Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

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)

Because the requirement for an article to be labeled as violating NPOV is higher than someone simply saying that the article is violating NPOV. A hundred people could say it, but if none of them can justify it then it doesn't really apply, does it? One needs to include valid reasons for labeling the article as violating NPOV, especially when that label is disputed, so that people can try to fix the problem and can determine when the article is properly NPOV.

In this case, saying that there are "excessive negative reviews" in the article, when they are actually given in approximate proportion to the ratio of negative reviews out there, is incorrect because that is NPOV (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight), and as such that reason is invalid. The "red herring arguments" mentioned are not named, so I have no idea what they refer to since the arguments given in the article seem relevant to me. If a good, specific argument can be given and the problem is not or cannot corrected quickly, then I don't have a problem with adding the tag, but at this point I don't see sufficient evidence that such a tag is valid here. -- HiEv 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this article. Not knowing anything about this film nor have I ever heard of it, I had a read out of interest. Out of all the hundreds of articles I have read from Wiki, this is by far the worst case of Bias I have ever read so far. The general wording has a very obvious negative slant. Put this article through the shredder and start again! 121.45.184.144 (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, and since you know nothing about the film, have a look at the reviews linked from Rotten Tomatoes, 90% of which say it's rotten. .. dave souza, talk 08:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, because an outside source says its rotten, wikipedia needs to abandon its NPOV guideline and underline the fact that its rotten as well? You are forgetting that you are writing an encyclopedia. I also fail to see the reason for this huge article. This reads more like one of those websites that picks apart a movie bit by bit and microanalyzes each piece and then negativly reports about each piece. A good example would be all the sites that came out when Fahrenheit 9/11 was released, with the xxx reasons that its junk or whatever they were called. This is, as quite aptly discribed above, a hatchet piece. I am well aware that nothing will change as it is the "Fill & Co." that rule with their iron fist over articles like this, retaining their POV with viciousness.195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Fahrenheit article for a FAIR way to review a controversial film, that was done well. This, however, is typical.195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been intemperate too, but I think it's high time to refrain from calling users "vicious" or implying a cabal.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh? 1st answer from fill in this section? That can only be interpreted as a threat.Jacina (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a mediocre / bad (depending on your political position) film, fairly well-made and somewhat amusing. This film is a disgusting and obnoxious pile of shit, if you'll excuse my French. Blaming the Holocaust on evolution is so perverse an idea that one cringes. Seeing that bit of an interview with Ben Stein (see item 35 near the end of this page - "science makes people kill people") makes me wonder about how sick in the head these people are. Trying to compare Fahrenheit 9/11 with this film is not comparing apples with oranges, it's comparing apples with garbage. --RenniePet (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, saying that there are "excessive negative reviews" in the article, when they are actually given in approximate proportion to the ratio of negative reviews out there, is incorrect... The problem isn't excessive negative reviews. The problem is the amount of space devoted to them, and to other things, both negative and positive. Sections 1.1 through 4 are entirely about the film's fallacious or false arguments, Sections 9.3-9.4 are about the other mendacious things the filmmakers have done, and Section 7 is entirely about the reaction, which in turn is composed of four subsections, one for a different faction of the media. Do we really need that? That General Media subsection alone is gigantic! And even aside from criticism or negativity over the filmmakers duplicitousness, do we really need a section composed of four subsections merely on the film's Promotion??? Hell, most movie articles don't even have one! Geez. I mean, really, the article was at one point 140K. Then 150K. Then 151K. I figured it would stop, and editors would eventually start paring it down. But it's still growing. It's now at 157K. So yes, the NPOV is justified. That all this material is proportionately accurate is not the point. It may be proportionate in terms of reaction, but it's not proportionate in terms of what a good article looks like, and putting the amount of detail in it that people have clearly looks like POV. Really, guys, this thing needs to be pared down.

The difference is that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a mediocre / bad (depending on your political position) film, fairly well-made and somewhat amusing. This film is a disgusting and obnoxious pile of shit.. Which has nothing to do with the point 195.216.82.210 was making about how to properly write an article about a controversial film. Are you saying that how to write such an article is determined by the aesthetic reaction to it on the part of the editors writing it??? Nightscream (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How you you figure that the NPOV flag is justified by the size of the article? Some other tag, maybe: but why NPOV? This is not intended to be a "make the article smaller" tag! And if other articles about films give less detail than this one: it could just as easily be argued that we're doing a better job here than there. --Robert Stevens (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Related to this I had placed the "longish" tag once and it was almost immediately removed as "we haven't discussed that." I've put it back because

1-We now have discussed it plenty.

2-It is on articles, like Paul Wolfowitz, that are shorter than this one.

3-It remains factually accurate. This article is over 100KB long.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

... What does NPOV stand for? NEUTRAL point of view. Nowhere does it say "Average point of view when taking all the media reactions and then calculating the mean". Neutral means just that NEUTRAL. I'll admit its challenging to write a NEUTRAL article when everyone and their uncle is bashing it. Thats just one of the challenges Wikipedia needs to meet, and regularly does well. This article is in NO WAY NPOV. Does that mean you can't criticize it? No, you can even heavily criticize it, however that SHOULD be balanced by including some positive reactions to the film. This article focuses on the negative to VERY high extremes. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A complete misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, but you know, whatever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate, what part of:

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. 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.

