Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Category

@Jytdog and Charlesdrakew: This film is widely categorized by movie reviewers and reporters as a documentary. I've watched it more than once and realize it is also a propaganda film. Nonetheless, the sources clearly call it a documentary. Therefore, so should we. YoPienso (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is related to the discussion above. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Yopienso. It is, of course, both a propaganda film (in that its evident purpose is to propagate a certain belief), and a documentary film. There is plenty of space for criticism down in the article, no need to put it in the first sentence. Plazak (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The introduction is supposed to summarize the article. Putting "propaganda" in the first sentence is a good way of doing that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with putting "propaganda" in the lead, but not in the first, defining sentence. See my rationale above. YoPienso (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree: The film is a documentary. That's not opinion or in dispute. Even sources that dislike the film call it a documentary. Some sources call it propaganda. That has been contained in this article for some time now. Putting propaganda in the first sentence is not the best way to summarize a film because the propaganda label is opinion. This would be akin to labeling movies as good or bad in the first sentence based on their Rotten Tomatoes score. We put the genre in the first sentence. Discussions about opinions or critical receptions don't go in the first sentence on other films, so why on one you happen to dislike? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As above, the genre is "propaganda in the form of a documentary film" and it's misleading to imply in any way that it's an accurate or unbiased documentary. Propaganda doesn't mean it's bad, the same genre includes The Song of Ceylon and Triumph of the Will, both of which are excellent in their ways. . . dave souza, talk 21:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Dave Souza is entirely correct in saying that - strictly speaking - the propaganda film label label is neither good nor bad, it merely means a film with the purpose of persuading to a particular point of view. Unfortunately, too many readers and (alas) Wiki editors interpret it as meaning dishonest. The term is commonly used by film reviewers to denigrate a persuasive film with which they disagree. The question seems to be whether to use the propaganda label prominently in its true neutral sense, per Dave souza, or place it down further in the article in recognition that most readers will interpret it as a hot-button label meaning deceitful and dishonest.Plazak (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• The term propaganda is a loaded one. We can play the 'here's the strict dictionary definition' game all day, but the average reader will see it as a pejorative, even if your intention is a strict reading of the term. This is even more likely when you put it in the very first sentence, where there is no context, as there is later on in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I like how we handle the issue of balancing what those involved in a project say about it vs. what critics from the scientific community say about it at Creationist museum:

A creationist museum is a facility that hosts exhibits which use the established natural history museum format to present a young Earth creationist view that the Earth and life on Earth were created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago in six days.[1] These facilities generally promote pseudoscientific Biblical literalist creationism and contest evolutionary science, which has led to heavy criticism from the scientific community.[2]

The first sentence is neutral in that it even-handedly defines the subject in the terms of those involved with the project. The next sentence presents the scientific community's view. YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dave Souza's recent edit seems to fix the problem--just call it a film. Thanks, Dave! YoPienso (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary Critical Reviews...

OK, I don't know why all those critical reviews are at the beginning of the page. Why can't you just say "the film was released to negative reviews" and put all the critical reviews under the "Reception" section? If you put them at the beginning of the article, it's just way too much information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neateditor123 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:LEDE says the lead is supposed to be "a concise overview of the article's topic". Dishonesty and propaganda are essential components of the description and belong there.

Maybe the lead should be shortened, but this edit is too obviously WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the critic reviews. In fact, they're really great and well-written. However, when they're put at the very beginning of the page, it makes that introductory paragraph a bit bloated. What's wrong with moving those reviews to the "Reception" section (where they belong anyway) and just saying at the beginning of the page that the film was negatively received? That way, it's all neatly summarized. The casual reader doesn't need to read all those reviews at the beginning of the article. All that person wants to know is how the film was received by critics. This way, he or she can find that out very easily without having so much unnecessary information being flung into their faces. --Neateditor123 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

All right, since no one has responded, I've reverted back to my edit. If you wish to discuss this, please respond here. --Neateditor123 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

