Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Template:Talkbottom

Anti-ID Screed

This article has the tone of an anti-intelligent design screed. It's irrelevant to whether ID has any truth to it or not. Wikipedia should not be the place to slam a certain stance (whether wacko or not) all the while claiming to be neutral. Why not just write EVOLUTION IS FACT AND ID SUCKS, EVOLUTION IS FACT AND ID SUCKS and be done with the article? I strongly disagree with a lot of the wording in this article. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in detail, see NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity" for basis of article consensus. .. dave souza, talk 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. This article is terribly biased, and is being used as a soapbox to rant against ID. Go read the articles about other controversial films, and there is no criticism of the content of the films in the opening paragraph. See bowling for columbine, an inconvenient truth, sicko. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, and intelligent design.--Filll (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You should refer to those policies. Because according to the policies you cited, this article is quite biased. Furthermore, if you read this talk page, the majority opinion seems to be that this article is biased, and several users have complained about it being used as a soapbox. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD-'"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

The poor state of leads in other articles is not any reason to deplore the state of this one. This is an issue of systemic bias. Please feel free to lend a hand, without grinding an axe of course.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but I believe you are mistaken.--Filll (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, just recognize that you seem to be going against precedent. I believe that makes the opening somewhat biased. I also think it may be giving undue weight to criticism of ID, although a short evaluation of ID certainly does belong in the article. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

These other films are propaganda for pseudoscience in the same way as this film? See the NPOV references I've pointed out, which make specific provision for pseudoscience. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what side of the debate you're on. Ask a conservative, and they'd say bowling for columbine was unsubstantiated, pseudoscientific propaganda for the leftist gun control lobby. They'd tell you that Michael Moore lied and manufactured statistics, whereas the "consensus of the experts" is that responsible gun ownership reduces crime. And if you ask a liberal, or a supporter of gun control, they'd say people that oppose gun control are assault-rifle owning militia members that lie about the crime-reducing effects of reasonable gun control, and that the "consensus of the experts" is that gun control is good. This is the danger in labeling any widely-held position as "pseudoscience"; by calling something pseudoscience, you are taking sides, and wikipedia isn't supposed to do this. GusChiggins21 (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh so bowling for columbine and sicko were supposed to be about science? Interesting claim. An inconvenient truth is nominally about science, but I would not be surprised if the article is poorly written. To get an NPOV version might be a huge amount of work. You are free to try to do it though.--Filll (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Social sciences are capable of producing pseudoscience. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they are. As a political science instructor, teaching classes at both a State college and a Christian college, I am amazed at the amount of pseudoscience that passes itself off as "truth" in the social sciences -- and I'm talking about notable textbooks used in classrooms, not just obvious examples like Bowling for Columbine and Sicko. --profg ^Talk 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is without a doubt that the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as science and, frankly, espouses it as an ideology. It's fully ensconced in the scientific culture. This, however, is a movie. Look at Bowling For Columbine, since it was mentioned. THAT is how this article should begin. "Expelled is a controversial movie promoting intelligent design." Not "EVOLUTION is true, here are the links to prove it." "ID sucks and here are the studies to back it." Those links should be used on the specific article pages. (And this article does seem rant-like at times.) Again, I protest much of the wording of this article. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<ui> Looks like you chaps haven't been paying attention to NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and the film itself. From all I've seen, the subject of the film is scientists and biology teachers. As Doctorcherokee aptly states, the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as science. Those are the experts on the subject, including teaching of the subject. Hence we follow NPOV accordingly. Taking one of your other examples, is there an overwhelming expert opinion on the subject matter of Bowling For Columbine ? If not, we balance the opinions appropriately. Of course if Expelled features victims persecuted by being expelled from churches, we'll look to different expert opinion for that aspect of the film. .. dave souza, talk 14:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in here and say this. I just saw a preview for this film, and the makers claim that the purpose of the film is not to promote Intelligent Design, Creationism, or Christianity. (Ben Stine isn't even a Christian.) The purpose of the film is to call attention to the plight of many individuals (well qualified or not, eg. one of the scientist that has been persecuted has two doctorats) that have been persecuted and wrongly stripped of their dignity, jobs, and credibility just because they challenged the status quo. This film does not promote any particular scientific view; instead it foghts for the rights and freedom of speech guarenteed by the United States constitution. Most of this article is biased and gives a wrong view of this article. (I forgot to sign in, this comment was left by Saksjn

I left the last comment Saksjn (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Too bad this disagrees with all the information we have in WP:RS--Filll (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV sought

Don't like the film? Have you watched the film? There is a serious negative bent to the article. Try NPOV. Fairchoice (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it is controversial, the

label should be placed. The use of harsh words should be avoided. Claims that .... can be interpreted as "Lies that ...." The claims is not in other articles. We don't say "Clinton claims..." or "Bush claims...." in Wikipedia.

Evidence of bias, POV, and unfair treatment can be easily seen by looking at An Inconvenient Truth. You should follow that article in the way it is written. Synopsis, criticism, etc. That film is treated more kindly than this one. Be fair, not biased.

The article should also be open to editing by others not just some people.

You also need a plot section and possibly a Template:Spoiler label. Trying to slam the film is POV. Just write in a neutral tone and cite reliable sources, that's all.

As you can see, these comments are very reasonable comments. Those who will attack me may use words like meat puppet, fanatic, etc. Think again. Think clearly. And open up this article to editing by others. Fairchoice (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Neutral point of view policy (which shows and balances viewpoints rather than adopting one idealised viewpoint) with care, including the specific requirements for NPOV: Pseudoscience, avoiding giving it NPOV: Undue weight or NPOV: Giving "equal validity", while NPOV: Making necessary assumptions about the validity of mainstream science. Note also that a verifiable reliable source is needed for a "plot summary". . dave souza, talk 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no fanatic. The article is POV. The slant makes the film sound like a psycho produced it. An Inconvenient Truth is also a controversial film. It is handled more fairly. That film also mentions the controversy but doesn't make the film sound crazy. Make no mistake, I am for reporting the criticism that the film has received. However, I am for NPOV and a neutral tone.

Due to the controversy, you should put a tag on it. Fairchoice (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For all the "pruning" fans above, this is what happens when you "prune" out all the pro-ID material out of the article. People then see it as biased. So I think I will restore all the pro-ID material that was removed. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, creationist cranks have been complaining about the NPOV with or without the allegedly "pro-ID" material in the article. It is fair better to remain encyclopedic by maintaining a standard that only notable, verifiable material presented in accurate manner be allowed in these articles.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Things are quiet for the moment, but I do not think there is a problem with including the comments of the executive producer and the producer.--Filll (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Every comment made by a producer is not inherently notable. Promotional campaign interviews are norm and filled with lots. Interviews by proto-notable podcasters (especially ones which may contain obvious bias) are not the sort of sources Wikipedia should be using, especially with the availability of better ones - like the New York Times and Guardian.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Until we have references in the New York Times and the London Times and New York Review of Books, interviews with the producers are reasonable. They certainly are germane to the film, and they help to balance it so it is not so NPOV. After all, many many many people complain that it is too anti-ID. So put their own views in the article. What is wrong with that?--Filll (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support neutrality tag. Article is horribly biased, and not consistent with other films about controversial subjects. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of the film is to show suppression and hostility toward free speech with regard to the topic of evolution. This article's lack of NPOV supports the film's claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeslivers (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

Awfully unwieldy, don't you think? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see below. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what Adam was complaining about was already corrected.--Filll (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph of lead

No matter how much rebuttal of ID you think should be in this article, it is important that you understand what the article is about after reading the introduction. At present this is not the case because the description of the film is mingled with all kinds of comments on the film (although perhaps valid). I propose to keep the description and the reception of the announced movie separate. The first paragraph of the introduction would become something like this:

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which claims that scientists persecute supporters of intelligent design. It further claims that there is a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of things conservatives consider to be societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood. Starring Ben Stein, the film is due to be released in February 2008."