is being misunderstood? The part where undue weight is being given to a view because it happens to be the popular one, and therefore 90% of the article portrays this view? I did expect you to show up though ;) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article postively exudes POV. It reads like an enormous, exquisitely detailed and interlinked refutation of the film...it's a white paper, not an encyclopedia entry. It doesn't present any material in the film except for the purpose of debunking it. A summation of the article is: "Exposed is a film featuring Ben Stein. The film is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Further illustration of this wrongness can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here." (But multiply this form out to 100K bytes.) I have arrived at the conclusion that the rabid attack editors who are maintaining it against any pinpricks of objectivity are doing nothing more than displaying the strength of their conviction in evolution -- much like the hoarse, red-faced preachers I used to avoid on my university campus. (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Battlefield Earth (film) article. It is an FA article Midnight Gardener (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You're saying the Expelled article maintainers are Scientologists, and that's where they get the motivation to sit at their keyboards day and night supporting their version of reality? That would explain it. keno (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that was interesting. According to that article- "The film's producer, Elie Samaha, declared that he welcomed the "free publicity", as "the more the critics hit Battlefield Earth, the more DVDs it sells. It is the kind of film that makes a movie legend and we feel we have enough staying power to last long after the critics have quieted down."" Yeah, that doesn't sound like anyone we know. (Incidentally, I knew that Battlefield Earth got panned I didn't realize how thoroughly panned). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Three comments about NPOV

The second paragraph in this article links to 5 specific and very negative reviews. However, no positive reviews are provided. Instead, readers are provided to the wiki entries for religious right, conservative and creationist. Since Rotten Tomatoes was used as a primary source for ratings, could this sentence be updated to include at least one link to a positive film critic review? As mentioned in Wikipedia:NPOV, even minority viewpoints cannot be completed ignored (and in this case, minority viewpoint should not be applied since the minority viewpoint is the thesis of the film).

There seems to be a large discrepancy between film critic/scientific community reception of this film and popular opinion (user reviews) of this film. Popular opinion votes on Internet websites are not considered a reliable source, but in this case, since Rotten Tomatoes was already used as a primary source for this portion of the article, could this section be updated to include a reference to popular reception to this film, with a link to the Rotten Tomatoes User Reviews? (368 reviews, 184 positive, 50% rating at the time of this edit). Google user reviews for this film (an aggregate, largely from epinions.com) show a similar 2.6/5 or 52% positive rating.

Why is this film being treated so much differently than Fahrenheit 9/11. In this entry, there is no reference to film critic opinion or popular opinion of the film even though the reception was [nearly as extreme] (except positive, not negative - 85% at Rotten Tomatoes) CalebBenefiel (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Popular opinion is difficult to measure with properly constructed opinion polls, which have to be treated with care, and internet polls simply invite fiddling. User reviews are in no way a reliable source, but published reviews by film critics provide verifiable expert reports as required by policies, and published scientific sources provide the views of the scientific community about the claims which are at the centre of this film. If you feel that Fahrenheit 9/11 should be improved, take it up on the talk page of that article. As you point out, that's a movie that film critics rate at 84% positive out of 219 reviews, while this movie is rated 9% positive out of 33 reviews, and WP:NPOV requires that we should not give undue weight to the minority view.. . . dave souza, talk 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the referenced sources (film critic aggregate sites), the (small) positive reception of this film is clearly not a "tiny minority" but merely a "minority." At least one positive film critic review from this source should be included in the introduction, possibly with a blurb (since there are already two negative blurbs in this paragraph). Instead, there are currently links to other wiki pages. Small changes like this will help incrementally reduce the non-NPOV issues with this article. CalebBenefiel (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

POV?

It seems to me that this artical is more about why ID is wrong, not about the movie. Shouldn't it just be about the movie, then all the criticisms can be held for that section, rather then making sections that are supposed to be about the actual movie into articals about why ID is wrong? (PS. Sorry if there is already a section on the talk page for this, I didn't really have time to look around and read much of it)--Passerby25 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We can move some of those sections to a "Criticism of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" article. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is discouraged. If the article is split, it must be in a different way.--Filll (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As Hrafn mentioned a section or two up - there's no rush. This movie has been out for a few days. There's no way to tell that the significant elements of the story will be. The text could be more concise, but there's no point in cutting anything just yet. Guettarda (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the movie has been out there for about a week. BTW, I don't think they should be split at this time. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Any split has to follow WP:SUMMARY which means we have a concise agreed summary in this main article. It might be possible to do this with the reviews, are we agreed on Rotten Tomatoes' pithy summary? Perhaps best to try summarising the essential points first. . dave souza, talk 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually 12 days. Too many to call a week, too few to call two. Hence, "a few" days. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I do agree the article has alot of undue weight, a split probably would not be the wisest choice at the moment.Joe3472 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What undue weight? What prominent scientists, film reviewers or news outlets have said anything other than that this film is a crock of excrement? Vanishingly few, from information to date. I would say if anything the article is giving undue weight to the mostly fringe/inexpert/partisan sources that have anything good to say about it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Joe is talking about the overall length that has resulted from including so many of the negative reviews. The article only needs to say "it's a crock" once or twice, not over and over. It seems there are vanishingly few opposing voices that have NOT been given space in the main body of the article. Try looking at the number of words devoted to (a) what the movie says, (b) what its supporters say about it, and (c) what its detractors say about it. I think you'll find (c) at above 80% currently. Keno (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of controversial articles with a criticism of... sub article. Why are we deciding to suddenly enforce that policy all the sudden? Saksjn (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because other crap exists doesn't mean we should continue making more crap. If we can all just work on trimming the current article, we can get this down to a manageable size. Also, please see my comments in the other section above: #proposal to fork. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