Silence is not WP:CONSENSUS, of course... Reverts also indicate a lack of it. I've been watching this discussion but couldn't take time to evaluate the situation yet. I however noticed that the lead generally appears to summarize parts of the body as it should per WP:LEAD. It's possible that it contains too much details; that redundant sentences that are not part of the body already could be moved there. To make the process easier to review, perhaps handle one source/review at a time? The lead can still contain a summary of the important points made by reviews... Also, there's generally an issue with calling such movies "documentary films", as they are considerd propaganda, an important fact that your edit removed from the lead. —PaleoNeonate – 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. There is a reason it is not called Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, BOLD cycle. If you do not stop this disruptive behavior at once, people might take it badly.

It is not acceptable to call this lying dungheap of a film a "documentary", and it is not acceptable to delete essential information such as "dishonesty" and "propaganda" from the lead. The assumption that you convinced anybody that all the reasons they had are wrong, just because you said "the introductory paragraph [is] a bit bloated", is just plain silly. The assumption that five hours of no answers means that nobody disagrees (because everybody is sitting in front of the article all the time and hitting "refreseh" every few minutes), is even more silly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the citation of individual reviews in the lead section, this is indeed uncommon for film articles. Actually, now that I look more closely, the individual reviews are not even in the article body. This seems to go against WP:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The individual reviews should be placed in the body itself, and the lead section should summarize the critical reception (which I suggest making distinct from non-film critics' assessments). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, —PaleoNeonate – 19:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I reverted back to my edit without waiting for an answer. It's just that since no one responded, I assumed that it was OK to revert back to my edit. In the future, I will not do that. However, I do think that Erik made a very good point. Again, the introductory paragraph shouldn't be the section of the article to have all those critical reviews. Those belong under the "Reception" section. In the introductory paragraph, you could just say that "the film was released to negative reviews from critics" and leave it at that. Also, I deleted the words "propaganda" and "dishonest" from the article because those are subjective terms. Just because you think this film is a "lying dungheap" doesn't give you an excuse to put subjective terms in a Wikipedia article. I put the term "documentary" on the page because that's what it essentially is, however dishonest or lying it may be. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. In fact, it very well may be right. However, such subjectivity does not belong on a Wikipedia page. --Neateditor123 (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Neateditor123

