Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Template:Talkbottom

Update on Yoko Ono lawsuit

[1]. This source also gives a firm reliable source for the short nature of the clip in question (which they say is 15 seconds). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather a confusing report, unclear where Tim Wu comes into it apart from being a guru. However, it's evident that there are two court cases, the plaintiff in one being Yoko Ono and the plaintiff in the other being EMI records. Shouuld we expect a better source soon? . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a new source about the legal proceedings yesterday and it says "About 20 to 30 seconds of the song are played in the movie." Paper45tee (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So with all these conflicting sources why don't we just go with the primary source: THE FREAKING MOVIE! Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We really have no practical way to do that. The movie is not like a book or magazine or newspaper article that we can directly quote from to state that it says X or Y. The only way to do this is to time the clip, and that is original research, especially when there are multiple versions of the movie and it is not in the public domain and might be changed, etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and so on, but I'm fairly certain that the length of the clip is far less significant than we take it to be. The key question for fair use is whether something is seen as critical commentary, so you can play the song in a documentary about John Lennon to discuss the composition, but you can't even use a few seconds for background music in a documentary about world peace without obtaining a license. On the Wiki, we can't use book covers to decorate sections, no matter how relevant that book is to the section in question, and making the thumbnail smaller will not make it any more legal :) (Flawed analogy, but at least amusing...) Anyway, I'm arguing here that we should stick with saying "a portion" or something unspecific until the lawsuit is over. Merzul (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Timing a section of a movie is not OR, it's using a primary source. It's the same freaking thing as counting how many paragraphs a section in a book is! Saksjn (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not that simple. We know there are several versions of the movie out there. After this lawsuit, there will be at least one more. When the DVD is released, that will probably be a different version too. Also, songs can fade in, and fade out. So when do you start timing? When do you stop timing? If we send 10 people into the movie with stop watches, we will probably get 10 different answers. To really do it properly, you need a copy of the film you can stop and start (as on a DVD) and do it over and over and over, possibly with a digital timer. In a movie theatre, there is always a delay between the time the song starts and the time that the person starts the stopwatch. The same is true for the end of the song. Then there is the question of how long the lyrics are and how long the music is, since these will not be the same. Then there will be other sounds present, played at the same time as the music, like Ben Stein talking and so on. So that will make it hard to time. The closer you look at this, the more complicated it gets. If it was as easy as counting the words in a paragraph and we all had copies of that paragraph, then fine. But it is not that easy. Not at all.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's really bloody irrelevant how for long the song is used in the movie. AS I said before, let the court decide if it was fair use. All of the wringing of hands going on here about the length of the "snippet" is pointless. Bottom line: Merzul is correct. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article was referred to by a news article

This one here. Can someone edit the talk page so that it mentions this? The Squicks (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you want.--Filll (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming, Squicks, that you meant to say "article" instead of "Talk Page". However, I see no mention of this article in that news article, and could not find any with my browser's Finder. The only mention of Wikipedia on that page is one of the user blog comments that comes after the article. For one thing, an anonymous blog comment is not a reliable, verifiable source. For another, the mention isn't even of this article. It's of the Reductio ad Hitlerum article. Nightscream (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a hidden link in "exploited the memory" just before "of the millions whom Hitler murdered", but although it's an amusing review, it's not of any significance and the article's been linked from more reputable sources. Bit disappointing it's not linked from erudite :-/ Thanks anyway for the link :) . . dave souza, talk 08:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he or she meant that we should add something like the following to this talk page:

	This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
	Template:Press/row

Although, I think this is for when the article is actually being talked about, not just when it is linked to. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazism: first paragraph

The relevant discussion was archived without any decision being made, so let's see if we can do something about the following paragraph.

The film is largely devoted to portraying evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust,^[22][6] a common creationist claim.^{[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]} Richard Weikart, a DI fellow and historian, appears in the movie claiming that Charles Darwin's work influenced Adolf Hitler.^[50][51] As Scientific American notes, the film almost always inaccurately labels the modern theory of evolution with the outdated term "Darwinism" to imply an ideology.^[52]

I have questions about the following issues:

• Is there a reason or just an accident that some refs are at the end, while the ones for the holocaust are not? The footnoting for that sentence is a bit confusing.
• Could we simply remove "a common creationist claim"?
• Maybe change "claiming" to "asserting", although I don't feel strongly about that because "claim" seems to be used for both sides in this article.
• Do something about "As SA notes ... to imply an ideology". The first construction really feels like us endorsing the source. That the film uses the term "Darwinism" to that effect is an opinion, and not a fact. I think it is a very reasonable and well-argued opinion, so it should definitely be included, but it is a subjective assessment so we should not present it as if we also think this assessment is true. Here is my attempt to rewrite this sentence to separate fact and opinion: The film uses the term "Darwinism", which biologist have long abandoned because the modern theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin's ideas alone. John Rennie writes in the Scientific American that this is an attempt to portray evolution not as a evidence based science, but as a dogmatic ideology.