1. "We" didn't decide not to enforce it elsewhere -- other editors did. You'll have to ask them why.
2. Where there is a separable 'controversy' (which is not the case here, as every aspect of the film is controversial), it may be possible to have a separate article on it -- as long as WP:DUE is given to the majority viewpoint in both, to avoid a WP:POVFORK. But even if the film and the controversy were separable, the majority opinion expressed in both the film & the controversy article would therefore be the same -- highly negative towards it.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The challenge here is in trimming the article down, it will be extremely difficult to trim the article without removing negative criticism about the movie from the article (since the article is 90% negative criticism). There are many here who refuse to see this movie legitimized in any way, shape, manner or form and will fight this through consistent reversions. This is the challenge... coming to a consensus when so much bias is involved. --Novan Leon (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

5 points for discussion in the Lead section

I said.....I don't know how long ago, but a while...that I was going to go through and sum up all the problems with the article that night, but I got busy with real life and I'm only getting around to it now, also it's become clear just from me closely examining the intro that if I went through the whole article my post here would be longer than the article is now, and it's too long. So I'll work my way down until I reach the end of the article or the arguments die away. so starting with the introduction

Numbered and topiced for ease of arguing discussion

1Grammar/style:"controversial 2008 independent documentary film" is a bit of a mouthful, ideally I'd say just have 'independant documentary film' but I'm sure that idea will be torn to shreds, so how about "controversial independent documentary film, released on 18th April 2008"....or perhaps just 'released in 2008'.

2Grammar/style/length:Instead of "suppresses criticism of both the evidence for evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the theory explaining this evidence." what about just "suppresses criticism of the evidence for evolution and of the modern evolutionary synthesis"

3POV: Linking to teleological argument seems to be a minor POV issue (and the many minor POV issues are what add up to one big argument), not all IDers are insisting there is a god, others have aliens or whatever....

4Giving the impression of POV:The propaganda section, I think should say something along the lines of 'reviews from the scientific community have described the film as propaganda' instead of what's there now, because at the moment it's put as if the two cites are from mainstream movie critics, rather than scientists who are obviously biased against the film. Of course this point would be completely nullified if any mainstream movie critics called it propaganda: just give them as examples rather than newscientist... There are it seems many non scientific sources describing it as propaganda, so my point here is now to recommend we use those as examples of what's calling it propaganda instead.

5Grammar/style: currently "Postive reviews have come primarily from some religious right, conservative and creationist media outlets." instead I suggest "Some religious right, conservative and creationist media outlets have given the film postive reviews." Purely personal preference of how it reads.

Thoughts?Restepc (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also what the hell is going on with that thing below above? why was it hatted? it seems to be trying to work out how to 'fix' the article Restepc (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The hat had been put on another section, but it seemed to be subsuming all new sections into it as well. I assumed there was a problem with the markup, but couldn't find it, so I just deleted the darn thing. A brief response to your points:

1. I think the phrasing you suggest is fine.
2. Good suggestion.
3. I disagree here. I don't see a POV problem, and I've never heard of an ID proponent who wasn't a christian.
4. I'm not 100% sure which section you're refering to, but if you mean "General Media", it needs to be gutted, not just reworded  : )
5. Personally I'm ok with either way of phrasing it, both seem fine. Doc Tropics 05:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Of those three terms - controversial, independent, documentary - controversial is the most important one, because that's the reason it's notable. Independent is probably the least important descriptor, and the one that has been used least in media coverage.
2. I'd go for "modern evolutionary theory" - I think that's superior to "modern synthesis" ("modern evolutionary synthesis is a Wikipedia construct, as far as I know).
3. ID is teleological. This has been discussed at length at the ID article. The library of congress lists ID as teleology, and the term "teleological" has been used extensively by ID proponents. No one has seriously suggested aliens, that's just a throw-away statement by Behe.
4. "reviews from the scientific community..." is inaccurate - the term has been used more widely (e.g., by Derbyshire). The two examples are not from "obviously biased" sources - they are from top-quality sources that are probably some of the most unbiased sources you will find.
5. The existing phrasing is much better. Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

3. I thought there were, but on reading up apparently there aren't...must have got that from somewhere though, but yes, scrap that point.

4. To clarify I'm referring to the introduction, specifically "The general media response to the film has been largely unfavorable, receiving a 9% ("Rotten") meta-score from Rotten Tomatoes. Multiple reviews, including those of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and New Scientist have described the film as propaganda.[8][9] The Chicago Tribune's conclusion was "Rating: 1 star (poor)",[10] while the New York Times described it as "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry."[11]". It's not a major issue but should be mentioned that the propaganda label has come from science focused sources, not regular film critics. Restepc (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See #Propagand cat above – "For information, going through some film reviews, the following all use the term, in some cases to describe the film techniques and in others as a film type or category. NYT, USA Today, Chicago Reader, TV and FILM - NJ.com, Mountain Xpress, FlickFilosopher.com, Slant Magazine, village voice, OrlandoSentinel. .. dave souza, talk 15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)" These are film reviews, not "science focussed sources" . . . dave souza, talk 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's use those ones to cite propaganda then, rather than science focused sources which are, despite their usual high reliability, going to be thought of as biased against a film which attacks the scientific establishment. Does anyone have any objection to changing the examples of propaganda calling in the lead from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and New Scientist to....something else? USA today sounds like a good one, but maybe an american would know better which would be the biggest/most well respected non-science based source (or two) out of those dave lists. Restepc (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Restepc the lead previous made one of those generic "science community...." and after some discussions I specified the two science related groups you now see in the lead. As is the lead indicates how the mainstream media, a few science related examples and the sympathetic groups have received the movie. I think this is a good thing. Can you be more specific about your objection(s) to the two science sources? Thanks Angry Christian (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