Regarding the "documentary" label, that label does not inherently mean fidelity to truth. I'm sure that in the history of documentaries, there is a whole range of subjectivity involved. Sampling the past year's news sources, Variety, Forbes, and The Hollywood Reporter call it a political documentary, so that label seems possible. Furthermore, even the first sentence in "Overview" has a New York Times citation calling it a documentary despite the pseudoscientific background. We have plenty of context provided in the article regarding mainstream critique of the subject matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Subjectivity is one thing, but good faith is another. It's not clear to me, at all, that the film makers attempted to adhere to any standard for truth-telling as many of the critics explicitly argue. To that end, it seems to me that while we have a film which is stylistically a documentary, to label it as simply a "documentary" is to be somewhat misleading. jps (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Just because you think this film is a "lying dungheap" doesn't give you an excuse what we think doesn't matter, if we say it it must be because sources also did. —PaleoNeonate – 19:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Two paragraphs about reviews is certainly overkill. The fact that this movie has been widely panned and dismissed is one of its most notable features, so a prominent mention of that does belong at the beginning, but there is such a thing as going overboard. We don't need to include a mention of every negative review its received in this section. The last paragraph is mostly redundant and should go. -R. fiend (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I've reverted the edits calling it a propaganda film, and removing its status as a documentary. This was settled a long time ago. Various sources have called it propaganda, and we make that very clear from the beginning, but for us to say it is propaganda is POV, pure and simple. Likewise, pretty much everyone, even its critics, say it is a documentary. This doesn't mean it's accurate, fair, or without an agenda, it is simply the type of movie it is. -R. fiend (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a problem because as a genre the film only fits into the documentary style, but most critics claim the film was not made in good faith meaning that it is not really non-fiction which is what a documentary is generally described as. I think we could say the film was made in the style of a documentary, but we should not, in Wikipedia's voice, declare it to be a documentary. jps (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times calls it a documentary here. It does not say anything like "style of a documentary". The lead section and the article body already cover the fringe nature of the subject matter. Wikipedia's voice should follow reliable sources in calling it a documentary; it is overblown to say we are "declaring" it as a documentary as if a documentary is only ever "made in good faith" (whatever that means). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What, according to most definitions of film categories, is "[o]ne of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time" supposed to mean? If you want to say that the New York Times called it a "sleazy documentary", I won't object, but I think that the adjective the reviewer chose to attach to it means that she's really arguing that it does not function in the full sense that a documentary is supposed to function. What we're talking about here is Wikipedia's voice. If we won't take this critic's word that it is "sleazy", why is it okay to call it a "documentary" without qualification? And if you object to the wording of good faith, you are objecting to well-sourced descriptions of what non-fiction entails. Read it for yourself at the linked page!jps (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, there is a difference between "documentary-style" films and actual documentaries. The mockumentary is a famous example of a kind of film that is not a documentary but made in such a style. Of course, this film is not a mockumentary, but by the same token, it has aspects which make it justifiable to question whether it is a documentary without qualification. Can't we just call it a "documentary-style" film? jps (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence they are not honest and sincere in their beliefs? A documentary does not have to be correct, just honestly made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is. If you read the reviews it seems that many (most?) critics accuse the filmmakers of purposely misleading interviewees. This is basically the definition of bad faith. It seems that the filmmakers were intentionally trying to mislead people. jps (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No it is not, they may well have been dishonest in how they asked questions (or in getting people to answer them) that does not mean they dishonestly presented their case. And again, a documentary does not have to honestly portray what it is a documentary about, just that the makers must believe what they are saying. Again I see no evidence this is not the case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

And I also note that some of the reviews we use as sources call it a documentary.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The filmmakers probably didn't believe what they were saying at some points. Let's be clear what we're talking about here, though. The filmmakers, I have no doubt, believe in a form of creationism or intelligent design. But that belief in and of itself is not what this film is about. This is a film about a claimed systematic campaign of exclusion by academics to alienate believers. It is not at all clear that the filmmakers actually believe that this is going on. In fact, it seems that the filmmakers are hoping that by claiming that this is going on, people will be more inclined to believe in their favored ideas. Thus, they try to mislead certain interviewees to say things that sound like this conspiracy exists. This is so egregious that the critic referenced above, for example, claims that "[t]his goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term." It cannot be a documentary if the film is intentionally lying to the audience, can it? jps (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course it can A documentary is "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record." there is nothing about that that means they have to be 100% true, just earnest in what they say and I note you say the film "The film suggests" which means it does not say it explicitly. Thus (yes) he may well believe what he says, just not what you think he says.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

As I explained, critics really do contend that they are not earnest in their presentation. You also misinterpret what the word "suggest" means which would have been clear had you actually watched the film. They explicitly say that Sterberg lost his job. The critic is saying that the film was suggesting that the motive for the loss of the job was intellectual discrimination. But they explicitly claim he lost his job when he, in fact, did not (and there is plenty of evidence the filmmakers knew this). jps (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