Comments? Merzul (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should reword the last sentence. Also, the term "a common creationist claim" should be removed. I think the reason some refs are at the end and some are not is because that would look something like this: "The film is largely devoted to portraying evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, Planned Parenthood and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust, a common creationist claim.^{[22][6][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]}" Now, to me this looks really cluttered. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm irritated by the numerous "superscript parades" and working on an alternative. But the article has improved. For example, at one time there was even more obsessive emphasis given to connecting the film to creationism with link after link. The link parades result from conflicts on the talk page and have no other value besides building a protective wall against complaints from the talk page. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course we did not have "superscript parades" when it was first written. However, since this movie and article were popular, a raft of visitors came by and messed up the article and the wording and the formatting. And it is a lot of work to go and fix it, and not really worth fixing until the article has quieted down. Otherwise, one's work will just be lost by edit warring etc.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the "a common creationist claim" (or some variant thereof) should stay. Like most (all?) other claims that the movie makes, it is a simple regurgitation of long-discredited claims made by other creationists. Within the immediate DI circle, these same claims have been made in the recent past by both Richard Weikart and Coral Ridge Ministries' Darwin's Deadly Legacy (which several DI members participated in). We could provide numerous more cites to this, but it would result in yet another 'superscript parade'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indication of the fact that it's regurgitating a discredited creationist claim should remain. Amhart's recent article directly adressed the film's use of Weikart's assertions and the part played by Berlinski, so that's a good source.[2] While I can understand the thought behind saying that "link parades result from conflicts on the talk page and have no other value besides building a protective wall against complaints from the talk page", that seems to me an unfair characterisation of sincere attempts to provide sources answering legitimate questions. Now that more sources directly related to the film are becoming available, these references can be reviewed. . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If it stays then it should be reworded to be more accurate with the movie. Why? Because the movie is not about creationism; it is about ID. Creationism is a "subsection," if you will, of IDism. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong way round, see intelligent design and NPOV: Making necessary assumptions. .. dave souza, talk 11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What assumptions should we make? I can't think of any, considering the movie was pretty straight forward in stating it backed the ID movement instead of just creationism. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ID is a subset of Creationism (not vice versa), specifically it is Neo-Creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie makes creationist claims. The movie pushes intelligent design as well. The movie and its promotion link intelligent design and creationism in a way that intelligent design proponents have been unwilling to do in a public forum before. The DI even issued a press release about it at one point. The "common creationist claim" part should remain. If someone is to understand this movie in context, one has to understand what the issues are and a bit of the history. That is, things like intelligent design, creationism, Darwinism, blaming evolution for the Holocaust, blaming evolution for eugenics and planned parenthood (with its obvious allusions to abortion), and so on.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you guys have it backwards. Creationism is a subset of ID, not the other way around. Why? Well, because creationism is the theory that a metaphysical supreme being created us, whilst ID implies that the creator has some level of intelligence, and not necessarily supernatural. (blip) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We have several reliable sources that state the contrary. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Many sources talk of the links to creationism, so it's notable. The link parade is cluttered and I hope we can fix that. But the article at one time went overboard putting undue weight on the association, just overkill. It's much better now. "Expelled supports intelligent design, a form of creationism.[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115] The film claims scientists are punished unfairly if they believe in intelligent design creationism, [12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115] Courts have ruled intelligent design is not a science but a creationist[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115] theory and not a science. (Did you know ID is creationism? Well it is.[12][13][14][15][42][44][75][113][114][115])" It was almost that bad, but it's been much improved.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I am really beginning to doubt that these sources exist. PM, I'm not saying creationism isn't linked to it, what I am saying is that creationism is a subset of ID. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In terms of this article, what difference does it make? The article needs to report what other sources claim about it which these sources also associate to this film. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is simply "what I am saying", lacking a WP:RS, is WP:OR. As an assertion, ID is the least restrictive, and thus does not conflict with any other creationist belief system -- however it is simply one of a wide range of creationist belief-system formulations -- and is thus a subset of creationism. Furthermore, we have a large number of sources stating that ID is a subset of Creationism, not the other way around. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To start with, look at

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s. The scientific and academic communities, along with a US Federal court, view intelligent design as either a form of creationism or as a direct descendant that is closely intertwined with traditional creationism; and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".