put yourself in a fundamentalist IDers shoes and read it, I think they'd be thinking something along the lines of 'ha! of course 'big science' says it propaganda, why is wikipedia quoting them when they're obviously biased?'. And from an anti-ID perspective, surely regular movie reviews calling it propaganda is....stronger...than science people, who are obviously not neutral parties to this film, saying it. Or, you could leave them as representative of the science communities reaction to it, which makes sense...but say that they're the science community, so as to avoid giving the impression that they're trying to be passed off as 'normal'/unbiased movie reviews. Like I said, it's not the end of the world how it is, but lots of little things like that often build up an impression over the course of an article. Restepc (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, yeah...but they're also likely to buy into the myth that the mainstream media is biased, and that Christians are persecuted in the US, that the gays are trying to convert their children and that the government is coming to take away their guns. We can't restructure our articles to accommodate paranoia. These are high-quality, reliable sources. We should stick with them. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay so in reply to my points, I'm thinking the general response is 1 and 2 yes, 3 and 5 no, and 4...well how about I leave the new scientist but replace the other science example with USA Today? That should be everyone happy I think. Restepc (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Accept the idea of using USA Today, the New Scientist is subscription only so Scientific American has advantages. The AAAS statement is more significant for calling the film dishonest and divisive, and linking it to the legislative campaigns. That's also covered in the WSJ, so I've made the suggested changes and moved the AAAS statement to a new paragraph noting the legislative campaigns, as required by WP:LEAD to summarise points in the article. .. dave souza, talk 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article need to include criticism at all? Can't it merely describe the movie in neutral terms? Isn't that the end goal here? --Novan Leon (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ carefully. .. dave souza, talk 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with both of these articles. The problem here isn't just the massive bias overkill in the article, but it's virtual uselessness as a resource on the movie itself. You literally have to wade through paragraphs of criticism in order to pick out information about the movie. This article should be a good resource for neutral information concerning the movie. Excessive amounts of criticism like this should be split off into a "Criticism of" sister article. --Novan Leon (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are familiar with them, you would not be suggesting something that is discouraged under Wikipedia policies, would you?--Filll (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to explain your point any further than merely referencing two entire policy pages? Care to explain why a point-by-point refutation of every topic submitted in the movie, is necessarily relevant to an article about the movie itself? Consider the Wikipedia article about Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which is well formed and focuses primarily on information relevant to the article itself. Compare the two articles and you can easily spot the differences in form and content. --Novan Leon (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a joke from Wikipedia's tired routine.

Off topic for an article talkpage, that is meant to be for discussing the article, not the purported purpose of labels on Wikipedia. Read WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP. Further off-topic discussion of this topic will likewise be deleted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not an article about a movie. It's a "proof" against the movie. The numbnuts who are editing this article fail to understand a few important points: The more you try to bury the film's message the more you prove the film's point. No one takes seriously your efforts because this is the same reference that brings us such academic works as all about butt floss, what happens when your pants are too tight, underwear games . This the type of reference that will give Sasquatch a fair shake, but mock the myth of Jesus. Every article about religion has a controversial section with lengthy criticisms ... every religion except say Atheism. Keep on pluggin'! The more more you write the more ridiculous you seem. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your informative post. I especially liked the underwear-related links. > The more you try to bury the film's message the more you prove the film's point. Of course, that's the basic mechanism of suppression-style conspiracy theories, and I understand your point very well, being constantly subjected to the same mechanism myself. You see, through my work as a programmer I have discovered that there are malevolent and intelligent binary beings that sneak into computers and transmit themselves over the Internet, hiding in half-way values between zero and one. They have even begun to infiltrate mobile telephones. I have tried to post many messages on many forums warning people about this, but these beings realize that I'm on to them, and they conspire with gullible nerds who delete my messages and ban me from their forums! But little do they realize, that the more they suppress my attempts to reveal their existence, the more they actually confirm their nefarious deeds! Ha, ha, take that you devious binezoids!!! Someday, maybe not soon, but I am compelled to do this, and justice will triumph. Go ahead, delete this posting, that will just confirm that I am right!!! Ha, ha. --RenniePet (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a terrible article

Off topic for an article talkpage, that is meant to be for discussing the article, not the purported purpose of labels on Wikipedia. Read WP:FORUM & WP:SOAP. Further off-topic discussion of this topic will likewise be deleted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is poorly formatted, totally non standard, and is completely devoted to trashing this movie. It needs a page one rewrite, and perhaps a "Reaction to" the movie article created to put a lot of this reception stuff. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Your personal opinion has no relation to Wikipdia policies. .. dave souza, talk 16:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC) WOOT! "Big Science" is gonna get y'all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.194.245 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC) HA! Your personal opinion is not important, Dave souza's opinion is WP's gatekeeper.

Daniell Dennett

Doesn't Daniel Dennett appear in Expelled? If so, doesn't that mean our list of people is incomplete? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at the Expelled website, I saw that we had missed many many people that appear in the film. It really would be unreasonable to describe them all in any detail. And even a list is maybe a bit much; let IMDB and the official website do that, perhaps. --Filll (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IMDB does NOT list them. I think we should at least have a sidebox giving the full list. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

category American propaganda films

Category:American propaganda films should be removed from the article. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To reply to one unsupported assertion with another - no, it should not be removed. Just looking at some of the other films in that category - Loose Change (film), Stolen Honor, and Reefer Madness - I'd say it is in appropriate company. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? I see no reason. --Filll (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, sources have been given. Verification is required, not editor's opinions. .. dave souza, talk 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if we keep this one, we should also add An Inconvenient Truth, Fahrenheit 9/11 to the catagory. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Raise your hand if you are getting tired of specious comparisons between this movie and AIT.

