can we please all agree to let quotes we get from our sources actually read as they read on the reference? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see that this could go either way. Are we quoting Myers, or Stein? Myers used a "G", but Stein used the phrase "a god", where a "g" is appropriate (as a generic term for a deity, rather than the name of "God"). So, Myers technically made an error when recording what Stein said. The reference supporting the article is Myers, but the quote is presented in the article as a quote from Stein (which, ultimately, it was). When quoting Stein, albeit indirectly, should we introduce Myers' error? Maybe not. --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we similarly obligated to use the same font as Myers did, or the same style of quotation marks, or... etc. Again: This is a transcription of some spoken language. There's only any reason to follow the source material to the extent that it accurately represents what was spoken. That's the only reason the citation is there. Capitalisation is an orthographic feature inserted by Myers and is utterly irrelevant to the content of the conversation in question. Ilkali (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue it any longer since it is fairly pointless (yes, I completely understand "a god" is indeed grammatically correct... duh, I'm not arguing that), but if the capitalization is "utterly irrelevant", then why not just stick to what we have in the sourced material? Moving on... --Ali'i 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My words: "Capitalisation is [...] utterly irrelevant to the content of the conversation in question". The reason we don't stick to what's in the sourced material is that it is in conflict with Wikipedia's orthographic standards. Ilkali (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought God was capitalized when talking about a monotheistic God, however, you are saying it is only capitalized when used as a proper noun, similar to dad. I am not disputing this. I changed god to God once, because I thought it was put there because some believe capitalizing God makes you a theist. I believe god with the vowels removed is meant to be the name of God, as to keep it sacred, not necessary if it is not a proper noun. Therefore Gd or G-d should always be capitalized. Rds865 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"I always thought God was capitalized when talking about a monotheistic God". A lot of people capitalise it out of the same tortuous reasoning as for pronouns, I think, but Wikipedia doesn't follow either standard. Ditto for removal of vowels. 'gd' was a typo. Ilkali (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. Pronouns referring to God are capatalized out of respect, and is generally only done by those who follow Him. The word God when referring to the monotheistic god is capitalized because it's a proper noun in that sense. It's for the same reason we capitalize Allah. Notice the capitalization I gave two sentences back - the first is the name of the monotheistic god, the second is a generic word referring to all deities. Wikipedia doesn't capitalize the pronouns (because Wikipedia is not Christian) but it does capitalize the proper noun. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt check the Wiki Manual of Style - [39] I've linked to the piece that addresses using the term god. Angry Christian (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so when discussing a god, in wikipedia the use is lowercase, but referring to a specific figure, even one that the speaker does not believe in one writes God. An atheist could say both, "I don't believe in God", or "I don't believe in a god". Belief of the speaker does not seem to matter, rather the figure being described. The capitalization of Him, is not always done by followers, but is never done, unless in quoting, in wikipedia. Rds865 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

sternberg

When I read the journal's statement (and subsequent reliable sources) I do not read that they have an anti-ID policy which forbids publishing anything that supports ID in the opening statements. Instead I read that they have a well defined editorial policy that requires anything published to withstand the rigors of peer review. The was the article read (and all the other articles on the subject here at Wiki) the reader is lead to belive Sternberg got in trouble for publishing a pro-ID paper, yet when we actually read what the journal is saying he instead got in trouble for circumventing their editorial/publishing policy. The fact the paper was pro-ID is obviously a part of the story but it's not the reason he got in trouble. The paper could have been about healing magnets or cancer curing with runes and the end result would have been the same. So in the interest of providing a more precise summary of the event that lead to the controversy I made some changes to that section. Angry Christian (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Journal fist states: "STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process.[40]"

And then the journal goes into how ID is not science yadda yadda. So I think our article should reflect the same. Sternberg broke the rules of publication, and (or in order to) he published pseudoscience. I think the article's description of the events shoud reflect the same. Making sense am I? Angry Christian (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And for their record I have no illusions of being the next Hemingway, if you can improve the edits I just made feel free to hack away. I know I tend to be wordy if not inelloquent at times Angry Christian (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Dr. Sternberg, he followed standard protocal and broke no rules. He had already had 30 articles published that all had fallen under peer review. Meyers article about ID however, went against SI's evolutionary doctrine. From www.rsternberg.net, Dr. Sternberg writes