After that there is room for the necessary comments. I think this will make the lead clearer.Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem more in line with standard practice in Intelligent design, Homeopathy, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually segregating criticism into sections is discouraged on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but explaiining what the subject is, then immediately setting out the criticism that was being delayed, so long as it stays in the lead, seems reasonable. We shouldn't feel the need to remove it, but if we're careful how we write the first paragraph, a brief delay before the full brunt comes in won't hurt. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I would like to add the above paragraph, however this means that there should also be a second paragraph for the lead containing criticism. It is difficult for me to write this paragraph, especially because I think the remarks are rather inappropriate for the introduction in the first place. Just adding the above proposed text however will most likely lead to an immediate revert. Does anyone have an idea for a short paragraph that gets the message across regarding the controversy about this film. I hope someone can help. This combined with the above text would form a good and hopefully stable lead in my opinion. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not favor segregation. Let's see what other editors think.--Filll (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to this. I think Adam is correct; as long as we have the criticism up front and in the lead it isn't unreasonable. As it is now, the criticism being interwoven makes it hard to read. (It also gives it an impression of not being NPOV. I think it is more or less NPOV but this style can easily lead to other impressions. And the appearance of NPOV is almost as important as NPOV itself). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't favor this edit which removes all mention of creationism from the lead. Two separate paragraphs is ok. But removal of material is not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not favour segregation of the criticism found in the "Claims presented in the film" section. I do feel BvL's suggestion would be a better lead paragraph for the article. It quickly summarises what "Expelled" is without any bias either way, through appropriate use of the word "claim". --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is not segregation in the article, but at least in the introduction. If anyone can propose a second paragraph for such an introduction it would be very welcome. Again I think that simply replacing the current lead by the above proposed paragraph will lead to reverts instead of expansion. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As discussed below, it's essential to show the context of the overwhelming majority of experts on the subject, so I've slightly modified the paragraph to make clear the description of ID as presented by the reliable secondary source used for this section of the article, the NYT. Arguments by proponents about the description are shown in the footnote. Similarly, "keeping God out of the classroom" was repeated in the next paragraph, where it is shown in the context of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. I've therefore replaced it by the press release description of "Big Science" allowing no dissent form evolution theory. .. dave souza, talk 10:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Still horrifically biased

I am still astonished at how POV the wording of this article is. Very little of it is about the film (unsurprisingly, since it hasn't been released yet); the vast majority reads like an essay written by someone dedicated to rebutting and discrediting intelligent design. One of the claims made in the film is described, for instance, as an "frequently-used and often-discredited creationist charge", and intelligent design itself is described as not being a "credible scientific alternative" to evolution.

For the record, I am not a supporter of intelligent design and I don't necessarily disagree with the anti-ID views expressed in the article. But it still shouldn't be there. Wikipedia is dedicated to the principle of NPOV. We are not here to take sides, or to determine that ID is not scientific. That is a matter of opinion, not of fact.

The article needs to be trimmed to about a quarter of its present size. The only criticism needed is criticism about the film (e.g. the controversy over lying to interviewees). Using other sources critical of intelligent design to source criticism of the film constitutes original research by synthesis.

Ironically, the only other place I've seen an encyclopedia article this biased is on Conservapedia (albeit in the opposite direction). However, I have been working on the Conservapedia counterpart to this article and I think it's actually more neutral than this one, for the time being at least. It can be found at [1], and demonstrates what I think this article should look like. Walton^One 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to split the "this is an opinion" hair, we'd say that in the opinion of anyone who understands what science is, ID is not a credible scientific alternative to evolution. It's not wrong for the article to make this clear, but of course we have to be careful how. I do agree that the conservapedia article is decently balanced. I just re-read this one, and I don't see that it's astonishingly biased, but I do think it possibly gets a bit off topic. Some of what's here is more suited to (and, I'm sure, is already covered in) other articles. We should look for ways to make this article link to others for detailed explanations, and stay as tightly focused on the film as we can. Friday (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think you understand what NPOV means, at least on Wikipedia. It means that both sides have to be presented here, in proportion to the dominant view in the relevant field. This film is about a controversy in science, therefore the mainstream science view must be dominant according to NPOV.

• There is plenty of material about the film here, and plenty that is positive. I did a quick check, and the article is about 88% pro-ID, including the part about the interviewees complaining, and ignoring the footnotes.

• If you want an example of a highly rated NPOV article on wikipedia, compare this one to intelligent design. That is our model here and what were are trying to emulate.--Filll (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read the Conservapedia article. It is not very informative and wildly biased. Sorry. It reads like a right wing anti-science piece of propaganda and hate literature. If that is your view of NPOV, dream on. However, this is not unusual since Conservapedia is a piece of trash by and large and completely unreliable and full of hatespeech and Christofascist nonnsense.--Filll (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. NPOV much, Filll? :) But seriously, this isn't an article about ID. It's an article about a movie that has something to do with ID, evolution, censorship, discrimination, humor, Ferris Buller, Ben Stein's money, academia, etc. "Both sides have to be presented here," but that would mean "both sides" of the movie (whatever that means). This article really needs to get away from all of the POV stuff within it, and focus on the film itself. Like Friday said, if there's additional info that some think is somehow relevant and ought to be included but it's not focused on the film itself, then link to it. That's the beauty of the tubes that make up the internets. Goo2you (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I wrote 3 additional long paragraphs, about Bohlin's column on the topic, and then Ruloff's interview and views, and Mathis' interview and views. However, this was felt to be too pro-ID. I am trying, but when people such as yourself argue with me and edit war, then the article gets mangled. I might try again to put in another huge block of pro-ID material that was removed, but I cannot guarantee that it will stay in because others feel the balance point should be somewhere else. I cannot dictate unilaterally what the article will say; this is a matter of consensus.--Filll (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole basis of the intelligent design movement is seeking out non-critical forums on which to spread their ideas. They do this because in a debate of the merits of their ideas, they lose every time, without exception. So instead, they seek to manufacture a controversy, generate news buzz, and then use that buzz to claim that the idea should be given equal time. People arguing that this article should present a non-critical exposition of their ideas are playing right into this strategy. Meanwhile, the people like Filll et al are committed to making this an accurate exposition of the movie and ID, and that certainly includes statements such as the ones Walton cited. Raul654 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Raul654 has just proven the point that is being made here by saying that this article should be "an accurate exposition of the movie and ID" -- this article should be an accurate exposition of the movie, period. This isn't an article about ID -- we already HAVE one of those, to which we can link. Please focus here, folks. Goo2you (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When the movie (or the promotional material thereof) makes patently false claims about ID and the surrounding issues, it is our responsiblity to debunk them. So when it claims that ID is legitimate science, was must say that no, it's not; when it says ID explains the evidence, we must explain that no, it doesn;'t when it says that Guillermo Gonzalez was persecuted for believing in ID, we need to explain that no, he wasn't - that he had raised no research money, and so fourth. For every canard the film trots out, we need to show in THIS article why it's false. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That, Raul, is the very definition of POV (or at least a good paraphrase). I have yet to see any WP policy that would make it a duty to debunk every claim made in a controversial documentary. Point out the claims, yes; direct readers to relevant opposing links, yes; but a duty to debunk every claim made in the movie? Come on. Seriously. Let's focus here, folks. Goo2you (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, as I said above - non-critical media is exactly what ID's marketing strategy is based on. We will not be playing into it. They want to make a movie full of bullshit - we'll expose it for what it is. And you can say "focus people!" all you want, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. Raul654 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• "we'll expose it for what it is". Sadly, this is the definition of agenda driven POV. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor truth (WP:NOT). We can expose "Expelled" using sources about Expelled, as these are relevant. Sources that are about Intelligent design, particularly pre-"Expelled" sources, should be avoided. Any editor concerned with exposing "Expelled" as the fraud that is, more than they are about simply informing the public of the relevant information already available about "Expelled", should take a good long hard look at WP:COI and WP:POV. In detailing what "Expelled" is, its fraudulent nature will be obviously detailed; however if we simply detail its fradulent nature we will overlook other relevant information, and possibly lose focus.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a balance to be found. As an educational resource, Wikipedia has no business letting the ID crowd spread their silliness here. But, I can see how Raul's statements might sound fishy. I suspect that you're probably both in agreement on any practical issues, and you're probably mostly disagreeing over how things are being said. It might be worth leaving this abstract disagreement alone, and focusing purely on practical issues of actual content. Friday (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul is correct in the following sense; for any major documentary if we have reliable sources saying that major parts of it are bullshit we should do so. It isn't any different from for example noting scientific and other problems with some details in An Inconvenient Truth for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not come close to debunking all the nonsense in this movie's promotional materials. All the talk about Newton and Einstein and Darwin is demonstrably false. All the stuff about Crocker and the other people allegedly the object of persection is false. We really do not have room here to debunk all the falsehoods in the movie or the movie's promotional materials. We pick 2 or 3 major points, and note briefly that this is contrary to other evidence. That is all. If you do not like it, see the Conservapedia article.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree here. Focus should be paramount. We do not need to debunk all claims, and the best way to slim the article is not to list every silly claim the film and/or its producers make. Any which gain sufficient media attention should be focused upon.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at the expense of completeness, accuracy and NPOV. "Slimming down the article" is far too often an excuse giving one view undue weight. Let's keep in mind that ID stakes it's claim in the field of science, making the view of scientific community on ID the majority view. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the bias you allege, but I do see that you don't seem to understand how the core policy regarding bias at Wikipedia actually is applied; please take the time to read and better understand WP:POINT before raising any more complaints about bias please. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the Conservapedia article on Expelled unbiased?