One of these movies is mostly-if-not-entirely true, and one of these movies is mostly-if-not-entirely false. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which film is which (I don't think it'll be too hard).

It would be more accurate to compare this film to The Great Global Warming Swindle (which, in fact, used many of the same techniques as this film, including tricking the people being interviewed). And while that film isn't in the propaganda category, it is in the denialism category. Raul654 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"One of these movies is mostly-if-not-entirely true, and one of these movies is mostly-if-not-entirely false" That sir, is an opinion, not a fact. Also, if this film is similar to The Great Global Warming Swindle, then why isn't that film in this catagory? Also, one can compare this movie to AIT, because they are both equally controversial and both push a specific view. All I am asking for is that this catagory be removed or we add the movies similar to it into the catagory. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if this film is similar to The Great Global Warming Swindle, then why isn't that film in this catagory? - as I have already said, because it's in category:Denialism, which is a subcategory of category:Propaganda. Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Two plus two equals four? That, sir, is an opinion, not a fact". --Badger Drink (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The category should stay. 1) Its sourced. 2) Its majority opinion of the sources. If you want to discuss Moore's films take the discussion to that talk page. Paper45tee (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Badger Drink) You are assuming that we are using the decimal number system. Also, the implication of your post is that you believe AIT to be a fact (which, by the way, is your opinion). All I am asking for is that we remove the catagory or we add the other films to it. (reply to Paper45tee) What are your sources? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sucked into a lengthy debate here. You can continue believing whatever you like to believe. In the real world, however, AIT is not a fact, but rather a movie based on facts. E:NIA is not a fact either, but rather, a movie based on fiction and exaggerated half-truths. Also, is there a number system that isn't decimal? I think you were searching for "base ten", but that's just an assumption on my part. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Trinary. "In the real world, however, AIT is not a fact, but rather a movie based on facts. E:NIA is not a fact either, but rather, a movie based on fiction and exaggerated half-truths." Yet another opinion. I will say this one more time: All I am asking for is that we remove the catagory or we add the other films to it. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be ternary? Anyways, your request is pointless. First, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Argue about this article here. Argue about other articles elsewhere. Secondly, as far as I can tell, reliable sources acknowledge AIT as an excellent rendition of the science as known at the time of productions (and, for the most part, as known now), while they similarly recognize that E:NIA is a complete and utter piece of fabrication. You don't get "equal time" for propositions of very different weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Base-three" would work for me. Under base-three, two plus two would equal eleven, or four under base-ten. The token's different, but the result's the same. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A. I know what Base-three is. B. As I said, what are your sources? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? How is this relevant to the article?--Filll (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that RC is asking "what sources name this film as propaganda"? I found the answer in Archive 8 of this debate. There were numerous neutral sources (ie. film critics .... not film critics for Scientific American, nor film critics for pro-ID organizations) which called this film propaganda, by name (that is the word "propaganda" was used to directly address this film; it is not implied, it is named as such directly in the article). I could understand an objection if the only sources claiming this film to be propaganda were scientific publications, but that is not the case. These are professional film critics from third party, reputable sources in the field of film criticism. Love or hate the film, there is a neutral perspective that calls this film propaganda. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Portrayal of Science as Atheistic" is misleading

The sub-heading, Portrayal of Science as Atheistic is as misleading as much of the article. An unfounded fervent, one might say, religious belief in Darwinism is portrayed as atheistic. Since most of those interviewed can objectively be viewed as scientists, whether one agrees with their position or not, and since not all of them are atheists, it is untrue that scientists (and by proxy, science) are portrayed as atheistic. The logic followed by the film makers is clear. Darwinists must deny the existence of God because, not only did Darwin not believe in God, his theory is replete with the foreclosure of the possibility of the existence of God. Conversely, believers may adopt aspects of biological science derived from Darwinism without conflict between their belief in God and science, after all, believers would say that God, is a God of science too. Free onyx (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain to me how climatology and astrophysics and thermodynamics and electromagnetism and abiogenesis and in fact all science since the scientific revolution a few centuries ago are Darwinism. Thanks so much.