This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
NCSEexposed.org is self-published ID proponentsists attacking credible mainstream science, unsurprisingly. Not a reliable source, and not significant. . dave souza, talk 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Dave, that seem incorrect. It's an organizations website, which is a citeable source even if content is suspect because party is involved. If this is where the rebuttal was done that would make it the primary source for the fact of a rebuttal and providing it's content. Whether it identifies itself as associated with the makers of the movie would be a relevant thing and important to mention. Whether the content was itself supported in their rebuttal or whether it is unsupported assertions seems relevant but seems likely to be debated. If they're involved parties their input is suspect, but so is everyone else in this mess. Markbassett (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The organisation concerned is the Discovery Institute, this is one of their several websites which share their poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and promotion of pseudoscience. As such, it can only be used where shown in mainstream context, and is essentially an unreliable source. . dave souza, talk 18:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Dave - looking further I see rebuttals reported elsewhere, e.g. at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/more-on-gonzale.html mention that for Gonzales there was Demoines Register article "Intelligent design theory influenced ISU tenure vote" by Lisa Rossi, December 1, 2007, that internal ISU emails did include his ID-involvement. (And of course DI has press conference running with this bit and Pandas thumb piddles on DI and so on.) This does provide further citations shoowing rebuttal did happen and even that there's independant evidence some rebuttal claims had independant support. For size reasons I would think it more appropriate to put move the ISU content here and any rebuttal info to the detail page of the Gonzzales article. Markbassett (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
184.108.40.206 - the website pointer is good, but you'll have to be more specific to something there to be meaningful and particularly be discussing an edit for the article to have actual results. So I suggeest that you pick the one biggest surest thing at that website and start boldly proposing edit mention of it and see how it goes. Markbassett (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
With any coverage of course needing to give due weight to the mainstream view, per WP:PSCI. . dave souza, talk 18:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It was brought to my attention today that Jeffrey Overstreet was misquoted in this article, and upon investigation, this seems to be the case. The cite link is dead, but is available at Archive.org, and it is clearly from a "Letter to the editor" (the quoted bit is in "spoiler" text at the bottom), and cannot be credited to Overstreet. It was hamhandedly removed once today by an anonymous editor whose edit was justifiably reverted. I've re-removed it with explanation, although I cited the wrong "updated link" in the edit summary; the moved blog seems to have dropped the post in question. Overstreet's treatment of the letter and the response to it may push some buttons, but in any case we can't attribute that quote to Overstreet, since it is from "Stuart Blessman [...] a student at the University of Minnesota." --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This Wikipedia page is as biased and propagandistic as the movie itself. Wikipedia's purported "NPOV" (Neutral Point of View) doctrine has been a joke from the earliest years, as further exemplified in this article. This long and painstaking article is simply a hatchet-job. Note the verbs "claims" and "alleges" when Intelligent Design sympathizers are cited; not once are these "shudder verbs" (questioning truth) used for the anti-Intelligent-Design people who instead merely "say" or "said" things.
There is a mostly-successful political campaign to keep Inteligent Design (deliberately conflated with religious Creationism) out of schools and universities, as the movie shows. The skeptics are more skilled in the use and abuse of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool than their opponents, as this article shows. (Shades of Serdar Argic.)
The main title of the movie is "Expelled", so it's appropriate for it to emphasize the career-destruction that results from endorsing or allowing for Intelligent Design, rather that setting out the theory and evidence in detail.
There is a certain general Wikipedia POV, basically that of the standard nerd. I have it myself. That it is "neutral" is a fraud and conceit of Wikipedia.
You appear to be a bit misinformed about facts, and while you seem to appreciate that this article complies with NPOV policy, it appears that you want that policy to change. Wrong talk page for that. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Dave -- ??? clearly he's flaming it as being an anti_ID hatchet job that failed at NPOV, not what you said. The note he makes of wording is a bit interesting, otherwise yah insertion of biases noted so what else is new. My suggestion would be to not try and fix it, there's enough factual content to be of some use and this seems about as good as it is going to get. Markbassett (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)