Jump to content

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
234,552 edits
Line 21: Line 21:


I propose that it be immediately removed. Does anyone want to try to defend the intellectual "value" of this particular video? [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose that it be immediately removed. Does anyone want to try to defend the intellectual "value" of this particular video? [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== Sternberg peer review controversy 1 ==

I am again proposing that the section of the Sternberg section that states that he circumvented the peer review process be removed. Based on the quote from BSW president Dr. McDiarmid. The quote is contained in the Souder Staff report (link here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489 ) and reads as follows:
:I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process.
Dave Souza claims that this quote cannot be used as reason to remove the section in the Sternberg section, claiming that the source is not reliable and that the report was never entered into the congressional record. But has failed to produce any evidence that the quote is false or a fabrication.

To be clear I am not using the findings of the report as a reference, merely the quote. The quote is not disputed at all that I could find, and it definitely casts doubt over the Sternberg section as it is currently written (ie he circumvented the standard peer review process).

Based on the facts, I believe it is appropriate to remove the section of the Sternberg article that falsely accuses him of circumventing the peer review process.

BTW, Dave, with all due respect, I know your thoughts on this (even though I will admit I feel that we are talking past each other on this issue), so please don't bother to respond to this post unless you can provide direct evidence that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 13:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


*Here we go: I tried to submit that congressional report over a year ago and it was refused on the basis that it came from a "fringe source." When I replied that I hardly thought the US Congress to be a fringe source I was informed that it was ''published'' by the Discovery Institute, deemed a fringe source by Wikipedia. So, here it is from Rep. Souder himself:
http://souder.house.gov/system/uploads/31/original/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf?1254246064

And we could call this the "cover sheet": http://souder.house.gov/pages/intelligent-design

However, I should say this is an indisputably ''political'' source, NOT a scientific one. (The irony of a political source criticizing politics in science keeps me from getting my knickers in too tight a knot here.) Rep. Souder admits--or declares, however you want to spin it--that he bases his investigations and statements on his religious beliefs. So, I do definitely believe his report should be included in this article which deals with a non-scientific movie demanding the freedom to question some tenets of Darwinian evolution, but would certainly not belong in a scientific discussion of evolution or human origins or the origin of life. My understanding is that this article should report reviews on the movie and briefly discuss controversies regarding it. It should not "deal" with it in the sense of promoting or insulting it or making a final judgment on its worth. [[User:Yopienso|Yopienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 07:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

::Yopienso, Would you support my proposal to just remove the section of the Sternberg article that discusses the peer review process? Again, my goal is to make this article shorter and better, and not clog it up with a bunch of "he said, she said," citations. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I've responded on your talk page. [[User:Yopienso|Yopienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

I believe that this article lacks NPOV. Those editing the article appear to be using words and phrases that have a negative connotation instead of using more diplomatic ones. (ie "claims", as opposed to "according to"; or "alleges", as opposed to "reports" or something less inflammatory).

At the very least, I'd like to state that adding the tag for contested NPOV is simply an admission that NPOV is contested, not that the article is incorrect. [[Special:Contributions/192.158.61.142|192.158.61.142]] ([[User talk:192.158.61.142|talk]]) 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

::Actually, looking through the archives, I see that people who are editing this article have a HUGE POV issue. They should voluntarily remove themselves from the editing of this article, as they cannot possibly edit in good faith on this topic. I came here from the Ben Stein article (Bueller, Bueller) and am horrified at the sheer unabashed nature of the bias. This was just after looking at Archive 12. "Reality has a liberal bias", "Happy Darwin Day", etc. and allowing edits from an organization criticized in this film is inappropriate. I propose that the editors of the Barolo article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barolo be asked to re-write this article, and hope for a NPOV outcome :).--[[Special:Contributions/74.209.23.88|74.209.23.88]] ([[User talk:74.209.23.88|talk]]) 00:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is completely void of objectivity. The author of the article clearly has the agenda of discrediting the film.{{unsigned2|15:53, 17 October 2009|66.69.157.58 }}