--Filll (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's true that to seek supernatural causes isn't the purpose of science. However how does this mean Darwinism has anything to do with electromagnetism or thermodynamics or other sciences that predate him? On the Origin of Species is fifteen decades old not "a few centuries." I think you are falling into what the makers of this movie did. You're taking something from biology and assuming it is the base/whole of all science. "Darwinism" is irrelevant to Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is relevant to Darwinism, in some ways, but that's because physics is the more basic building block of the Universe than biology. In the early Universe nothing was Darwinian, unless you believe Lee Smolin's unproven theory of Fecund Universes, but astrophysical forces existed. Even with Lee Smolin's theory the selection process of Universes doesn't make an exact fit [[with natural selection.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Climatology and astrophysics and thermodynamics and electromagnetism are all scientific endeavors, as they adhere to such foundations of science as the generation of testable hypotheses and being grounded in observation. Abiogenesis is not a part of science to date, because no scientific theories have held up to tests. It is a conjecture of the materialist paradigm that underlies science; that is very differen"t from it being a scientific field of inquiry in its own right. I challenge you to name a single scientific study relating to the observational support of abiogenesis. Dolewhite (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also the question of which of the many meanings of "Darwinism" are intended, and the factual error about Darwin's beliefs – "Darwin wants to convince you in this book that God has established laws of nature on Earth, as in the heavens, and these laws produce the forms of life that we observe".[1] Free onyx, did you get your misunderstanding from Expelled or is your comment off topic? Remember that a reliable source is needed for any interpretation or claim. ... dave souza, talk 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. I still think that Portrayal of 'Big Science' as atheistic would be good. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But how do we deal with the fact that "Big Science" is a term that has an existing meaning, and the fact that they don't define the term? Also, how do we source that? Our source for the assertion that [something] is atheistic talks about "the scientific endeavour", not "Big Science". Guettarda (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We deal with it this way: We state the facts; readers come up with their own interpretation. Also, as I have said, what are your sources? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>You were given 2 published reliable sources for this. In classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT fashion, you have continued to throw puerile tantrums about this. I can probably get you another 50 sources on this. You know it, and I know it. You just want to seem to cause as much disruption as possible, however. Tsk tsk. Not very reasonable, is it?--Filll (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you, I am not trying to cause disruption. Also, you have yet to answer my question: What are your sources(not how many)? What is wrong with renaming the section "Portrayal of 'Big Science' as atheistic"? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I understand your point. You have referenced sources saying it means science. But My sources for calling it "Big Science" are from the movie. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Where online or in the media has a transcript of the movie been published? (2)Primary sources are deprecated and only to be used sparingly and secondary and tertiary sources are used to interpret them. These are rules that Wikipedia operates under. Learn them.--Filll (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Filll, the use of primary sources is not deprecated. Please see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources for the use of primary sources. In this case, the movie is the primary source. It can be used to describe what the movie claims. However, since I have not seen the movie, I can be of no help in this particular instance. The question remains "what does the movie itself claim?" I'll let you all fight it out, but this seems to be the crux of the dispute. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you are selectively quoting policy in an essentially dishonest fashion, are you not? Nothing like violating WP:POINT, is there? Let's take a closer look since you seem to want to fight like crazed madmen about this:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. from [2] So care to tell me where a transcript of the movie has been published in a reliable source? After all, remember this has to satisfy WP:V. You cannot expect someone in a place that the movie has not been released in to be able to verify this. In 20 years, if there is no DVD (which there might never be), you cannot expect someone to be able to use the movie to verify this. There are also plenty of disagreements about the transcripts of movies because the sound is not always clear. And what part of only with care, because it is easy to misuse them did you not understand?