"In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy." SargonXii (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making a significant and worthwile improvement. One thing - we now have the NCSE source giving Stein's claims about Sternberg, and the facts of the case. Worth reviewing. ... dave souza, talk 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir and I am reviewing that NCSE link now. I've actually been looking at the other Wiki Sternberg articles and noted those seem to suggest Sternberg got in trouble for publishing a pro-ID paper, yet when you read the statement by the journal first and foremost Sterberg circumvented the journal's editorial practices. Secondary issue is it was over ID. I might try and bring that up to the editors of those articles as well, this is an important distinction to me (as a reader of the articles). Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've covered the primary points without recreating the entire Sternberg Controvery (which would be easy to do, it's a fantastically interesting story) and also we now have some direct quotes from Stein/Expelled. Angry Christian (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

These articles need an update anyway, as Ed Brayton's recent article in Skeptic Magazine has provided a wealth of new details. I've been meaning to do so myself, but haven't gotten around to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, is Ed's article online or only in the print version? If it's online I might have some time tonight to work on it. Angry Christian (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part2 The Richard Sternberg Affair Intelligent Design at the Smithsonian Institution - by Ed Brayton] Angry Christian (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, Sternberg had published ID theory, and this is against the laws of science elitists. We all know it, so why try to pretend there were "other" reasons for his dismissal.SargonXii (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He was not dismissed. He had already quit. He was infact reappointed and promoted. And it is highly irregular to publish something with no outside review, especially something controversial. And if there was some other scientist who encouraged him to do it, then why hasn't he said that in years of turmoil and testimony and legal proceedings and congressional reports and hearings etc? Sounds a bit hard to swallow.--Filll (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History dismissed Sternberg as a Research Associate. He was demoted to the position of Research Collaborator.03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What dismissal? We "science elitists" like claims to come with evidence. Sternberg had already resigned as editor at PBSW when the issue with the Meyer article hit print. He continued to have access to the collections at the Smithsonian for his unpaid research associate affiliation. His NIH paying job was unaffected. So, what "dismissal" might be at issue?

The article was sent out to three external reviewers. I'd bet that at least two out of the three were signers of the Discovery Institute "Dissent from Darwin" list. While Sternberg claims the article was revised according to review comments, my sense is that the article reads much the same as the previous version published in a DI anthology. I may do some original research to come up with *exactly* what changes were made. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again I say, The Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History dismissed Sternberg as a Research Associate. He was demoted to the position of Research Collaborator.03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And also, it seems there was ample evidence in the movie to suggest scientists, equally trained, equally experienced, are black balled once they dare to suggest any type of intelligent design into the world of science. If you think these claims of being shunned are without evidence, then you need to talk with the scientists who were the subjects of the documentary.SargonXii (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fabricating a "demotion" out of that title change is, well, frankly there isn't a Wikipedia-friendly way to express what that implies about the maker of the charge. A Smithsonian "Research Associate" works with a PI at the Smithsonian and has access to the materials. A "Research Collaborator" is an independent researcher who has been given access to the materials. Apparently Sternberg had plans to work with a Smithsonian PI originally, but that fellow who sponsored him back around 2004 died within a couple of months of Sternberg's access being approved. Sternberg effectively was given a default sponsor, but had no research relationship with him. When his term of "Research Associate" time was up, Sternberg was given the "Research Collaborator" title which gives him exactly the same access to the collections as before. For Sternberg, there is no other issue in his relationship with the Smithsonian other than access to the collection: he was not paid in either title, worked with no one else in either title, and is barred by general rules of the Smithsonian from using either title as indicating an official working relationship with the Smithsonian. Just as there was no dismissal, there was also no demotion. One could just as easily argue that Sternberg was promoted from being titled as a dogsbody for someone to independent researcher status, but it would be just as meaningless.

OK, that may be feeding the troll, but I still think others may find the information useful. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wesley most everything you said is already in the article or the main article. This guy is obviously trolling trying to get a reaction. You guys can feed him or ignore him but what he's doing is pretty obvious. Angry Christian (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously trolling? Please AC, your "obvious paranoia" has gotten the best of you. I like to write and share my opinions where the liberals hide out, like in this Wikipedia entry and accompanying discussion page. Perhaps you are guilty of what you accuse me of? Do you enjoy trolling conservatives via this website to get a reaction our of them? SargonXii (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sometimes it isn't quite so obvious who is a troll, and who might be believed as having a reasonable change for the article. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear you man, and you're free to accomodate him. It's just you're a bright guy and he's obviously not. Seems outmatched. Cruel and unusual?  :-) Angry Christian (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I conclude that since I am in agreement with Mr. Stein I am not a "bright guy"? If not, what is it that makes Wesley bright and me not? I would love to know. This isn't a troll, I really want to know!SargonXii (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dembski's "review"