:The film clearly has the agenda of discrediting science, as shown by the reliable third party expert sources used as a basis for this article. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 19:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::Dave, Why should you care if this film has an agenda? And the main "reliable" third party source for this article is NCSE, an organization that was made to look pretty stupid by the makers of this film. Remove ALL NCSE citations in this article and then I may listen to your other suggestions. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The NCSE well represents mainstream science, which this article required is required to show, giving it [[WP:WEIGHT|due weight]] and showing how mainstream scientists receive the arguments in this film as required by [[WP:PSCI]]. Whether or not you listen is irrelevant. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::"which this article required is required to show" Dave, You seem to be tripping over your words a little here. I reject the notion that NCSE is the main voice of the scientific community. That is simply a gross over simplification. I will make my point once again, and I will use small words so you won't get confused. The NCSE is not a good source for this movie, since they were made to look stupid by the makers of this movie. No one can make the intelligent argument that the NCSE is driven solely by their love of science when they attacked "Expelled." [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::"Remove ALL NCSE citations in this article and then I may listen to your other suggestions". To begin with, this isn't about satisfying you. It's about writing encyclopaedic content that is in keeping with the content policies of the site. Obviously NCSE is a reliable source, and is recognised as such by experts. But more to the point, ''what'' do you want removed from the article? EE is used as a source for quotes from the movie. Are you saying that they misquoted it? Which ones do you consider misquotes? EE is used as a source for the opinions of the NCSE. If, as you say, "they were made to look stupid" then their opinion is ''highly'' relevant. If what you say is true, then NPOV requires that their views be posted. Finally, EE is used as a source for other statements ''in conjunction with'' other sources. In those cases, removing the link to EE would change no content, but would remove a reliable source that's readily accessible and easy to understand. So what are you asking for, and how would that request be in any way in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia and its governing content policies? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::Here is a great idea. Use Expelled Exposed, but put all references to that website in it's own section (a subsection of response to the film). But make it clear that Eugenie Scott, the head of the Exec Dir of the NCSE, was portrayed unfavorably in the film and that Expelled Exposed was created by the NCSE. I would just like to see the "information" put out by the NCSE to be put in some sort of context.[[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 09:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::So you're saying you want all the quotes from the movie separated and moved into their own section, along with the commentary from the NCSE? What sort of sense would that make. If you have problems with the material that's sourced to EE, you need to explain ''why'' you think that material shouldn't be there. So let's start with something specific: which of the quotes from the movie, sourced to EE, do you believe to be inaccurate? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I have been battling some editor names Charles Somethingorother over the inclusion of the lie that Sternberg controversy section of the article. There is a blatant lie that I tried to remove, and in response I was accused of vandalism! I really don't want to play the game of battle of the quotes in this article because it is already long enough. But if I am going to be falsely accused of vandalism I guess I can play the same game that the editors of this page have been, that is loading up this page with numerous quotes. So to answer your question the part that says that Sternberg circumvented the peer review process is a flat out lie, and is taken directly from the talking points given to those involved at the Smithsonian by the NCSE.[[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 20:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::So, you think statements by the NCSE and the Council of the Biological Society of Washington are "lies" and so want to deleted them because, um, you sorta Know they're lies? These are reliable sources, if you've got a reliable source disputing their statements do please present it here rather than edit warring to remove properly sourced information. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::If the circumvention of peer review is a lie then it should be removed. Now, what evidence do we have that it is? Without a good source for that we have little to go on. NCSE is in general a reliable source, but in this case we have a film attacking them, so a defense of "the attacks against NCSE are unfounded because NCSE said so and they're a reliable source" is going to carry all that much weight. -[[User:R. fiend|R. fiend]] ([[User talk:R. fiend|talk]]) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Moreover, Shermer and the BSW ignore that in less-politicized statements, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian, admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer's paper:
:::::::::::I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process. (See Report, e-mail from Roy McDiarmid, "Re: Request for information," January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM to Hans Sues, emphasis added.)
::::::::::This is from the Discovery Institute website and is a direct quote from page 24 of the congressional inquiry into the matter. The original source is clearly unreliable (and a lie even though I have been told that Wikipedia is not necessarily interested in posting things that are true). Mathezar [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 08:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:{{unindent}} Regarding "congressional inquiry into the matter" note that "The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record."[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=2] You're putting the spin of an unreliable source up against reliable sources. Roy McDiarmid said it was "a really bad judgment call on the editor's part" and "acknowledged that the paper had been reviewed by three scientists and recommended for publication pending revisions. Doubts have been raised, however, whether the reviewers were evolutionary biologists."[http://sa2.info/ARCHIVE/2004/10octA.html] That was before the publications, and there appear to have been other irregularities in the [[Sternberg peer review controversy]] which is the main article on that topic. .. [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

::Dave, The article does not address Sternberg's judgment at all!