Similarly, Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. from [3] reinforces the idea that this needs to be a source that can be checked by anyone. If I am in the UK, where the movie has not been released yet, am I required to fly to the US and try to find a theatre where the movie is still playing? Completely unreasonble.

Also, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. from [4]. Seems pretty clear, doesnt it? What part do you not understand? Or choose to misunderstand perhaps?

My impression is that the phrase "Big Science" does not actually appear in the movie itself, but only appears in the promotional materials associated with the movie. So previously people here argued frantically that the promotional materials (which also include the phrase "science" without the "big") were not suitable and could not be used. And now we want to bend over and let you have your way since you feel somehow this presents the filmmakers in a more favorable light? Well that is just ridiculous. They have made repeated statements that they are anti-science. So, that is what we present. No whitewashing here. So what?--Filll (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone who drones on about assuming good faith, you seem to have misplaced yours here. I wasn't trying to deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent policy. All I stated was that primary sources can be used. I couldn't care less about this particular disagreement. If the movie says that science is atheistic, then state that. If they say that "Big Science" is atheiestic, then state that. If they claim Jesus was riding dinosaurs to crush the evil Romans, then state that. I don't care. Just please don't insult me by claiming I am trying to be deceptive in any way. The only thing I'll note is that your claim that since you are in the UK, it is unreasonable to use the film as a source is quite specious. I can, for instance, go to my local library and find a book that discusses the history of Kona, and cite the book as a source. Just because you personally might not be able to find the book locally does not mean that I cannot use it. Maybe that's what I'll do for a while, since my attempt to try and work here has been met with hostility. Mahalo nui loa, Filll. --Ali'i 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fill got it right. The term "Big Science" does not appear in the film. Saksjn (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then I don't think we should be claiming the film states that. Mahalo for your insight, Saksjn. --Ali'i 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem may be the general attempts to oversimplify. If we wanted to be accurate, we would use less specific headers, and discuss what the movie says rather than reducing it all to two or three points. Part of this also seems to derive from the heavy use of a critical educational website for material. If I were breaking it down, it would probably be 1. Promotion of ID and 2. Claims that ID supporters are persecuted, if we wanted to separate it in this way, but I'd also separate these from the overview and put them into a section more directly described as critical review. Mackan79 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the term "Big Science" does appear in the film. Also, yes excess simplicity can be a bad thing, and I think this article has been over simplified just a little. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow such confusion. And nonsense. --Filll (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Wow such confusion. And nonsense." Care to explain? I would figure it out myself but I'm too confused. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Count me among those who honestly can't tell when Filll is being serious. Mackan79 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not interested in fighting with you or taking the WP:BAIT. But you are not just wrong, but well beyond that.--Filll (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets continue the discussion and drop the insults now. Before the thread got derailed, RC-0722 said "Actually the term "Big Science" does appear in the film.". If the term big science appears in the film, that is what needs to be headlined. Joe3472 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As has been explained here over and over and over and over and over, no. You are incorrect for many reasons. Are you actually practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Well you are doing a good job. But it is not particularly compelling. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I think everyone heard you, the question is whether we should use what the film itself says or what your source that you seem reluctant to actually bring up says in one place but not another. Right here some 7 people seem to support a change, while 3 or 4 seem to think what the article has is accurate. Your contribution appears to be to try to derail the discussion. That aside, I agree with Joe it would be interesting to know what the movie says, if anyone has a quote. I'd still prefer to reorganize the article a little to rely less on our summations of their agenda, but knowing what the movie said on this would certainly help. Mackan79 (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, already we've different accounts from viewers of the message the film conveys, and so we need to use reliable secondary sources rather than using the impressions of editors who've seen the film. .. dave souza, talk 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is world net daily a reliable secondary source? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, no. Well, they're a reliable source for the opinions of their commentators, yes. But they aren't a reliable source when it comes to facts. Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. They are reliable for some things, but not for this for sure. Certainly not to the point of ignoring NCSE and Scientific American and literally hundreds of other sources.--Filll (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But an educational website entitled "Expelled Exposed" is what we should use to summarize the movie's thesis? This seems rather inconsistent. Mackan79 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR requires us to use a reliable secondary source for analysis and interpretation. Don't forget that a film conveys more than the words used in it. ... dave souza, talk 20:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way"[5] A direct quote from Ben Stein. Note the words "Big Science" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"The film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" gives the impression that "Big Science" is suppressing "smart new ideas" in America's classrooms"[6] Once again, note the words "Big Science" in quotation marks. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"literally hundreds of other sources" OK, what are the sources? Give me more than two. Also, can you give me the exact points where they say it is? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ben Stein—law professor, actor, game show host, and now a documentary filmmaker—thinks he has uncovered a plot by the scientific establishment to drum good scientists out of academia merely for expressing their personal beliefs. Has big science decided that science and religion are mutually exclusive? An examination of the battle lines and players in such a drama would make a fascinating movie. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is not that movie." [7] Now, Chemical & Engineering News (a secular, peer-reviewed publication that had a negative response to the movie) says not only "Big Science" but it also equates "Big Science" as the scientific establishment. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know how this game is played. We give you 2, you ask for 4. We give you 4, you ask for 8. We give you 8, you ask for 16. There are many many comments from all sides of this issue that identify the target of their opprobrium as science not just "Big Science". Of course we can find similar comments about biology or organized science or mainstream science etc. Maybe we will dig more up for you. In the meantime, you are not making a very compelling case to get us to ignore two reliable sources and even a contradictory primary source (which we cannot use, but it is telling). --Filll (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, I didn't ask for a specific number of sources. You said you had hundreds of sources backing your claim. All I asked for was the specific statements in the ones you keep mentioning that say it means "science" and not the scientific establishment. Also, I don't play "games" at this level, although I will gladly play you at Star Wars: Battlefront 2 or Halo sometime. Just look up "A Little Girl." BTW, you are retracting your previous statement that you had hundreds of sources backing your claim. Again, all I am asking for is the specific statements (links are prefered) from the two sources you keep referencing that it means science and not scientific establishment. I will give you some links later that say scientific establishment. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No I am not disagreeing that hundreds of sources exist. I just am weighing how many hours I want to devote to what is basically a pointless pursuit, since I know what sort of games are played, thanks.--Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be most interested what the movie says. If it's a question of what the sources say, I've seen many many more sources discussing the target of the criticism as a "scientific establishment," than simply "science." The entire marketing scheme of the movie tries to suggest people have been expelled by this "establishment," and is based on the alleged irony that people would exclude ideas in the name of "science." I've seen Filll point to an educational website to support his claim, but there are many others including the same site which suggest this wasn't accurate. Filll, would you clarify if your hundreds of sources specifically say the movie calls science atheistic, or is it some other point you have in mind? If you're talking about hundreds of sources, I get the feeling we're not talking about the same thing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie is not a reliable source for anything since it is a primary source. How many times do you have to be told this? We even have two different viewers of the movie here who disagree with the movie said. So that is just basically worthless. --Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No its not. Odd nature (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What's not? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] These are just some of the articles I have found, claiming that "Big Science" is simply the scientific establishment. Now, I have contacted Mr. Stein asking for his input on this discussion, and have asked him for the meaning of "Big Science" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stein is not a reliable source on anything. And an email to you or a phone call to you even less so. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. The article on Ben Stein states that it is the scientific community, not science itself. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We can find sources that say:

• Big Science
• biology
• evolution
• Darwinism
• Science
• Science establishment
• Mainstream Science
• Scientists