Read here. The part that grabbed me most was where he said that an important part of the film is that it shows that there is no evidence that life can be "explained" (whatever that means) without a designing intelligence.--Filll (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the comment was in reference to the origins of life. There is no scientific proof of our origins, only theories. This was acknowledged by all scientists interviewed in the movie, whether evolutionists or not. What Darwin could not know about was the complexity of the simple cell. Something we now know is so complex it would be a reach to think it came into being by time and chance. We can choose to believe in an intelligent designer, or we can choose to believe in time and chance. Either one is believed in religiously by the zealots that adhere to their hope.SargonXii (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you are reading this selectively. It is of course a purposely vague statement that has multiple interpretations. And the film shows nothing about science of abiogenesis and nothing about evolution.

And you are just parroting the DI line like a puppet. Because evolution is not "time and chance". And very possibly, abiogenesis is not either. However you are free to believe whatever you like. By the way since your post has nothing to do with improving the article, it is not really appropriate here.--Filll (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment "whatever that means" calls for an answer, so I did my best to respond to your question. If my comments are not appropriate for the purposes herein, then I might suggest that neither are yours. If research serves me correctly, you are no stranger to making out of context statements on a Wikipedia Discussion page.SargonXii (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links part II

We'll lengthen the article by several pages if we start linking to individual film reviws. In fact you take take the 24 reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and list them individually that section will be a nightmare for the readers to wade through all the external links. This seems over the top to me. Angry Christian (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At some point we have to fork, at least into something like ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' Controversies.--Filll (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fork is bad. WP:SUMMARY is appropriate, and sometime there'll be a need to summarise all the reviews into a couple of paragraphs with a main article Reviews of Expelled or something on those lines. Since the reviews seem to be respected by readers who think the debunking of this lame propagagnda film is excessive, I see no need to rush at this, but what's the consensus? Another split could be the people in the film section, but again we need a summary that concisely and adequately covers the main points. Oh, and let's trim links that are used as references out of the external links section, about 3 links worked well before. .... dave souza, talk 20:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB?

Is this really a reliable source when they equate ID with "the biblical view of creation?" I can't find anything on the Expelled website that mentions the Bible other than paranoid postings from people who think ID is being used as a back door method to get the Bible into schools. And I've seen no one, not even critics, mention anything about the Bible being mentioned in the film. 67.135.49.78 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Stein interviews an evolution scientist and apologist and asks him about the Old Testament. But Stein also asks him about the muslim god, the hindu god, etc. There was no reference to the bible other than this.SargonXii (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is a well known site and I have no influence over what they write there. Probably every single movie that WIki has an article for includes a link to their IMDB. We cannot exclude this one because someone at Amazon is not paying close attention. Please read up on them and consider taking your concerns regarding their description up with the owner of that site, Amazon.com Thank you. Angry Christian (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And could you provide a link where IMDB says "equates ID with "the biblical view of creation"? At first glance I saw nothing like that. Cheers! Angry Christian (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the intelligent design article for sources where leading proponentsists Dembski and Johnson describe ID as "the logos of St. John" which is kind of, um, biblical. Think theistic realism. Not that it's religious, oh no, the design could have been done by aliens from utter space – but wait a minute, the film ridicules Dawkins for exploring the logic of that idea, so they must have disowned that one now...... dave souza, talk 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Positive reviews

I think they should be added to balance out the negative tones. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

what positive reviews? this doesn't even refer to the movie, the "great piece of viral satire" is the Dawkins rap (which is brilliant). The page also claims the movie is in fact a parody. That's not a "positive review", it's a debunking (if accurate) to the effect that not even the makers are serious about it. The "parody theory" (the movie is so bad, it cannot be serious) would deserve separate treatment. dab (𒁳) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there really isn't anything that could be considered an especially positive review. You could go fishing for one on Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes, but even amongst the conservative critics the pickings are pretty slim. I'm not sure an even 'balance' of good and bad reviews is appropriate here since the reviews are almost universally negative. The reviews don't really get any better than 'so-so' even among conservative critics.AdRem (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a more positive review. I don't think the review was precisely positive as it was mostly backhanded compliments, but it's what I managed to find.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yoko has filed a lawsuit