As I explained I do not see that in reviews, I see them being represented as dishonest on their actions, not their beliefs. As to Sterberg, a job does not have to be paid, and many (for example) volunteers consider themselves as having a job. Sterberg might well have considered it a job (rather then paid employment). So lets have some quotes where RS say they did not believe what they said. Not the RS saying "we do not believe it" the RS saying "they did not".Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The previous quote does explicitly what you are asking for. This is getting into WP:CHEESE territory. I'm not going to jump through any more of my hoops. Let's wait for other editors as I tire of your tendentiousness and the asymmetry of demands. The WP:ONUS is on you since you are trying to argue for the inclusion of content. Good day. jps (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Neateditor123, you said you deleted the words "propaganda" and "dishonest" from the article because those are subjective terms. Wikipedia's job is to accurately summarize what Reliable Sources write about a topic. One of the most noteworthy things about the movie is the reception, which extends beyond the usual film critics to reception by scientific and educational communities. And one of the most noteworthy things about that reception is how often film critics and others reliable sources describe the film as "propaganda" or use terms such as "dishonest". You cannot delete those words as "subjective". It is an objective fact that is how the film is widely described. And without taking a position on exactly how much detail to include in the lead, that extraordinary fact does need to be noted in the lead. Alsee (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee: In that case, why not just say that critics called the film "dishonest propaganda" instead of just subjectively calling the movie that yourself?

Also, I think we're going a bit off-topic here. All I wanted to ask on this Talk section was whether to move the critical reviews at the beginning to the "Reception" section or not. Have we reached a consensus on that yet? I would like to know so I can at least put that issue out of my head.

Documentary?

Yes, it's a documentary film, per our article and multiple sources, a few of which I reference below.

User:ජපස's recent edit summary

Since no source calls it a "documentary" without attaching adjectives, it's only fair to say that this is the style rather than the substance. We don't call Triumph of the Will a documentary. See [1] where the film is described as "pure propaganda that would make even Leni Riefenstahl blush.")

falsely claims "calls it a 'documentary' without attaching adjectives," implying they are all negative adjectives like the NYT's "sleazy." Check out these sources:

• Scientific American: Calls it a documentary in the subtitle and says it's "allegedly a documentary" in the text.
• Rotten Tomatoes: Genre: Documentary, Special Interest
• Metacritic: Genre(s): Documentary
• Christianity Today: GENRE Documentary
• Roger Moore, in the Orlando Sentinel, reprinted in the Chicago Tribune: This is a scathing review that nonetheless labels the film a documentary, qualified only by the adjective "new."
• Roger Ebert's even more hostile review unqualifiedly calls it a documentary. (For the purist, he calls it "Ben Stein's documentary.')

So, fail, User:ජපස.

Compromise suggestion: Why don't we call it an antievolution documentary like Michael Shermer did in SA. That's accurate, and should satisfy makers, supporters, critics, detractors, and enemies. YoPienso (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Or, a "pseudoscience documentary" as with Vaxxed. Of course, "documentary style" probably works as well - pushing the "documentary" label may be undue promotion of fringe theories. --tronvillain (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note that our article on documentary film, citing to the OED, states: "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record." intended to--lots of wiggle room there

Our article also refers to Grierson's definition of documentary as "creative treatment of actuality".

It furthermore says, "Documentary filmmaking can be used as a form of journalism, advocacy, or personal expression," which applies to Expelled.

Do you think the average reader will realize that the word "antievolution" signals opposition to mainstream science? I do. YoPienso (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see the note I just added after the second ref in the lead to Claudia Puig's review. She specifically states documentaries aren't necessarily objective. YoPienso (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Objectivity is not the problem. Bad faith misrepresentation is the problem. It's the difference between having an opinion and lying. jps (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The filmmakers misrepresented their project to Dawkins and Myers in order to wangle interviews. Their finished product, however, represents their sincere opinions. Huge difference there: they aren't deliberately lying to viewers, but yes, they are trying to persuade viewers that their opinions are correct. YoPienso (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Their finished product, however, represents their sincere opinions" - No, it does not. See Myers' accusation of quote mining. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

People often quote mine to bolster their sincere opinions. Have you ever seen political memes on Facebook? YoPienso (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