:::He circumvented the journal's standard reviewing process to include the controversial paper, which argued that the development of phyla during the Cambrian explosion was not fully explained by evolution. The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.

:: It seems pretty clear the way the this post was written that "He circumvented the journal's standard reviewing process." Am I missing something, or are you just circling the wagons here? I am not denying that the BSW changed their tune after the fact. But, I think that the earlier sources are the more reliable ones. And to question the veracity of the government report is just plain nonsense. If I was using the entire report to make my case I might concede you your point. But I am focusing on the quote from Dr. McDiarmid. Do you have any evidence at all that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication? Please get your facts together and get back to me soon. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 10:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

::: So Dave, what is your response? Does this post address Sternberg's "lack of judgement," or does it simply say that "He circumvented the standard reviewing process"? Do you have any evidence that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication? Based on the facts, how can anyone agree that this passage should remain in this article? I apologize for being a little heavy handed here, but when I am accused of VANDALISM for trying to improve this article, especially when the facts should be justification for what I did, I will admit that I am taking this attack personally. And why you got involved in defending this nonsense about Sternberg without backing up your claims with the facts that is more than a little annoying to me. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 11:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

::::Dave, Your silence is deafening. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::And your rudeness is amazing. He's a volunteer, and its the weekend. He's not your employee, and you're not his customer, that there is any time constraint on him to jump when you want him to jump. Are you this peremptory to waitresses too? [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::I have not been rude to Dave, nor am I a vandal. Nor did I accuse editors of lying. I just have little patience for poorly thought out arguments :) [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, you're being very rude, but if you lack the manners to wait patiently until Dave posts, or if after a week or so he hasn't responded place a '''polite''' message on his talk page to ask if he's seen this and '''politely request''' a response, then at least have some tiny bit of courtesy for the rest of us, who do not want to see you clutter up the page and have to wade through you bitching at Dave in order to find the posts with actual content trying to work out how to improve the article. Right now, you're just rude spam at one editor. Stop it. Its not polite, and its against talk page guidelines. Learn some patience, and treat your fellow editors with respect. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


:::::::::::My intent is to remove the portion of the Sternberg article that claims that the Meyer paper was not properly peer reviewed. The above quote shows that it was peer reviewed PRIOR to its publication by Dr. McDiarmid. This quote clearly shows that the BSW source used in this article was a fabrication dreamed up by the BSW after they were called on the carpet by the NCSE. I think a couple of days is enough time for someone to attempt to rebut the aforementioned facts, at which point I will simply remove the erroneous passage. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 09:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
:{{unindent}} The reliable sources commenting specifically on this film state the peer review was not done properly, you're producing an unreliable source unrelated to the film quoting a partisan report and trying to synthesise a claim that the reliable sources are wrong. You seem to be proposing taking your arguments up on the talk page of the Sternberg article which is the right place, but don't remove properly sourced content. Talk first, preferably presenting your arguments and sources before adding what appear to be fringe view arguments into the article. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
::Dave, I reject the validity of the sources saying that the peer review process was circumvented at the article claims. You are free to find any source that says the congressional report misquoted McDiarmid. The source you posted regarding the McDiarmid quote confirmed what was in the congressional report. If the standard of reliable source is that they cannot be from a biased source and it has to be part of the congressional record then I would say that all the sources in this article should be tossed in the bin. I am not proposing adding fringe views to the article, I would simply like a properly sourced lie removed from the article. There were two parties involved in this controversy Sternberg and BSW. In this Wiki article Sternberg's side of the story has been all but ignored because it is seen as biased, but can't the same thing be said about the BSW's side story? But instead the BSW's lie has been bought hook, line, and sinker. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 06:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
:::"you're producing an unreliable source unrelated to the film quoting a partisan report and trying to synthesise a claim that the reliable sources are wrong." No I haven't, I am using a quote from a congressional report that is undisputed to make the point that Sternberg had properly followed the peer review process. Like I said before you are free to present ANY evidence that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication. It seems funny to me that labeling someone pro-ID is reason enough to have them branded an unreliable source, but sources that are anti-ID don't get the same treatment. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 06:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
::::As shown by the cited source, the partisan report organised by Rep. Souder is indeed disputed, and you're taking your quote from the discredited Discovery Institute, noted for quote mining. Your personal view giving credence to such sources does not alter the point that the NCSE and Scientific American are reputable sources on science and science education, giving mainstream views and not the fringe views promoted by the DI. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::I am not disputing that the CURRENT position of the BSW is what is represented in the article. But it is in direct conflict with a reliable quote from the president of the the BSW made earlier (ie Sternberg followed proper peer review procedures, and then no he didn't follow them). They both cannot be correct. This raises enough doubt about either quote that niether can be seen as reliable. So any mention about the peer review process is thus tainted. [[User:Mathezar|Mathezar]] ([[User talk:Mathezar|talk]]) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The structure of the article itself seems to be more of a critique of the film, rather than a description. Each section is followed by a rebuttal, instead of simply presenting what the movie was about. All of the criticism or debunking should be left to a "Criticism" or "Reception" section, instead of being integrated into every paragraph. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.97.252.83|129.97.252.83]] ([[User talk:129.97.252.83|talk]]) 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