See it here. It would appear Yoko is not fond of Ben Stein portraying John Lennon as someone who advocates a world that embraces Nazism. This is a fascinating development. Angry Christian (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I was wondering why she wasn't down like a ton of bricks on this slur on Lennon's beliefs before now, guess the law takes time. Damages bit will be interesting..... dave souza, talk 20:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I watched this movie and the portion of "Imagine" used in the movie was in relation to Stalin and Communism and its intolerance of religion. The words "and no religion too" from Lennons song were written at the bottom of the screen to emphasize the point. There was no direct implication given between the song and its support of Nazism, only an implied one generated by those with a conspiracy theory mindset against anyone they disagree with.SargonXii (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The movie did talk about Nazism and it's possible relation to Darwinist theory but the song was used in relation to Communism far more than Nazism (both of which are socialist type governments).SargonXii (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yoko Ono may be offended by the use of the song, but she is no stranger to courtrooms and past copyright violations.SargonXii (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Damages"? Yes intersting but I think the depositions will be the stuff legends are made of ;-) All we are saying.....is why break the law?' Angry Christian (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, this deserves a properly formatted ref with all the details for which I am a complete dork at so I'll let someone else do the honors of including this in the article. It will be interesting to see if Ben and them claim Yoko is persecuting them for their ID beliefs and that the conspiracy to silence ID now included the music industry. Funny, had Ben and them followed the same laws and standards that everyone else is expected to follow they would not be in this situation. Grabbing someone's music and claiming you have the right to it via fair use is begging for trouble. The Killers probably don't have the cash to file a suit themselves but obviously Yoko has enought money to buy the state of New York. Angry Christian (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read that the Killers did license their music, but were mislead as to the nature of the film; lied to.--Filll (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If The Killers licensed their music, then where is the copyright violation? I don't understand.SargonXii (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently The Killers were told by the producers of the movie that the movie was going to be a satirical documentary exploring academic freedom in public schools and government institutions. It was certainly satirical, it was absolutely a documentary, and the entire premise of the movie was regarding the persecution of those scientists who were willing to give an open hand to Intelligent Design theories even in those situations where the open handed scientist didn't adhere to an Intelligent Design theory. Where is the deception other than from those who oppose the suggestions of the movie?SargonXii (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're both right, I forgot the manager (spokesman?) for the Killers said they were mislead by the Expelled folks and gave them license to use the music. Angry Christian (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtful defence.[41] Of course Yoko might try suing for defamation or whatever. .. dave souza, talk 10:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From the PT discussion and what I've seen, it's at the end of PZ's "interview" where Ben Stein says “Dr. Myers is just ripping a page out of John Lennon’s songbook,” then they play the 15 seconds of music, with film clips of Stalin and marching Chinese communist troops, and at first "and no religion too" shown at the bottom of the screen. The US Copyrights Office advice outlines possible fair uses being "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research", and factor affecting whether it's fair use including the question of "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Not going to help the advertising use of the song if those who've seen Expelled get flashbacks of Joe Stalin and commie troops. Since it's not comment about the song as such but a sideswipe at Myers, this looks a shaky defense. Of course lies and indoctrination could be claimed to be educational ;) . . dave souza, talk 10:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consistency with other articles, one last time

Hello again,

First, I would appreciate any feedback on whether my ways of communicating my discontent with the current situation is effective, or is it just causing unnecessary WikiStress on an article that is hard to keep accurate as it is. Please comment on my User:Merzul#Mini RFC, especially those critical of my actions and views. I'm taking a short break from editing, so I can think about what you say.

Second, I would like to engage just one more time, the editors here, who are committed to ensuring consistency and neutrality across Wikipedia in a discussion about the lack of space given to the documentary expressed in its own terms. Quite frankly, I am worried about the stark contrast in exposition between:

• The Root of All Evil?, where almost the entire article is a paraphrase of the documentary.
• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed‎, which with the exception of one paragraph, is entirely based on critical sources.

I will give an overview of the reason for this imbalance that I have seen on this page together with my reflections on these points.

1. WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Because Intelligent Design is rejected by the scientific community at large, the article should be extremely negative and should present all the rebuttals that have appeared in reliable sources.
   • I think this is absolutely true. There is nothing to argue about the above statement. That intelligent design is an attempt to subvert science by attacking the underlying foundation of methodological naturalism, and many much stronger statements, are almost universally attested to in reliable sources.
   • The point is that even in an article about a documentary presenting a fringe view, we can present the fringe ideas in their own terms. The documentary itself is an excellent example of failing to present the opposing view in its own terms, the trailer will tell you that the opponents of intelligent design hold that "we are no more than mud and created by lightning" and refers to evolution using the phrase "by chance" or that we are a "random mistake". Well, you don't need to watch any further than that. Thus, the ability to characterize the opposing position, has just as much of an impact on our credibility as our use of reliable sources.
2. WP:NPOV#Article structure. This section states that we should be wary of the segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. For example, pro- and con- sections are discouraged. This implies that we should not split the reliably sourced statements that refute the arguments or expose the factual inaccuracies in the film from where these statements are first made.
   • This is a wise policy statement, we should not split sections based on the POV they contain. However, the converse is not true. For example, this article has a natural split of reviews based on whether they appear in scientific sources, Christian media, or the mainstream press. Is this a segregation based on POV? No, I think the sectioning is based on a reasonable subject-matter classification, which simply may or may not result in each section having a different POV. If they would have all ended up with different POVs, then WP:NPOV#Article structure does not require that they must be kept together.
   • Similarly, it is natural for articles on non-fiction to contain a section expressing the story as told in that piece of work. Different interpretations of what exactly occurs on the screen can be given in an NPOV fashion, but whether what is being said has anything to do with reality is not the subject-matter of a synopsis or overview of a creative work. The exposition of the real facts will be all the more credible, if we first show we understand the work in question and are capable of expressing it in its own terms.

There are enough facts against ID, so that they can speak loudly for themselves. This is how all articles on creative works are written. What am I missing? Merzul (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting here? Guettarda (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the slight restructuring of the overview into:

Background (WP:DUE)

Synopsis (WP:WFTE) (without "junk science"

Argument in the film (WP:DUE)

That's basically it, Merzul (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"What am I missing?" Well The Root of All Evil? article contains ALL the critism about factual accuracy and misrepresenting what the interviewees say they said. For that documentary thats a short section, for this one its most of the page, that is due to the quality of the documentary and is not of our doing. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We must be not seeing things the same way for some reason. When I expanded this article considerably in December, I did a check on how much of it was pro-film and how much was anti-film. About 90 percent at that time was pro-film, and more pro-film material was added after that. Then the reviews began to come back, and most were negative; particularly in the mainstream press. So it is only appropriate that the article reflect that. Sorry, but what else would you have us write instead? A puff piece or a religious tract? The number of views of this article per day has exploded from about 100 to over 15,000 and it is now just starting to relax downwards again. We get several new editors a day, all of who do not know, or who purport not to know what NPOV etc is. Most of them are furious at us, and it is not easy to deal with this contant onslaught. As a result, the article has become more and more mangled; it just is not possible to keep it orderly under these circumstances. Then I looked at the article about the BBC Television documentary The Root of All Evil?. Let's face it; that has a far smaller target audience and recieved far less publicity and far less money was spent on public relations firms (Expelled had 4 public relations firms working for it) and there was far less money involved etc. It was a completely different situation. However, I do not see its article as just a paraphrase of the documentary. There is negative review after negative review in that article, which has some intense criticism of the program. You did not see that part? And you do not see all our sections which are neutral discussions of the films claims, or even positive paeans to the filmmakers? Wow. Just wow. I hardly know what to say. If I had the energy, I would quantitatively compare the two articles. But I really think it is a good thing you are taking a break, because I suspect your personal views are effecting how you perceive things here. I even came across a review from an evangelical today that complained that we were too kind to the film and far too positive since it was such a duplicitous piece of crap.--Filll (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. And I will indeed let it rest hopefully on more peaceful terms, Merzul (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - still too vague to be much help to me, but a step forward. Am I correct in assuming that you consider Background = Promotion_of_intelligent_design_as_an_alternative_to_evolution, Synopsis = Claims_that_intelligent_design_advocates_are_persecuted, and Arguments in the film = Portrayal_of_science_as_atheistic and Claims_that_Nazism_was_inspired_by_acceptance_of_evolution?

So:

1. You cited WP:DUE with regards to the background. To what does it give undue weight, and what do you believe should be cut from that section so that it is no longer undue in the weight it gives?
2. What do you consider to be the synopsis at present? Currently the term "junk science" is mentioned in the background, not in the synopsis. While ID has also been described as pseudoscience and non-science, "junk science" is perhaps the most succinct descriptor. Why do you believe that it is inappropriate?
3. Again, you cited WP:DUE with regards to the Arguments in the film. What, in your opinion, is given undue weight in these sections. Guettarda (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your equalities are more-or-less accurate, but we could think more specifically about that, if we reach the conclusion that general idea is good one. Currently, there is no consensus for it, and this time, your views, and those by Filll and HiVe below, are expressed very succinctly in a way that I find quite convincing. So thank you for taking the time to do so.