and so on. All kinds of sources. And we have all kinds of other information that lead us directly to "science". Like what is astrophysics? What is light? What is gravitational theory? What is thermodynamics? And please tell me how you can attack "methodological naturalism" and not attack science itself? At least any science since the Scientific Revolution. So this conversation is just basically nonsense.--Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question. I want the URL or page number of the articles that say that "Big Science" is science. Also, we are not arguing over "what is astrophysics? What is light? What is gravitational theory? What is thermodynamics? And please tell me how you can attack "methodological naturalism" and not attack science itself?" That's not the point, we are trying to decide whether we should rename the section. Also, in Wikipedia's article on Ben Stein, we state that it is not science but the scientific community. In addition, you have yet to give me an exact example of what you are stating, from the sources that you keep touting. All I am getting is quantities; I am not getting an example of what you are stating, whilst I have given you several of what I have stated. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous request. You are setting up a strawman. And if you have been following on the page you know what the relevance of astrophysics,s light, gravity thermodynamics and methodological naturalism are to this question, dont you? You are just engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And who cares about Ben Stein's article? Whatever it says is irrelevant, from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You have had 2 references which you just ignored. I am sure if I gave you 50 more you would just ignore them also. I think the only solution is for you to be blocked for a few days to think it over so you do not continue to violate WP:POINT and WP:DE and WP:TE. What do you say? Sound good to you?--Filll (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(crickets) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two fairly basic fallacies, Filll. First, you appear to be assuming that to reject evolutionary theory is to reject all evidence of it. Second, you're assuming because these things are science, that science is just these things. Of course assumptions aren't all bad, but when you're applying these to what they're said to portray, then it's a problem. My real question is why we don't just say what it is. The Wedge strategy is to portray evolution as atheistic, not science as atheistic unless I'm mistaken. If we want to say it's part of their Wedge strategy, then we should at least get it right. Or even if that had nothing to do with it. It seems like a pretty simple point. Mackan79 (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not assuming such nonsense. You are just spewing a stream of non sequiturs and meaningless foolishness. Why do you want to clog the page with junk? I think you need to be userfied.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Filll) I've checked the archives, and the only ref I missed agrees with me. [14] "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." Now, as I have already said, where are the sources backing your claim? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah nice case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maybe time for some administrative sanctions, right?--Filll (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's OK with everybody, I am going to change the section name to "Portrayal of the scientific establishment as atheistic" RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not ok. We've discussed this already. It contradicts our sources. Guettarda (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it is not OK with everybody. You are arguing tendentiously and now wanting to go and unilaterally edit against consensus. You will be reverted and a huge edit war will start. Is that what you want?--Filll (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There is absolutely no need to change it at this point. --Ali'i 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing here is freaking OK with everybody, nothing ever will be. We just need to find a compromise somewhere. Saksjn (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. There is no compromise between X, which has lots of reliable sources and Y, which is original research. We take RS every time. Expelled attacks science, because it is fundamentally anti-science. That's a statement backed up by reliable sources. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Would putting the word "accusation" in the title ("Accusation that the film is anti-science") be a reasonable compromise? I agree that there are lots of reliable sources for the accusation, but it is an accusation, and not providing that context in the title is what worries me. Any thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "allegation", or "inference", or "delusion"? No, damnit, the film portays science as atheistic. Period. I tire of these lame attempts to make shit smell more like roses. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you people even read my comments? I have given you numerous sources while you have failed to give me even one (but you still insisted that you have hundreds)! No, I do not want to start an edit war, but we have yet to reach a consensus. Now, are you ready to give me your sources? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So why do you conveniently forget the two you were given already, from NCSE and Scientific American? You know when you act in bad faith like this, there really is only one solution: blocking.--Filll (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Injunction

How should be handle this injunction against the movie? Ed Brayton mentions it here [15], Wes Elsberry here[16]. The original source document is a pay-only court ruling, although someone reproduced it in the comments at Brayton's site. Between Ed and Wes we can say pretty reliably that an injunction was handed down against Premise Media preventing the further distribution of the film (pending a May 19 hearing). It's also obvious that I don't know what "further distribution" means. Although they are self-published sources, they're both reliable sources for the opinion of their authors.

I'm leaning towards a bald statement of fact:

In response to the lawsuit by Ono and the Lennons, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19.

Alternately,

Ed Brayton and Wesley Elsberry reported that, in response to the lawsuit by Ono and the Lennons, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19.

(with full refs, of course). Thoughts? Preferences? Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Th

I like, "In response to the lawsuit by Ono and the Lennons, a federal judge in New York issued an injunction preventing the further distribution of the film pending a hearing on May 19." RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the lawsuit is already mentioned, how about "In response to the lawsuit, a federal judge...". (A) "Ono and the Lennons" sounds like the name of a band, and (B) it's then and the recording company who sued Premise Media. Guettarda (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is mentioned now by Uncommon Descent [17] we have people on both sides of the ID debate reporting the injunction. So I think if both agree on something that handles most of the RS issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is mention of the Berlin Wall imagery under the heading of Nazism?

Are the authors of this article that out-of-touch with history? The Berlin Wall was built some 16 years after the eradication of the Nazi party, and it was built to separate the two forces that defeated the Nazis and divided Berlin. I'm removing the reference from that paragraph. Dolewhite (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Attacking the content of the article in this way really is not helpful. At most the organization and headings should be tweaked, rather than just attacking things that people think make the filmmakers look like jerks. Whitewashing this is not going to fly.--Filll (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? He corrected something in the article that was terribly misleading.Joe3472 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point made, although in a rather condescending way. I'll see if that's been fixed yet. Saksjn (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Critical sites

After discussion with JoshuaZ and dave souza, I have two proposals regarding the section Critical sites:

1. Change the heading to Criticism sites. Every time I see 'critical', I think 'crucial sites'.

2. Add a 3rd external reference which includes links and analysis I haven't seen elsewhere.

Opinions, please? Thank you.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism sites" is ungrammatical. Guettarda (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hes right, keep it the way it is. Besides, there has been enough minor tweaking and changing headings and points by just one word or two. Joe3472 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Critical sites does sound a tiny bit misleading... but its nothing major. Lets stick with critical. Saksjn (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but unfortunately words have more than one meaning. "Critical" is the adjectival form of "criticism". The alternative (pro- and anti-) adds an adversarial slant that I think isn't warranted (or rather, isn't something we can prove). Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Sites in Opposition? Oppositional sites?

In the meantime, other sites were brought to my attention, a religious site started up in response to Expelled, the Christian Alliance for Progress, and the American Textbook League.

Does anyone object to these sites?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They're nice sites, and indeed the Clergy Letter Project has its own article, but they make no specific reference to the film. Odd coincidence – while looking at the textbook league page, I found a reference to Glencoe Science: Life Science just as there was a news item on the telly about the road up to Glen Coe ;) . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering Dave, are you from Scotland or England? Just wondering. Saksjn (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to be cautious about turning the article into a link farm.--Filll (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

this edit

Okay, overall the edit needed to be reverted, but this sentence should be kept. So far it's the most accurate description of the tone of the film. Especially it's advertising. "The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions." That is basically the biggest point the film makers were trying to make with the film. 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)