:Your proposal fails [[WP:GEVAL]] and [[WP:STRUCTURE]]. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 19:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

*Wow. The bias in this article is absurd and ridiculous. This is simply a liberal critique of the film, and is completely geared towards negating the movie. This article needs some serious improvement. --<font face="Pegasus"><span style="border: 1px solid black">[[User:LostpediaCTS|'''<span style="background-color: white; color: #E3170D">&nbsp;CTS </span>''']][[User_talk:LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp; Contribs </span>]]</span></font> 02:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
::Your reactionary opinion is unsupported by the overwhelming majority of [[WP:V|reliable third party published views]] about the film. [[Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner|Remember]] that [[q:Stephen Colbert|reality has a well-known liberal bias]]. . . . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 10:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Saying that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" is not only a nonsensical statement, but it is also a completely arrogant statement. How could you even pretend that this article is not biased? In the opening paragraph it states that ''One of the few positive reviews appeared in Christianity Today.'' Not only is this untrue (because I have found numerous credible sources that give a positive review to the movie) but it is also a direct smear on the movie. This article is geared towards shining a negative light on the movie RATHER than talking about the perspectives and viewpoints given in the movie. The amount of predilection and bias in this article is definitely in plain sight. Maybe try reading [[WP:NPOV]]. --<font face="Pegasus"><span style="border: 1px solid black">[[User:LostpediaCTS|'''<span style="background-color: white; color: #E3170D">&nbsp;CTS </span>''']][[User_talk:LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp; Contribs </span>]]</span></font> 00:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Did you even read the link Dave souza provided? Reality -- as well as neutrality, evidently -- does indeed have a liberal bias to people who feel that anything that doesn't conform to a conservative viewpoint must be liberal. I guess your user page shows where you stand.
::::Wikipedia must reference sources that comply with two policies [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. The "bias" you perceive in this article is merely a reflection of what the sources say. If you can find more acceptable sources, or clean up the article, go for it. Better yet, suggest your changes here. That would be far more productive than whining about "liberal bias" when something conflicts with your personal views. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::Just because something is liberally biased does not mean it conflicts with my personal views. You're right, the best thing for me to do would be to attempt to add neutrality to this article -- unfortunately, I fear that every attempt I make will be reverted (judging on viewing the page history and previous archived discussions on this article). I think you're getting the word "reality" confused with "human populace," because reality can be synonymous to sensibility and validity. Perhaps the human populace has an INITIAL liberal bias, but that doesn't mean that reality is liberally biased. The reason I'm saying that this article is biased is because the "reliable sources" listed do not reflect a neutral perspective on the movie (since this movie did not solely receive negative reviews, there is a plethora of positive reviews from reliable sources that I have found). --<font face="Pegasus"><span style="border: 1px solid black">[[User:LostpediaCTS|'''<span style="background-color: white; color: #E3170D">&nbsp;CTS </span>''']][[User_talk:LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp; Contribs </span>]]</span></font> 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::Speaking of reliable sources, may I congratulate you on your user page quote from Harun Yahya, the only man to find proof of Divine Creation in a fishing lure, complete with hook. There must be a parable there. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Be nice, ask for the [[WP:RS|reliable third party sources]] that support his POV. Please CTS, post them here are lets discuss them. -- [[User:KimvdLinde|Kim van der Linde]] <sup>[[User talk:KimvdLinde|at venus]]</sup> 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, here are a few reliable sources for the movie that can be used:<br>[http://screenrant.com/review-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-vic-1530/ Screen Rant Review]<br>[http://spectator.org/archives/2008/02/19/no-intelligence-allowed American Spectator Review]<br>--<font face="Pegasus"><span style="border: 1px solid black">[[User:LostpediaCTS|'''<span style="background-color: white; color: #E3170D">&nbsp;CTS </span>''']][[User_talk:LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp; Contribs </span>]]</span></font> 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Very good. One more or less neutral source and one admittedly non-neutral source. Both are well written and thoughtful reviews. No matter. Now, how do you suggest they be incorporated into the article? Do you have any text to suggest, or existing text you might modify? ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:I think one place to incorporate these reviews could be in the lead. The lead is currently slanted towards the negative reviews of ''Expelled''. I don't think we should remove the negative reviews from the lead, but I think we should integrate one of the above reviews into the lead as well. --<font face="Pegasus"><span style="border: 1px solid black">[[User:LostpediaCTS|'''<span style="background-color: white; color: #E3170D">&nbsp;CTS </span>''']][[User_talk:LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp;Talk&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/LostpediaCTS|<span style="background-color: #CD2626; color: white">&nbsp; Contribs </span>]]</span></font> 03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