Let me still clarify, because I wasn't clear with what I meant by the policy names after each section. I meant WP:DUE not as a something the article fails, but that's what this article does well. I didn't use it as a policy, but as the general flavour that the section in question should have. I could have said that I would like the overview to be clear that

1. Background information (the truth)
2. Synopsis (whitewashed propaganda, maybe about 4 paragraphs without debunking)
3. Factual analysis (the truth)

Is this more clear at least? Merzul (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To Merzul: I already explained in the Layout section above my reasons why comparing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed to The Root of All Evil? and some other films is like comparing apples and oranges. Rather than repeat myself, please see my earlier comments. The short version of my criticism is that this film has several times the number of criticisms, not just in content, but also in its method of production, as those other films, thus attempting to use same format as those other films would not work in this case, and would only make the article worse. -- HiEv 08:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this goes a long way in alleviating my worries about consistency. Just one caveat, having myself helped summarize reviews of The God Delusion, I have to admit that on the subject of existence of God, which falls in the field of the philosophy of religion, Dawkins is almost WP:FRINGE. And yet, I do insist on that page that we use Dennett, who is not a philosopher of religion, and PZ Myers, who is not even a philosopher; because they understand much better the gist of Dawkins argument than say someone like Alvin Plantinga. However, I think I can accept that you have every right to present the article in this form.

I'm not yet completely convinced that this gives is the most effective way of conveying the facts. I'm not sure, whether because something presented in a film is universally declared as bunk, we still shouldn't devote at least 3-4 paragraphs to describe it properly in its strongest possible formulation before the truth is presented.

Your points about the methods used in the documentary setting it apart from that of Dawkins' is well noted. It is one thing to remove someone, e.g. McGrath, from a documentary, it is quite another thing to portray someone as saying "As a scientist I am hostile to any opposing doctrine [cut]".

Ok, thanks for all the replies, I'm letting this rest now, Merzul (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see that "Root of All Evil" provides the sort of chronological synopsis that's lacking from this artice, but I'm not sure what we can do about this yet, lacking a transcript (unless those who have seen it have very good memories?). --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked at The God Delusion article here. However, The God Delusion, even though it has sold well over a million copies and has generated over 20 books written in response to it, has not had anything like the publicity that this film has, or the controversy. Are there reports in the press of Dawkins obtaining interviews under false pretenses for his books, say in the New York Times and elsewhere? Did Dawkins threaten to arrest any prominent clergy for daring to try to read his book? Did Dawkins violate copyright and plagiarize sections of someone else's work without permission, and is now being sued for it? Did Dawkins launch a preemptive lawsuit against someone else who suggested that Dawkins might have plagiarized, to shut them up? Did Dawkins tour the United States promoting his book in front of state legislatures and use it as part of a campaign to have laws passed to force churches to include atheism in a positive way as part of their ministry and preaching? Did Dawkins make repeated announcements that this was just the start of a massive campaign to turn the United States into a mainly atheist nation? If Dawkins did any of those things, I must have missed it. Because the producers of this movie did actually do comparable things. And you know, that might actually change how the article in Wikipedia is written a little bit, don't you think?

Also, my impression was that none of the arguments in The God Delusion are novel. They have been known and debated for decades if not centuries in philosophical circles. Many scholars sniffed that Bertrand Russell's presentation of some of these arguments was far better. However, Dawkins wrote in a publicly accessible manner, and his book has sold at a far greater rate than Russell's books on the subject (perhaps it has even sold more copies by now). So as a piece of scholarship, The God Delusion might be trash. As a cultural phenomenon, it is something else.

And we have similar situations all the time in Wikipedia; the relevant experts are disgusted with something, but the general public loves it. Look at alien abduction or tarot cards or ESP or 911 conspiracy theories; the public is far more open to this stuff than the experts are. Suppose that Expelled had done what the producers predicted; it had outsold Fahrenheit 911 and sold over 30 million dollars worth of tickets in its first weekend. And suppose it became a cultural phenomenon like Passion of the Christ or Star Wars even. Suppose it changed public perceptions and policy the way An inconvenient truth did, and recieved far more positive mainstream reviews from the New York Times and the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post and Variety and Entertainment Weekly and so on. Then this article would be written very differently. We would still have the response of the "experts" to the subject matter, but the reviews would be mainly positive. Wikipedia does not do more than reflect what is found in the world. It does not set its own "tone"; or at least it shouldn't.--Filll (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another really bad review from Entertainment Weekly