It was suggested above that the Conservapedia article on the same topic [2] is unbiased and NPOV. I beg to differ. For example:

• labelling scientists as "atheists"
• "Pro-evolution members of the scientific community" is a ludicrous phrase. In biology, well over 99.99% of the biologists favor evolution. What else is there? What remains is a tiny fringe of religious motivated malcontents and deranged fruitcakes. Behe is no scientist, and stopped doing science 20 years ago and is an embarassment to his home department. Dembski, with no publications, is no scientist. Dembski does not even have a degree in science for gosh sakes. The moonie Wells is no scientist, and only got a biology degree to please the second coming of Christ, according to him, Reverend Moon. Meyer is no scientist, but a philospher (and not a very good one at that), and has written all kinds of tripe about why there is a "magic filter" that can be invented to suggest "God dun it" only in certain cases, but not others, so that intelligent design will not harm science supposedly. Pure BS from a demagogue and completely discredited blowhard who is trying to raise money to promote an antiscience right wing agenda and establish a theocracy.
• Stating blindly that intelligent design is separate from creationism with no cites, for or against, is just ridiculous. It is irresponsible and definitely POV, buying into the Discovery Institute Wedge Strategy.
• previous versions of the Conservapedia article stated that it was true that pro-ID scientists had been suppressed and persecuted, taking the claims of the film as accurate, blindly, without references or contrary evidence or links. This is just pure nonsense.
• The Conservapedia article blindly states that evolution was responsible for the Holocaust, which is a blatant lie. By not presenting the other side, you are buying into this blatant misrepresentation, and it is completely irresponsible. The roots of the Holocaust are not in Darwinism, but in right wing fundamentalist evangelical Christianity (such as that promoted by Conservapedia, interestingly). Hitler quoted Martin Luther's The Jews and their Lies throughout his writing, and used this to justify the Final Solution.

I could go on. The claim that the Conservapedia article is less biased and more NPOV is just ludicrous. And to suggest that the Conservapedia article is an example of good NPOV writing tells me that the author has no idea what unbiased or NPOV is. Go back to Conservapedia and enjoy spreading lies and deceit. We will not be doing that here.--Filll (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should we care? Why don't you discuss this on Conservapedia's talk page? This looks like merely borrowing trouble for no useful purpose. Friday (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We care because Walton, in claiming this article is biased, cited Conservapedia as an example of a less-biased article than this. "However, I have been working on the Conservapedia counterpart to this article and I think it's actually more neutral than this one, for the time being at least." Filll is not borrowing trouble so much as debunking Walton's claims. Raul654 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we take some of these as suggested improvements here, then it could be relevant. But, Filll is pretty off base in most cases. Going down the bullet list.. 1) no it doesn't, 2) yes, I mostly agree there, 3) no it doesn't, 4) who cares about previous versions? 5) no it doesn't. Friday (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. And if you do not care, why are you replying?--Filll (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul made a reasonable case on how this might be relevant to us here. Do you think I'm actually wrong about you misinterpreting the content there? Some of the things you claim the article flatly asserts are actually attributed to the film, or ID proponents. Saying things like "Some atheist scientists interviewed in the film, notably Richard Dawkins..." is not remotely the same as asserting that scientists are atheists. It sounds to me like you skimmed rather than reading carefully. Friday (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that I said the same thing as Raul, several times. Maybe you did not read very carefully, I guess. And no you are wrong. Saying "some atheist scientists interviewed in the film" is a screaming NPOV and BLP incongruity. It would be like always referring to Jonathon Wells as "that moonie and former cab driver Jonathon Wells", or calling Catholicism, "that religion that condones child molestation and harbors ordained child molestors, Catholicism", or Jessie Jackson as "that anti-semite, Jessie Jackson", or Louis Farrakhan as "racist and black supremacist, Louis Farrakhan", or George Bush as "convicted felon and former drug abuser, George Bush", or Ted Haggard as "admitted crack purchaser and frequenter of male prostitutes and general dishonest hypocrite, Ted Haggard" and so on. You cannot make those kinds of loaded statements without really setting off alarm bells. We endeavor not to do this on Wikipedia, and to claim that this is an example of unbiased NPOV writing just beggars the imagination. And I disagree with all your other characterizations. The fact you want to fight about this tells me a lot about you, doesnt it?--Filll (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Labelling anyone as an atheist, even if true, particularly out of context, is a bad idea. It is a loaded term and just is a way to smear someone. And if you think a little, you might realize that there is more than one way to interpret what I wrote. I did not imply that all scientists are atheists or branded as atheists. So before you go on the warpath and further embarrass yourself, think about other potential interpretations of my text.--Filll (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd rather discuss the article, than discuss editors. Dawkins is well known as an outspoken atheist- mentioning this in this context is not inappropriate. You really are coming off sounding to me like you're more interested in a fight than a rational, on-topic discussion. Can you tone it back a couple notches, please? Friday (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You want to label Dawkins as an atheist, whenever he is mentioned in any context? Well you are free to maintain that. I think that the community might view that in a different way than you do. Let's ask on the relevant noticeboards here, shall we? Let's see what the community thinks.

However, I think that this claim says more about your own wiring than anything else. And no I am not interested in fighting. But if you attack me and tell me I am full of crap, then you might find you get a response. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Read above. Conservapedia is allowed to write whatever they like. And we will abide by our policies and rules and principles. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, well, you've made some mistakes about what the article says, and frankly you're coming off sounding more than a bit fanatic about the whole thing. Let's be neutral and reasonable, even on talk pages, eh? And, again, let's not borrow trouble by worrying about what some other encyclopedia says. Friday (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes what mistakes? And above, someone said that was what our article should be like, and the Conservapedia article was a model of NPOV. I disagree. --Filll (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We have enough actual disagreements to be resolved without inventing fake ones. I don't see that Walton claimed it was a "model of NPOV", only that he thought it was more neutral than this one. I don't know that he's right or wrong- they both seem reasonably balanced to me. As for my own bias that you alluded to above, it's this: ID is not a scientific theory, and the people promoting it know this full well. They're trying to bullshit people who don't know any better. It's sad, and it undermines the goal of getting people to actually understand what science is. (My own biases shouldn't matter here, but since you brought it up, there it is.) Now, please, help us raise, rather than lower, the level of discourse on this talk page. Friday (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well fighting Raul and me on this issue speaks volumes.--Filll (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be about "taking sides". I'm on the side of a high quality, neutral encyclopedia, just like you. Friday (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And you are on the side of wanting to label Dawkins an atheist whenever he is mentioned on Wikipedia, in any context. Good for you ... You go ahead and try to defend that position as NPOV. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you're making up things I haven't said, in order to disagree with them. I don't see how this helps. Friday (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just read the record above. Well I am glad that you think that it is not a good idea to label Dawkins and Scott and Myers and others as atheists, even in the context of some nonreligious topic or discussion. I am glad you backed off that point, since frankly it is indefensible, at least in my opinion.--Filll (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could both of you calm down? This is both off-topic and not very germane. We're trying to improve this article, not discuss Conservapedia articles. RationalWiki is thataway. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I apologise for starting this big debate.