From the context, I had interpreted the word "their" in "their sincere opinions" as referring to Dawkins and Myers, not the filmmakers. The filmmakers quotemined what the scientists said so the finished product did not represent the scientists' honest opinions. Whatever people do on Facebook, or how common dishonesty is, is not relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for that; it explains our misunderstanding. I meant the film represents the filmmakers' sincere opinions. The filmmakers tricked Myers and Dawkins into an interview and then quote-mined their comments. I mentioned FB memes to you as an example to help you understand what I meant because it seemed to me you couldn't wrap your head around someone presenting fake evidence to support their honest sincere opinions. But now I see the confusion was a grammatical question of pronouns and antecedents. YoPienso (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

More than this, I would argue that the finished product does more than merely present the filmmaker's opinions which is exactly where we run afoul of declaring something a "documentary" without qualification. The film as a whole is a means to present their polemic, but it much of the content does not sincerely adhere to what we have good evidence that the filmmakers knew according to the sources we see. When someone makes a movie about what they think is a scandal, but to do so they edit the footage to make it seem like various interview subjects hold beliefs which they do not or include what they claim to be statements of "fact" which are simply not true or lie by omission, this is a means by which the sincerity of the filmmakers is impugned. To plainly declare this to be a documentary in an unadorned fashion is to take the side that the filmmakers did not do any of these things which is a point of view. Specifically, it's the creationist point of view. jps (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

And yet that's what the RSs say. And, like the RSs, we qualify the term: per Shermer, we preface "documentary" with "anti-evolution." Specifically, it's not the creationist point of view; it's merely the name of the genre to which the film belongs. YoPienso (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Documentary" is an appropriate description of the style, just as a comedy is a comedy regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's funny, and a qualifier such as "antievolution" would add accuracy. Reviews indicate that it is more anti-evolution than pro-intelligent design. –dlthewave ☎ 19:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So we should call it "documentary-style". But YoPienso reverted away that reasonable compromise in order to hide the relevant information in a footnote. Very suspicious. jps (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with documentary-style. I am not OK with documentary. From Documentary film: "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record." The sources in this article establish hat the purpose here is not "non-fictional" and absolutely not to maintain a historical record, it's to replace scientific consensus with religious dogma. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Please read this section and the preceding ones for an understanding of why we're calling it a documentary. Also, I like and almost put a hyphen in antievolution, but the source doesn't use one. I'm happy to leave it in if others don't object. YoPienso (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You haven't explained yourself sufficiently, YoPienso, and are claiming a consensus which does not exist. Since the film is accused by most of the reliable sources of not acting in good faith, it is irresponsible to label it as a documentary which tacitly implies the film is non-fiction. Leaving the vital caveats buried in a footnote as you have done is the height of editorial irresponsibility and a sign of creationist WP:POVPUSHing, which I hereby accuse you of engaging in. jps (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Documentary implies factual accuracy. Virtually every reality-based sources establishes beyond doubt that this is not factual. I am OK with not including any genre, but if we must include a genre then it's propaganda not documentary. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially wikilinked as it is to documentary film --> non-fiction --> good faith. I tried to make this point earlier, but it may have gotten buried. jps (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that at Wikipedia we go by the RSs, not our own critiques. Core, indisputable policies: WP:V, WP:NOR. The sources overwhelmingly call it a documentary. Jps, those same RSs to which you refer call the film a documentary. Surely this needs no further explanation. YoPienso (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You haven't dealt substantively with the point. Instead you are sticking to your own obfuscation is classic POV-pushing fashion. jps (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The point is that the overwhelming majority of RSs call it a documentary. Another point so basic it shouldn't need repeating is that WP relies on RSs, not users' personal opinions. You're adding your own definition/understanding of "documentary" in disregard of how RSs have used it. There, that's my best good-faith shot at dealing substantively with the point. If I'm still not clear enough, please ask R. fiend, NiteShift36, Plazak, PaleoNeonate, Erik, or SlaterSteven to explain it to you. YoPienso (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. That's not the point. Try again. jps (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Then pray tell, what it is? I won't play a guessing game with you. YoPienso (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• What we do here is summarize high quality sources. This sort of one-word label content, tends to be difficult in a case like this, where high quality RS call it several things. One option would be to add some distance and say something like "which has been described as a documentary and as a propaganda film." Another would be to compromise on something in the middle, like "documentary-style film". Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion described as a documentary and as a propaganda film could work, the suggestion pseudoscience documentary pulled from Vaxxed is interesting. Or the lead sentence could simply say "film", leaving "documentary" and "propaganda" to be addressed with more nuance in later sentences. Alsee (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Documentary-style film" or just plain "film" would work for me. YoPienso (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is a documentary, it may be foolish, ill informed and ignorant, but that does not mean its makers do not think it is real.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In previuos cases of faux-documentaries we have used "documentary-style film". It is claimed to be a documentary but th3 article makes clear that it systematically misrepresents the facts and other sources rightly call it propaganda. we can say it is a self-described documentary, but to call it a documentary in Wikipedia's vouce is to carry water for a propagandist. Guy (Help!) 07:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I say call it a documentary-style Propaganda film. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Accusation of creationist WP:POVPUSHing