See here--Filll (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice our article was linked to, its under "exploited the memory"(of the millions whom Hitler murdered) and points to our "Claims_that_Nazism_was_inspired_by_acceptance_of_evolution" section. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

'Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda'

Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda -- probably deserves a mention in the 'Richard Dawkins' and/or 'Claims that Nazism was inspired by acceptance of evolution' sections. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Very noteworth I think. Angry Christian (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Norris

Have everyone seen this yet - Win Ben Stein's Monkey - Chuck Norris Angry Christian (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A martial artist & notoriously bad actor -- that certainly qualifies him to venture an opinion on science and science education. This pretty much confirms my suspicions about townhall.com's editorial standards. Who will they have next, an interior decorator on global warming? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow that review is so confused I hardly know where to start. It misunderstands observational science and scientific evidence. It conflates abiogenesis with evolution. And then attacks the current interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And then somehow confuses promoting courses on the bible in school (which many support, including Richard Dawkins) with using the bible as a science textbook in science class in publicly funded secular schools. It is just misrepresentation and lies from beginning to end.--Filll (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Offer

Yesterday I was given a copy of Unlocking the Mystery of Life. I've already seen it so if anyone is interested in viewing it without having to buy your own copy I'll mail it to you to borrow. In fact if anyone has a copy of On the Origin of Species and would like to exchange it for the DVD for a few weeks I would like to read it for my self. Just let me know. Saksjn (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find copies of On the Origin of Species online to read.--Filll (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, should I just google for it or something? Saksjn (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the bottom of the Wikipedia article on the book.--Filll (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are much better books on Evolution. Just go to the Evolution article itself, which is a well written FA, and go to the further reading section. Darwin's book is 150 years old (give or take), and science has advanced significantly. I've had numerous biology, evolution, medical, and science courses in my education, and have never once read it. It is not required reading to understand Evolution. That's what makes all of this crap about "Darwinism" so laughable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV does not mean "balanced". If something gets 99% critical coverage, the article about it should be 99% critical. If its horrible, illegal, or any other negative words - as stated by reliable third party sources - then that is how the thing is described in the article about it. We do not describe someone as they describe themselves, else an article about some poor deluded person who thought they were God would say "so-and-so is God". Now, this is the boiled-down version of NPOV, but its accurate. Any questions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the NPOV banner has been laid out by myself and others in many places on this talk page, noting a large number of issues which have not been resolved. Among these, the article discusses the movie in a consistently "pejorative" manner, in violation of the first paragraph of the body of WP:NPOV. It mischaracterizes the movie's positions, for instance by representing them as claiming that "science" is atheistic, despite their never having done so, no source being provided, and it having been pointed out that in fact they criticize rather than support this view. It includes significant original research in violation of WP:SYN that is not sourced to anything which discusses the movie. The way this is presented also violates WP:NPOV; see the lead of the policy stating that these policies are complementary and need to be considered together. The issues are very significant, have been noted by a rather extraordinary number of editors, and have not been resolved, which is why I support the banner until more serious efforts are made to improve the article with respect to this policy. Mackan79 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV means "multiple or conflicting perspectives" are to be presented fairly. Most actual perspectives are negative, but there's a good deal of "piling on" to the negatives and little in the way of allowing anything else. This is not what's done with say America: Freedom to Fascism or Man of the Year (1995 film). (Two documentaries/mockumentaries that received mostly unfavorable reviews)--T. Anthony (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

However, there are numerous sources supporting the claim that "Big Science" is atheistic, this has been extensively discussed, and the article has an entire section devoted to exploring this aspect of the movie. Furthermore, the facts require us to reflect the manner in which the movie has been received, and any unwarranted perjorative language can be (and is being) cleaned up: so where's the dispute? --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The source of the claim that science is atheistic is here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/id

Expelled’s main theme is that intelligent design is under systematic attack by “Big Science” – the scientific establishment – which refuses to recognize its scientific validity because of a previous commitment to atheism and materialism. In truth, the arguments of intelligent design have been examined by the scientific community and found to be lacking in both utility and accuracy. If mainstream science declines to accept intelligent design, it is the fault of the intelligent design advocates, who have not performed the research and theory-building demanded of everyone in the scientific enterprise.