Firstly, I wouldn't claim that the Conservapedia article is a fantastic model of NPOV. I wrote most of it this afternoon, and I'm neither a scientist nor massively knowledgeable in this field, so I'd be the first to admit that it isn't a work of brilliance. I only said it was more NPOV than the article here, which is true. The article here is dedicated almost entirely to debunking intelligent design.

The above discussion has actually been useful, since it allows me to pick up some points for improving the Conservapedia article. On reflection, I agree that labelling Richard Dawkins in that context as an atheist is not necessary (when you write articles in a hurry, you make mistakes). I will change it.

However, I am frankly a little worried by the attitude of User:Filll. He seems to believe that NPOV requires us to take a strongly anti-intelligent design stance, and dismisses the pro-intelligent design lobby as, and I quote, "a tiny fringe of religious motivated malcontents and deranged fruitcakes." This is not NPOV. NPOV requires us to present alternative views even if we, personally, believe them to be wrong. Filll makes very clear on his userpage, and in discussions, that he does not support intelligent design and considers it a discredited, meaningless theory. That's fine. He's entitled to his opinions, and he may well be right. But Wikipedia articles are not a place to promote such a view as fact, regardless of how strongly one believes it. We are not here to educate the masses against some kind of threat of indoctrination from the ID movement. We are here to present both sides neutrally and impartially.

I personally do not have a strong view on intelligent design vs. evolution. I realise I am not especially qualified to write about it; my background is not in science and I really don't know much about the whole thing. But I know POV and NPOV when I see them. Walton^One 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Walton, confused much? There is a HUGE difference between what is on talk pages and what is in the article itself. And if you see Raul's comments above, you will see that Raul agrees with me. So does JoshuaZ. So does FeloniousMonk. So do many other editors here, like Dave Scott.

And although my own personal views are irrelevant here, in fact I have been sometimes accused of being an intelligent design supporter and a creationist on Wikipedia. And in fact, my own inclination is that it is is possible that there might be some evidence of souls, or a supreme being, or whatever, although I think that it will be extremely difficult to produce this evidence, and it is also a low probability event. But you are not going to find any such evidence in the intelligent design movement, since that the intelligent design movement is based on unscientific claptrap. And if there is unscientific nonsense being promoted as science, I am going to call a spade a spade. We do not do our readers any favors by writing misleading material.

And my strong impression is that you do not understand what NPOV is. In your current incarnation, you have logged only 8000 or so edits, and about 2000 edits in the mainspace. So somehow, I think that I have to discount most of this comment. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look. I apologise for personalising the issues involved. I have no problem with you personally. But please don't attack my editcount as a way to discredit what I'm saying. I just don't think that describing something as "unscientific claptrap" can, by definition, be NPOV. We're not here to promote our own views of science, we're here to provide a balanced and neutral view. Walton^One 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: How's this version? I've taken out the word "atheist", and rewritten part of the article to give a better idea of the scale of the criticism of the film. Walton^One 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this as an improvement, but I think the site it's hosted on will forever taint this content in the eyes of some people. Also, yes, we can construe the "look at this article" as being suggestions for improving our article, but I'm still not sold on the relevance of us looking at some other encyclopedia here. We can just as easily entertain suggested changes, without looking at Conservapedia. Friday (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to us to improve Conservapedia. It is up to improve Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I brought it up to exemplify what I meant about having a more concise article and less anti-intelligent design POV. I'm going to withdraw completely from the whole debate now, though, since it's causing me nothing but stress, and editing the article here seems a waste of my time (since every edit I've made has been reverted). Walton^One 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a crying shame that the article on Conservapedia gives a better representation of the subject (which is a film, not something else) than the Wikipedia article. I think Walton has done a very good job. The article on that site quickly summarizes what the film is about and why it is very controversial. Anyone interested in Intelligent Design can simply follow links to related articles. On Wikipedia intelligent design and perhaps Creation and evolution in public education provide good information. Criticism or elaborate information on these subjects is simply superfluous in the article on a film. Imho we can use the text provided by Walton as an example on how we can effectively explain this subject. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A few misunderstandings here. Expelled has no notability as a film, but is significant as an intelligent design creationist campaign. Conservapedia has as its remit presenting a "Conservative" point of view, and so is content to give credence to misinformation such as the claim that ID is a "scientific theory". We have to carefully comply with policies including NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Pseudoscience, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Both WP:LEAD and NPOV: Undue weight require us to explain the majority viewpoint among experts on the subject at the outset, and not hide that opinion away in links to other pages or in "criticism" sections. .. dave souza, talk 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If a person wants to quickly know about the film, and what it is about, or purports to be about, the film's official website, or Conservapedia are fine. However, the point of articles on Wikipedia is not to advertise the film, or to give a quick short summary; otherwise why would we need any article on Wikipedia at all? If someone is writing a scholarly paper, or doing research for a book report, a newspaper column, or a court case, what is going to be most helpful to them? A website that unquestioningly presents just the bare "facts", as the movie presents them, from the movie's point of view? Or an article like Wikipedia's that presents different angles, and links, and quotes, and references?

Obviously, for the purposes of scholarly research, which is what an encyclopedia is, Wikipedia is a good jumping off point, and this article is a perfect example of that. It is not meant to be an easy read. It is not meant to be a simple summary. It is not meant to unquestioningly advertise the movie. It is to present useful information.

If a scholar 100 years from now wants to know about the film, what will be more helpful to them, the Conservapedia article or the Wikipedia article? The answer is obvious. This Wikipedia article collects far more information, pro and con, about the film, its content, its promotion, its controversies, etc. And it fulfills the true role of an encyclopedia far better than the Conservapedia puff piece. And Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a piece of used toilet paper like Conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I politely disagree. The article now - especially the lead - is a mess. This is the result of information that is better presented in other articles being inserted in between lines on the film. A simple description of the films claims and why these are controversial (including dubious interview and promotion techniques) is what should be here. This combined with good links to relevant articles which fully explain the deeper issues (about which this film is not about), will be a much better resource to a everyone (including the scholar 100 yrs from now).

Most importantly, the article, especially the lead, is very badly structured. I think nothing can be an excuse for writing a piece of text that is badly structured and as a results difficult to read. Not even bashing each (false) claim of the movie right after it has been made.

Finally please do not imply that I am here to advertise the movie, or simply wish to present the claims of the movie as facts. I have seen no one on this talk page who wants that. You are simply attacking straw puppets (as I believe is the saying). Kind regards, Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not the same as MOS-issues. Filll is right in asserting that the Wikipedia article is a far superior encyclopedic article than that of Conservapedia. Conservapedia manages to present a conscise perceivably more NPOV version by lacking comprehensive coverage of the subject. Wikipedia is not a "quick facts about the movie", that is IMDb's role. By producing a "quick facts" article, you do reduce Wikipedia to a promotional role. Wikipedia needs to establish notability of subjects and provide appropriate context for readers to understand subjects.