::No, that isn't the purpose of the lead section in any Wikipedia article. Per [[WP:LEAD]], the lead section is for summarizing the body of the article. If something isn't mentioned in the body, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.
::I think most of the reviewer comments currently in the lead don't belong there; it's enough to say that the film's reviews were "largely unfavorable" and provide some primary reasons, and use the Reception section for explaining details and providing quotations.
::A quotation should go in the lead only if a particularly notable review or reviewer said something. Any detail about reviews should go in the Reception section. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Don't forget that the lead is summarising a section which itself is a summary of [[Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]. The two new sources found to support the idea of many positive reviews fit the pattern, but were not noted at the time as far as I recall, possibly because the reviewers are not among those chosen by aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes as significant enough to feature. Any rephrasing of the lead has to give due weight to the majority expert opinion of reviewers, and Rotten Tomatoes summarised that. At the same time there were a minority of more or less favourable reviews: Screen Rant Review has an interesting summary – "Short version: Your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design." The term [[Darwinism]] does of course imply an opinion swayed by anti-evolution sentiment, as the term doesn't have that meaning in science, and there were reviewers whose politics would have suggested support for the religious right who thought it a badly made film. So, add these to the other reviews considered in the detailed article, and lets see if we can work out a suitable summary for this article. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 10:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. The only reason people would make such an article is because they are infuriated because Ben Stein made them look like fools. Not only is the article more biased than any other page on wikipedia, but it is defended and called unbiased by people who claim that they have "the majority" and "expert critics" on their side. The article is written subjectively and is defended with highly subjective language. The fact remains that even if 99.9% of people on earth support one side of an issue, the other side should be represented, even if the other side is considered entirely ridiculous by the vast majority of people. I hope those who believe that "the 'experts' are always right" will come to remember people like Einstein and Gallileo, who proved them all wrong. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.201.169.94|67.201.169.94]] ([[User talk:67.201.169.94|talk]]) 22:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Wrong. What you suggest doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy, specifically the one about [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. If 99.9% of reliable sources agree in their view on a subject, then that view should get proportional coverage in an encyclopedia article. That's the way neutrality works. Wikipedia isn't a forum where all sides get equal time. Wikipedia merely ''reports'' in a way that doesn't give undue weight to one side, based on what verifiable and reliable sources say. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 05:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
::Er...would that be the same Galileo who was initially told by the church authorities that his heliocentric theory of planetary motion could only be discussed as a hypothesis, not as observed fact, because it contradicted certain verses of the bible? Later, before his works were banned altogether, he was instructed by the pope to give equal weight to the geocentric view in his writing, and to include the pope's own words. Any of this sound familiar?--[[User:Charlesdrakew|Charles]] ([[User talk:Charlesdrakew|talk]]) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:::The anon's argument is a [[Non sequitur]]. Galileo wasn't an encyclopedia, which has the purpose of reporting consensus based on verifiable and reliable sources. Scientists and researchers don't share that purpose. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The other anon's argument may not be entirely correct, but its point remains valid. Besides, for the representation that is present in that article to be the way it is, 100% of people would have to be completely against the film. (please note that not everyone who believes in the Bible follows the pope). And if what you people say about "a person's opinion of the film is directly related to their views on evolution vs. creation", then the vast majority of people would actually be in support of the film.
It is truly absurd when people ignore truth because of technicalities. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.201.169.94|67.201.169.94]] ([[User talk:67.201.169.94|talk]]) 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That's the first time I've seen the [[Galileo Gambit]] used seriously. Well done BON. [[User:TheresaWilson|TheresaWilson]] ([[User talk:TheresaWilson|talk]]) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