Can you point out the section of the article that you believe has original research? Before you point them out however, check the citations and read, if possible, to what they reference--BirdKr (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the "Overview" is primarily taken from sources that don't discuss the movie. I am not insisting that all of it be removed, but it does violate WP:SYN and should be improved. Mackan79 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big science" was just reverted back to "science" when I returned to the article. This tipped the scales for me. I also want to reflect how the movie was received, but I don't want our own tone and approach to reflect the opinions of critics. The passage I referenced: "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." This is the issue we're failing, not our representation of critics, which I think is fine. Mackan79 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Science is atheistic: Mackan79, I gave a source from Scientific American stating that this movie claims that science is atheistic. You have a quote also from NCSE that makes the same point. We could find hundreds of similar statements from interviews and reviews on all sides of this issue.

NPOV As pointed out over and over, and now by KillerChihuahua, NPOV does not mean neutral or positive or sympathetic. Do you deny Mackan79 that most mainstream reviews are negative? Because if you do, I want to see the evidence for it. Do you deny Mackan79 that most scientists think that the case that this movie makes is very weak? Because if you do, I want to see the evidence for it.

In both the case of "NPOV" and "Science is atheistic", your objections have been answered repeatedly. Do you not read the responses?---Filll (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe your statements about NPOV are accurate. NPOV does mean a "neutral point of view." You are correct it doesn't mean that points of view are excluded, and that a "neutral point of view" is a point of view. To simply deny that the article should be "neutral" seems to be some sort of equivocation, if unintentional. I want the kind of neutality described in WP:NPOV, not other kinds of neutrality that it doesn't describe. Mackan79 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, you're not just trying to give "equal validity" to the pseudoscientific extreme minority view, you're trying to frame the article heading in their deceptive term, which they don't use all the time. Stein complains about "science", I've toned it down to refer to mainstream science but that's evidently a concession too far. . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give "equal validity" to anything, wherever you keep getting that phrase. In reference to the specific heading, I suggested that it say "Portrayal of evolution as atheistic," or that the heading be removed. If people insist that it refer to science generally, then "Big science" is accurate, whereas "science" is not. People here are so concerned about framing a topic in their terms that they are switching it into something that is plainly inaccurate. I can let some things slide, but that's not the kind of thing to just let slide. Mackan79 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense Mackan79, but this is starting to verge on WP:DE and WP:TE.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you make this claim too many times. When editor after editor says the article is not NPOV, when I list the issues in detail with specific reference to the NPOV policy, and when editors nonetheless insist that the banner be removed, that is indeed a problem that should be recognized by editors on the page. Mackan79 (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, you have made the claim that this article violates NPOV too many times; that is what makes your behavior approach WP:TE. Tell us, do you deny that most of the mainstream press has panned this film? Do you deny that most of the scientific press has panned this film?--Filll (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of these disagreements should be easy to fix. Now that the movie is out and there are TONs of reviews, can we all agree we should use sources that discuss the movie rather than ones that don't? This would make some of these disagreements go away automatically. Friday (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively". Apparently the "other view" in this case is that the movie is actually good (from Rush Limbaugh etc). Where is this fact mentioned perjoratively? --Robert Stevens (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the NPOV articles.....

NPOV is one of three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

"It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."Restepc (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense Restepc, but placing a dispute tag up repeatedly like that when there is no valid dispute is a violation of a variety of Wikipedia principles and can result in sanctions. It is better to discuss why you think there is an NPOV violation or dispute, because according to consensus of experienced users, there is not. --Filll (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My strong impression from Mackan79 and others debating this issue on this talk page is that they want to ignore NPOV and remove all negative content from the article, or to minimize it. There are very few mainstream positive reviews (like Limbaugh's, if that could be called mainstream), and a few extreme fundamentalist positive reviews (the Catholic review I read was negative for the most part, and most mainstream and liberal Christian reviews probably would be as well, since this film appeals to a crazed extremist minority only).

The Wikipedia article has become more negative about the film as more reviews have appeared, because most reviews are negative, especially from the major reliable sources. However, even when the Wikipedia was measured to be about 90 percent positively disposed towards the film, editors similar to Mackan79 were furious that it was too negative. Well...not much I can do at that point. It is just a misunderstanding of what NPOV is. Possibly willful misunderstanding, frankly.--Filll (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV poll

I am aware that wikipedia is not a democracy, and polling has no official power, however since some editors are claiming that only one person is trying to add the NPOV tag, I feel having a vote on whether you personally feel the article is neutral will help to illustrate whether or not there is consensus on this matter.

So, vote here is the article in its current state neutral, yes or no Restepc (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)