People promoting slimming down of this article will have to clearly establish themselves away from NPOV detractors. If your issues are with style, clearly state so, and be prepared to meet serious doubt from other editors who, for good reason, may be quick to assume-bad-faith.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to reduce the material that does not promote the movie (which is a minimum; my estimate is only 12%, not counting the footnotes and referneces), you will not be following WP:NPOV and will not be doing the readers any favors. Also, you do not like the current LEAD since it is not segregated. The present LEAD was written by a group of dozens of editors, and is the result of consensus. The LEAD in intelligent design is not segregated, and it is an FA rated article in the same topic area. In the intelligent design article, the pro and con material is woven together, seamlessly. And this is far more neutral and far less biased than one paragraph "on this hand" and another paragraph "on the other hand". Another reason that segregating negative material is discouraged is that it is really easy to remove negative material then. Someone who wants to create "advertising" just removes the section that is negative and then there they are, a beautiful promotional puff piece.

Clearly, you do NOT know what NPOV is. You clearly are quite ignorant of what Wikipedia is or its purpose. This version of your incarnation has almost NO edits to its credit, which raises questions about your identity and why this is, but I will for the moment AGF.

Whether you intend to advertise or promote this movie or not is irrelevant. What is important is the effect of the changes you are promoting against policy, against common sense, against the best interests of the readership. So I respectfully think you are a puppet, but maybe not full of straw.--Filll (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It did not take long for you to try to project you authority on me. I am sorry that I ever went against the will of someone with more edits. Oh and thanks for the accusations (in good faith that is) regarding my identity. I am through restating the same arguments. I give up, my time can be better spend than arguing against a brick wall. Kind regards. Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Intelligent design creationism" and synthetic OR

I merely dislike the phrase because of inherent redundancy ("wandering nomads"?)....

But...

The use of "intelligent design creationism" outside of direct quotes has been discussed at intelligent design, and consensus for the time being is that it should be avoided. Intelligent design does feature this statement:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[4] 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;[99][100][101][102] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".[103][104][105]

Which is sufficient to explain the connection.

Here on "Expelled" I do not feel that the creationist aspect of ID is particularly important to the film, except in context of statements by the production equating ID with creationism (i.e. Stein and O'Reilly). It is not significant enough of a connection to require stating in the first paragraph of the lead, which will direct a reader to intelligent design where they can uncover all the juicy creationist connections of the ID movement.

Introducing the exact phrase "intelligent design creationism" to the lead against the consensus determined at Talk:Intelligent design might be perceived as a ninja trick by certain editors.

The lead does reveal the religious nature of ID in the second paragraph:

Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.[4][5]

I thought this was adequate (not perfect) in the absence of the previous lead paragraph, but certainly would not object to more direct (but appropriately worded) links to creationism being amde in paragraphs after the first. And again I'll mention that I feel the only significance of the creationist angle is in the conflict between DI and Premise of ID's status.

I'm also going to raise my usual objections to long references with in detail explanations tying various sources together. If you have to explain to a reader how to get the necessary conclusion from the resources available, you are probably making links that not everyone can see.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is based on two sources – the press release for the film which is a primary source, and the best secondary source we have about the film, the NYT article. The former makes no mention of intelligent design, and while it can be inferred, that could be OR. The NYT article takes care on first and second mention of intelligent design to make clear that it is a form of creationism. Splitting this point away from the mention of intelligent design, or expecting readers to follow a link to another article to find that out, goes against the NPOV requirement to give due weight to the overwhelming majority view of experts on the subject, in the scientific community, among educators, among historians and in legal terms. I'm not sure what you mean by "might be perceived as a ninja trick by certain editors", and the link isn't helpful, but there do seem to be repeated attempts to set aside the consensus view of ID as creationism. The ID article itself explains what it is at the outset, in more detail than is appropriate here.

For the context that proponents deny that ID is creationism, we have the primary source of the DI's response to the O'Reilly interview, and can set that in the context of the Kitzmiller memo which reviews the evidence. I accept that stylistically this overburdened the lead paragraph, and was willing to see that shown in a footnote.

As you suggest, the whole issue could be discussed more fully at the start of the second paragraph. Taking the press release description of the "persecution" and trimming down a "societal ills" sentence repeated later, the opening paragraphs could read –

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary film which claims that educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief there is evidence of “design” in nature. It claims that “Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution, and blames the theory for a range of alleged societal ills. Starring Ben Stein, the film is due to be released in February 2008.

The film promotes intelligent design, a variety of creationism. Proponents of intelligent design assert that it is not creationism and have objected to this description being used in promotion of the film. ...

The film is making claims about science, which have to be set in a scientific context. A recent publication which may clarify that view is National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (2008). "Science, Evolution, and Creationism". National Academies Press. Retrieved 2008-01-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) which uses the phrase "intelligent design creationism". .. dave souza, talk 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That version would be fine as it is accurate and cleary shows the lineage of ID. That lineage is indeed germant to any discussion, treatment, or mention of ID in any medium. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I like dave's suggestion. Can I again re-iterate I'm not the enemy, I'm just writing for them cos I have a brain and they don't.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Further suggestion:

Perhaps the proposed second paragraph continue like:

The film promotes intelligent design, a variety of creationism. While, proponents of intelligent design assert that it is not creationism and has no religious basis, Stein, the film's creators and the film itself continually equate intelligent design with creationism and a belief in the Judeo-Christian God. This has attracted criticism from the Discovery Institute, the think tank behind most promotion of intelligent design.

It's 11:30 and I've had to just re-reference an 80 page thesis. But hopefully it makes some sense. What do you think?--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good idea and I'll look through the sources to see how well it's supported. Good luck with the thesis, my son was regretting using MSWord for a report instead of LaTex, no doubt it'll all work out. .. dave souza, talk 15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's it implemented taking care not to go beyond the sources. Thanks for the help with that, . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree

I must take issue with the statement above of ZayZayEM about "synthetic OR". He raises many points in his long post that I think require individual attention.

The use of "intelligent design creationism" outside of direct quotes has been discussed at intelligent design, and consensus for the time being is that it should be avoided. Intelligent design does feature this statement:

The intelligent design movement is a direct outgrowth of the creationism of the 1980s.[4] 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;[99][100][101][102] and several authors explicitly refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".[103][104][105]

Which is sufficient to explain the connection.

I wrote that passage in the intelligent design article, and I did not write it that way to soothe any feelings about "intelligent design creationism" having quotes around it or not. It appeared in quotes because I was referring to it as a linguistic phrase that I wanted to identify.

It appeared in this article in quotes, at least a version or two ago, again not to soothe any feelings, but because it was a phrase used by the New York Times, and we were making it clear it was a direct quote of a phrase from the New York Times. It was not placed in quotes here to avoid trodding on any sensitive toes.

Here on "Expelled" I do not feel that the creationist aspect of ID is particularly important to the film,

This is completely incorrect, as far as I can tell. The entire premise of the film is based on a repudiation of the careful strategy constructed by the Discovery Institute and the return to the teleological foundations of the intelligent design argument.

The script, the claims, the promotion, all of it, says it is about not putting science in a box where it cannot touch God. The trailers use the word God over and over and over. God god god god. That is not intelligent design as envisaged by the Discovery Institute. That is creationism. Pure and simple. Bare naked. No fig leaf to protect intelligent design from the predations of the US constitution and legal system. It lays bare the true nature of intelligent design; a variety of creationism. And as I threatened before, maybe I need to put another 20 references in the article to this effect. See, if you fight me, I will just pound back, harder than ever. Because you cannot WP:OWN this article and you cannot dictate unilaterally to everyone else how it will read. We do things here by consensus, and it appears to me that you do not have the consensus to ignore what is in a WP:RS and WP:V source.

And if you do not like the redundancy, I apologize, but that is just too bad. It is a term that is coming into general use in American English, clearly (after all, the New York Times is using it now). And it is not up to Wikipedia to rewrite the English language now, is it?