== Second Sentence ==
== Second Sentence ==

Revision as of 03:37, 25 February 2010

Sexpelled, Should it be removed?

I saw that the Dawkins video "Sexpelled," is both mentioned and linked in this article. Has anyone taken the time to watch this video. If I may be so bold as to offer up my humble opinion, it is childish, moronic, and should be considered beneath the editors of this article.

I propose that it be immediately removed. Does anyone want to try to defend the intellectual "value" of this particular video? Mathezar (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sentence

I reverted a good faith edit of the 2nd sentence just now (reason for the edit was that the sentence was long and unweildy), not because I disagree that it's too long, but that the edit took out information that might be important to have in the lede. I'm up for discussion about trimming it down without removing important content, though. Quietmarc (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Question?

Shouldn't sections, or at least portions of 2.3-5 be put under Reception, and given the subtitles of Controversy of the Film? Other articles on WIKI do this type of structure when a topic, as well as its issues that it brings up become this extensive. --AKIRA70 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask this question because of the vast amount of inferences and implied language in the article sections 2.3-5 which seem to subtlety imply the reviews for and the reaction of the film, and not directly stating summaries of the film (More like what happen behind the scenes). Either as an attempt to shed light behind the scenes or a reaction, nevertheless, should be put in a different section. Possibly since this article has even acquired a separate article titled "Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", maybe they should be put there.--AKIRA70 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sternberg peer review controversy 2

I am again proposing that the section of the Sternberg section that states that he circumvented the peer review process be removed. Based on the quote from BSW president Dr. McDiarmid. The quote is contained in the Souder Staff report (link here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489 ) and reads as follows:

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process.

Dave Souza claims that this quote cannot be used as reason to remove the section in the Sternberg section, claiming that the source is not reliable and that the report was never entered into the congressional record. But has failed to produce any evidence that the quote is false or a fabrication.

To be clear I am not using the findings of the report as a reference, merely the quote. The quote is not disputed at all that I could find, and it definitely casts doubt over the Sternberg section as it is currently written (ie he circumvented the standard peer review process).

Based on the facts, I believe it is appropriate to remove the section of the Sternberg article that falsely accuses him of circumventing the peer review process.