That is just a taste. There is a lot more where that came from. In fact, the previous versions of this article had a lot. And guess what? People just like yourself came along and removed them. And then, they complain that they are not there. Oh interesting, huh?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a bit more:

It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and some have even begun referring to it as "intelligent design creationism".

You want more? There is lots more.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, one of the very first New York Times articles about this film called intelligent design a "creationist idea". Of course your ideological cousins in fits of outrage removed that, but it was there. You can find it in the history.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RC0722 - I would recommend the latest edition of Ronald Numbers' The Creationists as a good (and fairly sympathetic) starting point. ID quite clearly is a subset of creationism, and not the other way around. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, thank you for providing refs (finally). Guettarda, 2 things. 1. My name is with a hyphen (-) 2. ID is not clearly a subset of creationism. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RC0722 - ID is most certainly a subset of creationism. I don't know how you can rationally hold the opposite position. 99.245.90.58 (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

Twelve minutes is too long for you to wait? Particularly when the intelligent design and creationism articles are chalk full of this stuff? You never both to read Wikipedia articles on the subjects you are opining about to see what they say? And this argument has been had dozens of times previously on this page, and references provided. In fact, as I said before, one of the first New York Times articles on this movie had it right in the article, which we quoted. Sorry, but I am not impressed with your snide comment. Please strike it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Dean's statement? It is still in the article-see footnote #25.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I refuse to strike my comment. Why? Well because in the past you have verbatimly stated that you had "hundreds of sources" backing your claims, and yet refused to provide them. Thank you for finally providing some evidince backing your claim. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if you will not strike it, then we know what to think of you, don't we? And so you are claiming that I said I had hundreds of sources stating that "ID is a form of creationism" and refused to produce them? Please provide a diff.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A. You know exactly what conversation I was refering to and I'll even give you a clue: it isn't this discussion. B. I don't really care what you and your redshirts think of me. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 18:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• You know exactly what conversation I was refering to and I'll even give you a clue: it isn't this discussion. Then you admit it is completely inappropriate and misleading to bring it up here, right?

• I don't really care what you and your redshirts think of me. Calling other editors "redshirts" probably is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, don't you think? Also, you should care what your fellow editors think of you since this is a collaborative consensual environment.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A. If I cared what everyone thought of me, I would be very depressed. B. This is neither the time nor the place for this discussion. If you have a problem with me, take it somewhere else. (blip) RC-0722 ^361.0/1 18:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Common creationist claim

Let me make it a bit more clear what I don't like about "a common creationist claim". I think the most relevant criticism is the following from Expelled Exposed:

Expelled’s inflammatory implication that Darwin and the science of evolution “led to” eugenics, Nazis, and Stalinism is deeply offensive and detrimental to public discussion and understanding of science, religion, and history.

That view has been echoed in many reviews, hasn't it? That's also the main idea in the current introduction to the discussion about the Nazism issue, but we are over-whelming our readers with footnotes and minor issues, such as "a common creationist claim", which I think distracts from the main criticism expressed in our sources about the film. Merzul (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I will remove our connection that the claim is a common creationist one, until we can find a source that makes that argument directly with respect to the film and that's what we use as a source. Merzul (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think waiting all of about 12 hours means nothing. When the pro-intelligent design proponents here have insisted repeatedly that material stay on the page for a minimum of 120 hours before action is taken, I think 12 hours is a bit short. Particularly when you have previously been told repeatedly that this is a bad idea and many people disagree with you. Strikes me as a very VERY bad move, don't you think?--Filll (talk | wpc) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I got a bit impatient, but well, it is hard to see what I mean unless I make the edit. The end result, thanks to Dave Souza, is that the paragraph in question is more informative. I won't object, if you want to put back "a common creationist claim", and all the refs. My opinion is that it adds very little and gives the impression of a POV-insertion. I don't dispute that this is a common creationist claim, but if it is useful background information, maybe we could consider formulating it in a way that doesn't sound like we are sick and tired of these creationist arguments. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Merzul (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold

I will be bold in fixing this paragraph, it is quite horrible. First, the statement that it is about all the Fascism, Planned Parenthood, etc., is based on Dan Whipple in Coloradio Confidential. Neither names mean anything to me, and he says:

After a half hour or so, "Expelled" wanders off to blame the theory of evolution for Communism, the Berlin Wall, Fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood. One of the few funny parts of the film, though, is Stein's interview with British philosopher of science Richard Dawkins.