I feel this is different. Expelled has a direct link to the Discovery Institute's brand of creationism and its Wedge strategy. It is not a generic to tie to all forms of creationism. The specific nature of the film to Intelligent design and both DI's wedge and umbrella strategies rather than ties to generic creationism, fundamentalism or religiousity has not gone ignored, see AiG's spokesperson.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

except in context of statements by the production equating ID with creationism (i.e. Stein and O'Reilly).

No, obviously not just there. Sorry. Every bit of promotion, every trailer, every press report and bit on the website screams "creationism".

It is not significant enough of a connection to require stating in the first paragraph of the lead, which will direct a reader to intelligent design where they can uncover all the juicy creationist connections of the ID movement.

Um I think you are missing the point. The film approaches this as just obvious. Look at the promotion materials. Look at the trailers. Look at the quotes. Look at what Stein has written on the blog. They are not revealing any juicy connections. They just take it as a fact and never question it or even consider that it might be in doubt. Not once. Ever.

This is exactly what i am saying Filll. The importance of creationism is not that ID= creationism, but that "Expelled" and its creators are over and over saying "ID=creationism/Ywh", much to the contrary of DI's Wedge policy. DI the leading (only?) authority (...) on intelligent design and has repeatedly insisted, and continues to insist, (against all reason, and sometimes their own spokespeople) that ID is not a form of creationism.

"Expelled" should be explained as yet a further piece of evidence that Di is full of crap, and ID has always been irredeemably based on religious faith.

However, this needs to be explained, and we still can't come right out and say "ID = creationism", we can say "Expelled" further provides evidence that ID = creationism and DI is full of crap, which is more accurate and holistically informative.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Introducing the exact phrase "intelligent design creationism" to the lead against the consensus determined at Talk:Intelligent design might be perceived as a ninja trick by certain editors.

What consensus at intelligent design? The phrase was introduced into the article and the consensus was that this was reasonable. We met the challenges to it by showing there were plenty of sources for it.

In this article, we are just quoting the New York Times. It does not get much better than that, in terms of American English usage. As I said before, since you want to fight this, I can bury you in references. If that is how it has to be, so be it. You know I can. I know I can. I do not understand why you want to go there. But fair enough, we will.

And what fork are you talking about? Huh?

The lead does reveal the religious nature of ID in the second paragraph:

Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.[4][5]

I thought this was adequate (not perfect) in the absence of the previous lead paragraph, but certainly would not object to more direct (but appropriately worded) links to creationism being amde in paragraphs after the first.

Except it does not use the word "creationism". And I have heard some discussion by others that this material should be moved or put in a footnote since it is a bit offtopic. I am not sure.

"Adequate" not ideal. It's a wiki. Improve it. dave gets it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And again I'll mention that I feel the only significance of the creationist angle is in the conflict between DI and Premise of ID's status.

But this is an article about the Premise movie, which is entirely founded on pushing ID as creationism, as near as we can tell from many interviews, and press releases, and the website and trailers.

Isn't that what I just said?--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to raise my usual objections to long references with in detail explanations tying various sources together. If you have to explain to a reader how to get the necessary conclusion from the resources available, you are probably making links that not everyone can see.

We do not use these references for any synthesis or OR. We provided cited references which back up the statements in the text, and provide places where the reader can verify those statements and learn a bit more on those topics. And because this is a topic which comes under frequent attack, we provide more than one reference for many of these points. The thing is, if editors did not fight us every step of the way, we would not need to provide so many references. The more fighting there is, the more references there are. That is just how it is. --Filll (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again this is letting intellectual terrorists win. This sort of tactic gives them vilification. Not every problem can be solved by more references. Striking an appropriate and reasonable balance, rather than falling to the taunts of trolls and other sources of unproductivity is no way to run an informative website.--ZayZayEM (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been genuine concerns such as how much we can rely on the expertise of the NYT journalist, and these do have to be backed up with sufficient references. In the longer term this is something we can always review, but it's better to give plenty of backing to statements. No doubt some will feel that gives them vilification and so a sort of vindification, but even if we think the terrorists are whining, we have to write for the enemy and present their case fairly in due proportion to the well cited majority expert view. .. dave souza, talk 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit much maybe?

The endnotes! And who will be our first volunteer to come to the blackboard and spell coatrack for the class? The film isn't even out yet, but there are sixty-four sources noted, referenced over one hundred twenty times? Something approaching half these sources don't talk about the film at all. One of the references is nearly one hundred years old--the Hollywood film industry didn't even exist yet! ACK! Another one is dated 1874!! Are these sources? Or exhibits entered into evidence?[3] Only a handful of sources admit to even seeing the film, but has each and every individual in the world opinionating about it been exhaustively covered here yet? Or did the article manage inadvertently to miss somebody. Overkill perhaps? "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted." "Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not ..." Professor marginalia (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have several responses to this.

• We are not some sort of advertising service, or some sort of press release service. We are providing some sort of academic documentation and presentation of sourced material. So it is long with lots of references. If one does not like it, one can read Conservapedia or any number of other articles about this film.
• By the rules of NPOV etc, we are to provide balance for the claims made in the promotional material. Until we have more real reviews, this is all we have.
• I have fought extremely hard to try to get more pro-ID material and material that takes the POV of the directors and producers etc. However, people have resisted this and deleted rafts of material I wrote and references, all pro-ID. People complain it is boring, or that they are not interested in the words of the director and the producer. This might be true, but it leads to a lack of balance and compaints like this. It just gets tiresome after a while to have people on both sides attacking my prose for being too pro-ID or not pro-ID enough.
• Our goal should be to provide an encyclopedic discussion of the film, at a certain level of depth. And that is what I have tried to do, in spite of losing probably 40% of the text I wrote from the article.--Filll (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Filll, I didn't mean to beat up on you (didn't even know it was largely your text). I know how the text can start to grow on and on in some articles in order to satisfy everybody's pet whatever. But coming fresh to it as I just have, I just see an article with way too much tinsel hung over it. The Kitzmiller trial? "Darwin goes to church"? When the wikipedia article goes to WP:NOR to lay sway with studies and commentary about evolution, ID, and morality but not about this film, or to embellish beyond what that the sources speaking of the movie took time to detail blow by blow (as in case of Richard Sternberg), or digs content from someone completely unconnected to the topic who, (simply on the basis of what he's read in a newspaper article?), becomes a quotable "source" here by virtue writing a "letter to the editor"? Hey, it's time for a deep cuts. And I don't pretend this sketch to be a thorough list of the synthesis styled original research I found in the article, not by any means. WP:NOR is a very strict rule that applies everywhere in wikipedia. The article shouldn't promote the film either. So cut a goodly chunk of the self claims coming straight from the film's too clever by half promotional department, and let the producers pay to promote their ad copy the old fashioned way. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we want an article with material that will make it valuable as a reference or starting point for research 50 or 100 years from now.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but ... the film hasn't even been released yet. More directly to the point is that this article has gone beyond what its sources justify. There is good content, but new or synthesized claims needs a real publisher. We can't use wikipedia to do this, wp can't contain dimensions, connections or analysis that its editors have come up with, regardless of its quality. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we have engaged in WP:OR or gone beyond our sources. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• No rules against old references. I think its a good idea, if in context, looks okay here. And the arguments from these texts are not being repeated thay are merely being referred to. For my few misgivings about certain footnotes, these are not among them. The extreme dates of these references mean they give a good view of the lengthy history or repeated (and repeatedly shot down) creationist/anti-eviloution arguments. In a word they aren't redundant because of their dating.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the pertinent policy:

"Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

"'Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.'

"That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

"'If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.'