BTW, Dave, with all due respect, I know your thoughts on this (even though I will admit I feel that we are talking past each other on this issue), so please don't bother to respond to this post unless you can provide direct evidence that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication. Mathezar (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HEAR WP:DR. You are becoming disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The master of the baseless accusations strikes again. Mathezar (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have an entire article on this: Sternberg peer review controversy, so it seems whatever we say here should reflect that article. I looked over it quickly, and will look into this matter when I have more time, but it seems that the article in question was peer reviewed, but there have been credible, widespread accusations that the review process was flawed. Why don't we just say that here? That seems it would go a substantial way towards building a consensus and trying to make sure the article is NPOV. -R. fiend (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the above article is that Sternberg was the sole reviewer. He claims that there were three others, but cannot or will not name them. The list of peer reviewers for that year is missing. Meyer's paper has been repudiated by the journal. Given these facts describing the review process as flawed seems to be putting it politely. I do not agree to removing the section.--Charles (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking a bit more carefully, it seems you summed it up pretty well. Perhaps the article should basically say what you just did? Although I do have concerns about getting overly detailed on this single point.
Anyway, Mathezar, I think the place for you to bring up the quote you're so adamant about would be at Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy; it's really out of the scope of this article. -R. fiend (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
R. fiend, Thanks for the advice. Where were you a week ago when I was battling Dave and Killer Chihuahua for what turns out to be no reason. I have posted something on the Sternberg discussion page. We'll see what happens there. If my argument works there I'll be back! Mathezar (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have read the Sternberg peer review controversy, and find it more balanced on the peer review process than R. fiend and Charles have made it out. The most biased statements regarding Sternberg appear here and at Richard Sternberg. So I am raising my concerns on the Wiki post that is devoted to Richard Sternberg. The interesting thing is that besides complaining about Sternberg's refusal to name the peer reviewers (which may or may not be abnormal) there is very little specific information that Sternberg did anything wrong. And for this he is assumed to be a liar by the editors of Wikipedia. Hmmm.
R. fiend, if I get a concession for the McDiarmid quote there, will that suffice to get the peer review section changed here? Mathezar (talk)
I'm not taking sides with anything or making any promises. It seems to me people on both sides of the argument are letting their personal opinions effect the article, which ain't good (I think the extended argument over the propaganda category was a prime example of that). Likewise I have some qualms about the overall tone of the article, but factual accuracy is a more important matter for the time being. We need to keep in mind that the Sternberg peer review issue is just a couple sentences out of a very long article (too long, in my opinion, but that's not the issue here), the details of which belong in the article on the controversy itself. This article should summarize that one very briefly and succinctly, which at the moment it seems like it does, though certainly there's always the possibility of further compromise on the phrasing.
Now, as for withholding the names of the other reviewers, I can't say with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure that is highly abnormal, and a very questionable action. Doing so in itself appears to "circumvent the journal's standard reviewing process" which is not the same thing as saying no peer review of any kind occurred. Honestly, I haven't examined this controversy in any great detail, and would like not to have to, but it seems that the most the McDiarmid quote would do is give support Sternberg's case. But there's a difference between giving support to a side and proving the other side wrong, which the quote in itself isn't going to do. I can't see it being a slam dunk. That being said, while it doesn't belong in this article, I don't know of any reason it should be excluded from Sternberg peer review controversy, though again, I haven't examined the issue in any detail. -R. fiend (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • In response to the above statement, "Now, as for withholding the names of the other reviewers, I can't say with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure that is highly abnormal, and a very questionable action." That would have to be verified.

I am unable to access this journal online, but found Google turns up "Results 1 - 10 of about 13,900 for anonymous referee Biological Society of Washington. Also, "1,772 articles found for: anonymous referee Biological Society of Washington" at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=1216019523&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=232c90c24c3376b6db5b586dd1feed99 This site http://atiniui.nhm.org/pdfs/11422/11422.pdf says "Two anonymous referees improved the quality of the manuscript, for which we are grateful."

In addition, the Fish Physiology and Biochemistry journal http://www.springerlink.com/content/q2q9800w3wv45h57/ lists referees with the disclaimer, "This list does not include the anonymous reviewers of papers submitted to the journal by the editors." Also, the official journal of the Society for Developmental Biology http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622816/preface1 follows this rule:

Type of Peer Review
This journal employs blind review, whereby the referees remain anonymous throughout the process.

There are many other such references, so it's safe to say Sternberg followed standard procedure in permitting or choosing anonymous reviewers. You can bet he would have already been thoroughly roasted by his critics had that not been acceptable. I am unable to find more detailed rules regarding submissions to the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington beyond this http://www.brynmawr.edu/biology/BSW/contributors.pdf that says "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees."

Much more importantly for the purposes of this discussion is the fact that Nature magazine reported:

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design
Jim Giles
Abstract
Critics of evolution score publishing success
A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism.A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/431114a.html

The Scientist.com likewise reported,
It was the first pro-ID article to be published in a refereed publication, raising concern among some scientists that it might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design.

Read more: Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/38440&id=38440#comments#ixzz0gE5W5Syx

Yopienso (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is just a clunky, useless mess that duplicates mostly sufficient material that is already on this article. The information that appears there but not here should be trimmed down and merged. Seregain (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. trim ... trim... trims are warranted here.Professor marginalia (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to make sense to me. Such controversies aren't staggeringly important anyway. -R. fiend (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Yopienso (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&oldid=346227644"