You yourself, jps, said, "There's a problem because as a genre the film only fits into the documentary style." You're right--that's what it is, as attested to by many RSs. The "problem" you discern is that you don't like it. Boomerang! You, in fact, are the one who is pushing a POV. See above what R. fiend said:

Also, I've reverted the edits calling it a propaganda film, and removing [sic] its status as a documentary. This was settled a long time ago. Various sources have called it propaganda, and we make that very clear from the beginning, but for us to say it is propaganda is POV, pure and simple. Likewise, pretty much everyone, even its critics, say it is a documentary. This doesn't mean it's accurate, fair, or without an agenda, it is simply the type of movie it is. -R. fiend (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand when he wrote removing he meant restoring, since his edit summary is "all the sources say it's a documentary (whether it's a good one is not the issue), calling it propaganda is POV." No one's calling R. fiend a creationist POV-pusher. I fear you, jps, fell into a trap: you see on my user page I'm a Christian and jump to the erroneous conclusion that I think the film is accurate. Or maybe you didn't check my user page; maybe you simply misunderstood my objectivity as support.
I fully recognize the film as a propaganda piece. We already have the word "propaganda" in the lead 4 times, and 4 more times in the body, and then some more in the refs and notes. I support inserting Puig's assertions into the narrative at an appropriate place--which isn't the first paragraph of the lead. It could be in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, as long as we don't fall back into the overkill R. fiend detected and fixed. Erik cited policy wrt the lead and PaleoNeonate agreed. So do I, as anyone who understands the policy would. You're the dissenter here, jps. YoPienso (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, in my statement I meant I was reverting it's removal [ie I was reinstating it]. I see how it can be ambiguous, but that is what I was attempting to say. -R. fiend (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is classic deflection. The proof is in the pudding. You tried to get this film described as a documentary without any acknowledgment of the fact that the reliable sources indicate that the filmmakers were intentionally misleading people. That's not what a documentary is according to all the definitions I can find, but this ploy is straight out of a creationist playbook. It doesn't matter what your personal beliefs are. Your actions are creationist POV-pushing. jps (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Where's the deflection? The second half of your statement, "You tried to get this film described as a documentary without any acknowledgment of the fact that the reliable sources indicate that the filmmakers were intentionally misleading people," is off-topic. You're arguing about that on this page with other people, but I simply restored the well-sourced term documentary. We don't put everything in the first sentence; please read my argument about that above, posted 02:58, 27 May 2018, using the Hitler article as an example.