"This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." (All from wp:NOR)

Let's substitute, an example from this article:

"Contrary to charges that evolution is equivalent to atheism (or associated with atheism) by many promoters of intelligent design and creationism,[20] scientists commonly hold religious faiths,[1] while using the methodological naturalism of the scientific method, which looks to nature to answer questions about nature and ignores supernatural explanations which are by definition "not within the scope or abilities of science."[1]"

The first reference [20] lists six references, none refer to any claim made in the movie about atheism. It's both original research, and a strawman setup to a point which isn't made in the other reference attached to the sentence. A WP:Coatrack there. Another one:

"Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[10][21] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God, but because it is not scientific[12] and instead is pseudoscience.[14] and therefore the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science,[22] but as creationism.[14]"

Only one reference in the list talked of the movie, the rest are about ID. Problem is, editors are making an argument beyond what the one source who talked of the film there made, which is simply, "scientists say ID isn't science". The rest of the argument is embellishment, original research, going into all kinds of esoterica about Kitzmiller and level of acceptance among scientist polls to do it. Again, a coatrack to talk about issues that, inconveniently, the source actually writing about the movie didn't go into. The zeal on this is what contributors at talk origins are invited to do, to roll up their sleeves and do "investigative" type multi-dimensional analysis. But wikipedia's OR rules strictly forbid this here. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious Establishment

Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is a religious view and not science, and so cannot be presented in science classes.

The claim that "Promotion of religion in American public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" is in error. Here is the text of the of that clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Accordingly, only acts of Congress that establish religion violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. So-called "promotion(s) of religion in the American public schools" have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Nothing at all.

What may (or may not) cause "promotion of religion in American public schools" to in any sense violate the U.S. Constitution is a rather strange application of the 14th Amendment to the Establishment Clause. The relevant text from this amendment is as follows: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." What the SCOTUS has asked the American people to believe for the last half century or so is that for the states (or local governmental entities, such a communities or school boards) to do anything which might be viewed as promoting a specific religion or religion in general constitutes an "abridgement" of the "privileges or immunities" of one or more of the citizens of that state. Of course, that is a rather bizarre bit of twisted logic that SCOTUS has saddled us with. They have pulled a fast one on the rest of us.

This is a situation we need to correct. If we, the people of the United States, want to limit how our states, communities, or school boards may promote religion, by all means let us do so. But the Constitution in no sense allows our betters in black robes to make these limits for us. They have no constitutional warrant for doing so. None whatsoever. Let us stop letting them get away with this sort of thing.

Duckman1957 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, Duckman. This is obviously something you feel passionate about, but this talk page is reserved only for issues related to the editing of the article about this film, and we are all firmly discouraged from using it to give our own personal opinions. So while letting you have the last word, we need to end the discussion here .Professor marginalia (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has, in numerous decisions dating back to the US Civil War, found in favor of the Incorporation doctorine that the protections afforded by the constitution generally apply to all levels of government. Thus, "Congress" in that clause refers not just to congress but to government at the federal, state, and local level. And in the future, this talk page is not the place for off-topic rants. Raul654 (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Professor, I'm sorry if it seems I went off topic, but I would like to mention that I was attempting to correct errors made in the article. The author would do well to restrict his comment on religious establishment to something along the lines that the courts have ruled that the teaching of intelligent design conflicts with earlier court rulings of what the public schools are allowed - in other words drop the reference to religious establishment in the First Amendment. I probably did get a little carried away, but I was not the first in error. There is a problem with the article as written.

Raul, if you will examine the article you link to, you should observe that the earliest SCOTUS decision attempting to incorporate the Bill of Rights within the "privileges and immunities" of the 14th Amendment was Gitlow vs. New York in 1925 - over two generations after the 14th Amendment was ratified - not at all contemporary with the Civil War. But that is beside my point. My point is that 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities" have no relationship with religious establishment. Not unless one argues that freedom from religious establishment is a privilege or immunity. One might as well argue that freedom from the presence of gays in the workplace is a privilege or immunity. Are you going to argue that the states should be required not to employ gays in order to grant some of their other employees the privilege? I suspect probably not.

That is more than I intended to write, but I'm responding to responses made to my earlier post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.175.154 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but this appears to me to be WP:OR which we do not allow. Do you have a WP:RS for this view? If so, present it so we can change the text accordingly.--Filll (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt about it

"Stein stated that "There's no doubt about it. We have lots and lots of evidence of ***it*** in the movie. And you know Einstein worked within the framework of believing there was a God. Newton worked within the framework of believing there was a God. For gosh sakes Darwin worked within the framework of believing there was a God. And yet, somehow, today you're not allowed to believe it. Why can't we have as much freedom as Darwin had?"[6]"

I've marked the "it" in "We have lots of evidence of it". It really isn't clear what the "it" is. Does he mean evidence for Intelligent Design? evidence that scientists competently operate within a theistic framework? evidence of persecution/restriction of academic framework?--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Whole article is POV and people keep reverting it to POV

This article is simply an essay about how evil the film is. It is simply POV.

A NPOV version would be to describe the film then describe the controversyFairchoice (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Y:ou wrote below that it should be balanced. It is far more positive about the film than negative and I had a lot more material talking about the views of the directors and producers that was in the article but that was removed. So since you want it to be more balanced, we have to find more material that shows creationism and these film makers to be dishonest frauds. I trust you will help me find reliable sources? Thanks.--Filll (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs rewriting

This article needs rewriting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_%28film%29 . That's how it should be done, not an attack piece on the film or a glowing review. State what the film shows then describe the controversy, not rip up the film. Fairchoice (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate your aims in terms of layout, but the example you cite is of a film notable as a film – this film is notable solely as a controversial propaganda exercise promoting an ideology which has to be carefully described in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ, and the article has to be summarised in the lead in accordance with WP:LEAD. Oh, and it's not "a documentary film about intelligent design", a subject apparently not described at all in the film, but rather a documentary presenting claims of persecution by creationists who happen to promote intelligent design. . .. dave souza, talk 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"this film is notable solely as a controversial propaganda exercise promoting an ideology"

This comment sounds like POV. Let's be nice to each other and do a neutral piece on the film highlighting the controversy, not slamming the film. Note that some want to slam the film and others want to sugar coat it. I want neither. Fairchoice (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We have to abide by NPOV, which means including all relevant views. It does not mean "neutral" so I believe you are unfortunately misinformed and need to actually learn something about Wikipedia policies before preaching to us, with all due respect. And I will also note that large swaths of material on the views of the producers and directors that I wrote was removed by consensus because it was thought to be overly positive to the creationist and intelligent design viewpoint. We do things by consensus here, but I will still work to get more of that pro-creationist and pro-ID material back in the article. Thanks for your input however.--Filll (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV means that you present the case fairly and in neutral terms. With the Israeli situation, you don't just state the Palestinian claims only or the Israel claims only, you state that there is a dispute and summarize each side. This is what I intend to do. That's NPOV. I want NPOV. I don't want POV favoring either side. Fairchoice (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did a little calculation and found out that this article is 88% pro-creationist and about 12% anti-creationist, not counting the footnotes. So you are claiming we should put a lot more anti-creationist material in this article? Well I see. Interesting. I will see what I can do to find more negative things about this film and what sources I can find about how ignorant and stupid and dishonest the creationists and in particular those involved in this film are. I am sure that those sources will not be too hard to find. Want to help me? Let's find some stuff saying all creationists are dishonest creeps and jerks. I look forward to seeing your suggestions.--Filll (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also did a calculation and find the article 100% anti-film. This calculation is based on 3 negative captions of the sections and 2 neutral ones. I'm shocked at the anti-crowd who just undoes every change and doesn't offer compromise changes. My changes have been mostly to keep the wording, just rearrange it and re-title it for neutrality. Yet, fierce opposition. Fairchoice (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please demonstrate to me how

The film states "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." The film shows that educators and scientists who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have been unfairly ridiculed, presenting cases such as an application to be granted tenure being refused and a biology teacher having to leave the university, and describes this as due to a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."

is "anti-film".--Filll (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Prose is very accusatory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth In the slide show Gore reviews the scientific opinion on climate change, discusses the politics and economics of global warming, and describes the consequences he believes global climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases is not significantly reduced in the very near future.