I'm trying to find a more accurate source that can at least distinguish a philosopher from a scientist. Merzul (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen it elsewhere but can't recall where just at the minute. Obviously the article developed as very limited sources first became available, and needs to be updated with better references. . . dave souza, talk 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I tried to fix it, but I'm not very happy with the result although I tried my best, too much prose attributions maybe. We can revert that, but I believe very strongly that all those pre-movie refs to back up "a common claim" should be kept out. Merzul (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, though ironically Weikart's statement comes from an (immediately) pre-movie primary source :) Your summary seemed to me to miss the argument Weikard presents, so I've rephrased it and added another source commenting on Weikarts argument and his part in the film. Thanks, . . dave souza, talk 13:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, Dave Souza. I think that context you added is much more interesting than "a common claim". And nice copy-edits as well to make it more close to the sources. Now, some work to integrate the flow a bit and basically it's done. I have to go now, will check tomorrow, just wanted to thank you for those edits. Merzul (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I read it again now, and there is no problem with the flow, incredible copy-editing skills there. I probably had fragments of my own writing haunting me :) The next paragraph might disrupt the flow, but I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do about it. Merzul (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Documentary says ...

Funny this should come from me, one of the biggest fans ofWP:WTA, but isn't the construction "documentary which says" a little too much newspaper headline style? I'm not native English, but it sounds a bit strange to my ears; while for some reason "claim" didn't sound strange. What do native speakers think, although I guess Will Beback is a native speaker, hmmm... Merzul (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixing... RC-0722 ^361.0/1 12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done RC-0722 ^361.0/1 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No longer running in the theaters

Sorry if this has already been noted here - can't be bothered searching the archives.

Expelled is not on the list of theaters for this week. [3]

So it had a total run of five weeks. [4] [5] [6]

I'm wondering about the economics. Those three sites say the gross income was approx. $7.5 mil. But what percentage of the gross goes back to the producers, after the theaters get their cut and the marketing is paid for? On IMDB it says the film had a budget of approx. $3.5 mil. Did they make money or lose? (Do they care about the money - they presumably have other motives.) --RenniePet (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the distributor gets about half of that, and I don't think advertising is counted in the film's budget, so it probably lost money. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, advertising is (most of the time) accounted for in the budget. As for individual theaters I have no clue. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, other almost as unreliable commentators say that the budget doesn't include advertising, and that the producers stated that they'd spent a multiple of the budget on advertising. Verification needed. .. dave souza, talk 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was still in 83 venues as of 22 May.[7] Reports of death may be premature ;) . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. (I'm sure it wasn't on the list when I posted my message, but it's always possible I made a mistake...) --RenniePet (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Actually, other almost as unreliable commentators say that the budget doesn't include advertising, and that the producers stated that they'd spent a multiple of the budget on advertising. Verification needed." Wow. I'm unreliable now? Well, I will have you know that I don't need to source it because I had no intention of putting it in the article. Good day. (blip) RC-0722 ^361.0/1 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note this down, this means the fifth week had 210 theatres, and the sixth 83. It'll probably dribble on in one or two theatres for a while, but its days are definitely numbered, and the chance to see it has passed for most. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to my morning newspaper, it's still playing in one theater in the area.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Check the movies website for current theater locations http://www.expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

THis is relevant how? All movies released to theatres run out of theatres willing/wanting/needing to show it eventually. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is relevant because the section title is "No longer running in the theaters" and Matehzar posted a link to current theater locations. If there is any doubt to the accuracy of that list, the theaters could be called to confirm showtimes. Calebb (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Writer's credentials

I am interested in the credentials of the writer of this entry.

Specifically, has he actually seen the movie?

Did he research the web sites of the "Expelled," to get there take on the events in their lives.

Does the writer hold any positions from well know groups that have come out against this film.

This article strikes me as something that would be better suited for Free Inquiry, not as an article for an Encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has many editors working on it. I saw the film but my opinion does not belong in the article. The article has almost 200 footnotes, including many from sources involved in the film, so it can't be faulted for lack of references. The affiliations of the sources cited may have significance here, not the editors'. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)