The issue I'm addressing is about what genre, per RSs, the film belongs to. YoPienso (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

the sources call it several things. Be careful not to make misrepresentations in edit notes as you did here, since you cannot go back and change them. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? What did I misrepresent? YoPienso (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You're claiming that there is a wide agreement that this movie is a documentary. You've refused to deal substantively with the critiques of the very sources your citing to make this argument which identify the movie making false statements and mischaracterizations in bad faith. I have pointed out why it's problematic to label a film suffering from such critique as a "documentary" without qualification. I have proposed that we call it "documentary-style". You refuse to talk about any of this and insist that the only possibility is to call the movie a documentary -- a description which aligns closely with a creationist POV. That's POV-pushing, plain and simple. jps (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I was asking Jytdog what he meant about an edit summary of mine. I don't think you're answering that question.

Wrt your allegations, indeed I'm claiming that there is wide agreement that this movie is a documentary, and I provided links to the sources. Do you dispute that? YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Read what you actually wrote in the edit note. Read what i said. The problem is simple. I will not respond further, but do not continue to make misrepresentations in edit notes. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Suit yourself--be opaque.

For other editors on this page:

I wrote (to User:ජපස, aka jps) You "believe you see" POV-pushing. :D The issue is very simple: What genre does the film belong to? The sources call it a documentary.

Jytdog said, Be careful not to make misrepresentations in edit notes as you did here, since you cannot go back and change them.

I have no idea what Jytdog means by this. I don't know what he thinks I misrepresented. Jps accused me of POV-pushing, which I think he did perceive, although mistakenly. The "'believe you see' POV-pushing" followed by the laughing emoji (:D) is a joke referring to these edits and edit summaries: 1, 2. I see nothing I would want or need to change. YoPienso (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not and has never been with the genre. I have made it abundantly clear what the issue is. It's unclear why it's hard for you to figure this out. It is possible that you are simply incompetent in the context of these sorts of discussions. jps (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Debating a creationist is like wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Improving narrative

Jytdog has elegantly simplified the second sentence of the article. Continuing in that vein, I suggest two rewrites:

First paragraph of lead:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 American anti-evolution documentary film directed by Nathan Frankowski and starring Ben Stein.[2][3][a][4] The film contends that there is an atheist conspiracy in academia to oppress and exclude people who believe in intelligent design (ID).[5][6] The film portrays evolution as a major contributor to communism, fascism, atheism, eugenics and, in particular, to Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust.[7][2] It presents intelligent design as a scientific theory rather than a religious belief, as it has been shown to be, [ref to Kitzmiller v. Dover] but does not offer a specific definition of ID or attempt to explain it on a scientific level. Other than briefly addressing issues of irreducible complexity, Expelled examines intelligent design as a political issue.[7][8][9]

Rationale:

• Omit passive voice.
• Give and occasionally use the abbreviation ID for intelligent design.
• No need to say twice that ID is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

Third paragraph of lead:
The general media response to the film has been largely negative. USA Today, Scientific American, and numerous other publications described the film as poorly-done propaganda.[2][3][11] The New York Times called it "a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."[2] Christianity Today gave the film a positive review, rating it with 3 out of 4 stars,[14] but the Chicago Tribune's rating was "1 star (poor),"[12] while the film review website Rotten Tomatoes gave Expelled a "rotten" rating with a 9% meta-score (later improved to 11% overall) and posted this summary: "Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary."[13]

Rationale:

• Lump the reviews with ratings together. Put the lone good one first (not that there weren't other positive reviews, mainly Christian, IIRC), immediately followed with a "but" :and a whole paragraph on the mainstream reception.
• Contrast Christianity Today with two well-known secular dailies.
• Streamline the info from and about Rotten Tomatoes.
• The clinching sentence should be strong, not a tacked-on "Oh, yes--one good review."
  

I've been careless with mark-up and deliberately omitted blue-links and actual refs here on talk. YoPienso (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not a fan of attribution to publications. There is editorial imprimatur, but it tends to make an article read like a poorly-done book report. Slightly better is quoting the critic directly, but even that is poor writing. The best thing to do is assert facts that are clearly agreed upon by all reliable sources and only include quotes that help the reader understand something unique about the situation. jps (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point. If others agree, we can change that. YoPienso (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)