It doesn't say:

In the slide show Gore claims there is scientific opinion on climate change, claims that there are politics and economics of global warming, and alleges that there are consequences he believes global climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases is not significantly reduced in the very near future.

So let's act fairly. Claims of the film has been re-titled "Topics presented in the film". All these slanted words like "claims to" and "alleges" should be removed and the film described in a neutral, not slanted way. Then you can have all the attack you want.

This is the fair way rather than to have paragraphs with subtle attack and then overt attack. Fairchoice (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With a little moving of paragraphs and minor rewording of the plot details, the article is better and less slanted. See, nothing to fuss about. It's not done but if we can agree on this temporary version then we have progress. I just want the article to be a fair and NPOV article, not every sentence ridiculing the film. Just state what the film says and THEN state why you hate it, not try to smear the film then state why you hate it. Fairchoice (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is against WP MOS and policies and practices. In addition, you have no consensus. Thanks!--Filll (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I follow WP MOS, if not please tell me what is in violation. We have consensus for NPOV. IF you violate NPOV, you violate consensus, even if you have a mob of POV warriors. Let's make sure we don't violate NPOV. What's the opposition to my edits as I have added nothing pro-film, just removed NPOV. I have kept paragraphs and just moved them around so the anti-film stuff is together.Fairchoice (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you follow WP MOS you should know that it is not permitted to lump material all of one viewpoint together. It is also not permitted to remove it from the LEAD. You are not permitted to remove well sourced material that you disagree with. As I told you before, there is in the history pro-ID and pro-creationist and pro-film material I had added that was removed. If you want to put more of that back in for balance, fair enough. So do I. But we do not remove the material we do not like and slowly whittle the article down to a nub. If you want to see a nub article, go to conservapedia.--Filll (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairchoice, you don't seem to have read the NPOV links I put on your user page, in particular Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity". No one seriously doubts that there is scientific opinion on climate change, politics and economics of global warming, and that Gore believes that global climate change will have consequences. Indeed, his presentation is close to majority expert opinion. In contrast, Expelled presents a misleading image of some cases which have been well analysed, notably the Sternberg case where the "victim" lost nothing but the esteem of his peers. Gonzales and Crocker were not granted tenure, but then most others in their job situation don't get tenure, regardless of beliefs. Presenting these as "persecution" is an extreme minority view amongst experts, and has to be shown as such. Under WP:LEAD the introductory paragraphs have to summarise the main points of the article, including the majority view of the claims made in the film. You evidently want to shorten that section, and in my opinion there's a possibility of summarising points more concisely, but your edits clearly fail to meet the NPOV and LEAD requirements. To make progress, please discuss your proposals instead of acting and edit warring, which constitutes disruptive editing and can lead to a block. Please study these policies carefully and come up with constructive proposals on this talk page. .. dave souza, talk 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this paragraph?

The film blames the theory of evolution for a range of things the film portrays as societal ills, from Communism to Planned Parenthood, while failing to define or explain either evolution or its supposed alternative, intelligent design.[10] The evidence that this scientific theory is responsible for social problems does not exist[12] and within the scientific community the theory of evolution is accepted by scientific consensus[13] and intelligent design is not considered to be valid science,[14][15][16] but is viewed as creationism.[17]

I think we should delete this paragraph from the intro, it's information is already covered in two other places on the article and the second part of it just seems to be somebody saying PS Intelligent design is wrong creating a rather akward paragraph in my opinion. Anybody agree with me? Cryo921 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, of course the intro repeats things in the body. We are required to by WP:LEAD.--Filll (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is repeated in the intro as well. Cryo921 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it to clean it up some weeks ago. However, from repeated attacks by others, and frantic movement of material and additions and subtractions, it might be choppier than it was. However, let me look at it and see ok?--Filll (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the only repetition I see is required to satisfy WP:LEAD.--Filll (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"and blames the theory for a range of alleged societal ills" second part of second sentenceis were it is repeated in the intro Also shouldn't we remove the alleged? Cryo921 (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Points have to be introduced in context to avoid giving undue weight to the claims presented in the film, and "alleged" is a concise way of not endorsing the view that, for example, planned parenthood is a societal ill. If the first paragraph was expanded to make it clear that the link from evolution theory to these "ills" is an extreme minority view among experts, and that evolution is accepted by consensus on the evidence rather than the alleged coercion, the third paragraph could usefully be incorporated in the Claims presented in the film section, and the description of the point in the Reviews section summarised more briefly. .. dave souza, talk 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs plot section

The articles needs to be NPOV. One way is to have a neutral description of the plot. Later sections can analyze the film.

Keeping all what was written but just rearranging the paragraphs, a plot section can be made. It could be:

This section can be re-written but these sentences (none of which I wrote) are factual statements with as little commentary as possible. This is what we need for the article. Analysis can be done in later sections. I am much more interested in presenting a section about facts (what the film's plot is) rather than others who are arguing for or against intelligent design.

I can't think of why anyone would be opposed to a neutral, factually written plot summary except if one is opposed to the film and wants completely negative commentary. If there is a reason why a neutral, facutually written plot summary is not allowed, please say so. Nearly all other films have such a section.

Plot (or summary of film)

The film states "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."

Richard Sternberg is the prominent figure in the Sternberg peer review controversy which arose when, having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and submitting his resignation in the previous year, he arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal 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.

The astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, co-wrote the book The Privileged Planet promoting intelligent design claims. After the normal review of aspects such as his record of scientific publications which had dropped sharply after he joined the faculty, he was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." In the previous decade, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the department were not granted tenure. The Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.

Biologist Caroline Crocker was barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class over her introduction of intelligent design into it, and her contract at that university was not renewed.

The film also includes interviews with scientists who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

Fairchoice (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I suspect you do not understand WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD and iit might be valuable for you to review those, as well as what I posted on your talk page. In case you missed it, here is why we do not lump all criticism into a "criticism ghetto":

This is often frowned upon according to the policies and principles of Wikipedia.

For example, from [4]: Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Template:Criticism-section).

If you want to change WP policy, you are in the wrong place. If you want to change consensus, you are probably not going about it in a constructive way. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See MOS:FILM. I only want to follow the Manual of Style. We NEED a plot section. Even if we waterdown the plot section and simply list the actors and the scenes and leave out what the actors advocate, we need a plot section.Fairchoice (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible watered down plot section

The film states "that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions." The film states that educators and scientists who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have been unfairly ridiculed, presenting cases such as an application to be granted tenure being refused and a biology teacher having to leave the university, and describes this as due to a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. The trailer shows Ben Stein stating that his intention is to unmask "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God."

Richard Sternberg having served as editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington arranged for his last issue to include publication of a paper by leading intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer. The review procedure was questioned and the journal 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.

The astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University, co-wrote the book The Privileged Planet promoting intelligent design claims. He was not granted tenure and promotion on the grounds that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy." The Discovery Institute then launched a campaign portraying Gonzalez as a victim of discrimination.

Biologist Caroline Crocker was barred by George Mason University from teaching a Cell Biology class over her introduction of intelligent design into it, and her contract at that university was not renewed.

The film also includes interviews with scientists who advocate the teaching of evolution and are opposed to the intrusion of creationism and other religious doctrines in science classes, biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and anthropologist Eugenie Scott.

WP MOS:FILM

Reproduced below (shortened):
Article body The following are the standard article components of Wikipedia film articles.

Lead section

The lead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film.

Plot

The plot section is made self-contained

Background/Production

Included here should be a history of the film's background and development,

Cast and crew information

Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose.

Distribution

The distribution section should detail any notable information about the film's releases in cinema, on video, and on TV.

Reception

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers. Fairchoice (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Current version is too confusing

The current version is so confusing because the whole article is one big fight (mostly negative). We need a clear plot section saying who was interviewed. If you want a later section saying what they said in detail and why it is crap (or not crap), ok with me. Fairchoice (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)