Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Piece in The Guardian

The Guardian have done a piece entitled Dawkins rails at 'creationist front' for duping him into film role on the deception surrounding this film. I don't know if it adds any new information, but it does add another WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They have a second piece called Was it fair to dupe Richard Dawkins?. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither of them are particularly good. The first looks like a precis of the NYT article, and the second is more of an op-ed with nothing really new. They might be worth citing as supporting refs though. – ornis⚙ 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Baylor student newspaper on 'Expelled' & EIL

ID debate to continue in new film -- it pretty much only covers the pro-ID side of the story, but may be useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

seems pretty crap. Looks like they let Mathis/Stein pretty much write the article, and then right at the end have a little disclaimer *oh they are lying here*. I hate this movie and everything it stands for already. --ZayZayEM 14:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. This sure is fun to watch. :-) --profg 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed name defense

One thing that's interesting is that expelledthemovie.com was registered on March 1th, PZ Myers was contacted in April for an interview. So this wasn't about deciding to change the name of the movie. They used Crossroads and Rampant Films as tools to deceivingly obtain interviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.214.27.172 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Website Section

Filll, I think your new section on "Website" is a good idea. However, filling it with a blog quote might not be the best use of space. Even breaking up the quote doesn't seem to work; it just takes up more space.

Perhaps simply using the section to note what the website currently offers, such as trailers, an overview, free downloads, a tongue-in-cheek "Big Science Academy", e-cards, "Get Involved" activism resources, a blog, links to the latest news articles, a media-only "press room" section, and even a merchandise section (coming soon).

Thoughts? --profg 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Profg. JoshuaZ 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a start. I want to get the letter in there with the premise of the movie. There is a second letter from the producers we can put in the article as well. These letters can even be moved out of the website section eventually to a new section. This is an article in flux. --Filll 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Jim62sch's edits to this section. Jim62sch, care to fill us in? Thanks! --profg 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel a section stating that the movie has a website (is this really unexpected, I think it's listed in EL) is really all too important. It is a very hollow section without any substance. It just quotes and summarises Stein. It doesn't offer any criticism on the points, most likely because because the editors involved realise this would breach POV and OR guidelines. As it stands it doesn't contribute much to the article but parrot Stein, this isn't wikiquote. Is the website notable? IMHO, no, not yet.--ZayZayEM 23:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the letter is the main piece of evidence we have as to the premise of the movie. I hope we can examine the points in the letter if we can avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems. Maybe the name of the section should be something else.--Filll 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps don't have a section. Just include the premise details in the top section. I also think it mischaracterises what is clearly a blog as a "letter".--ZayZayEM 01:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two relevant letters in that blog. This is part of one. I dont care what we call the section it is, I just think it contains interesting information, at least until we get people to see the movie and review it.--Filll 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand Jim62sch's edits to this section. Jim62sch, care to fill us in? Thanks! --profg 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

They seem fine to me. Time to move along. FeloniousMonk 05:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See no problem with them. It better characterises the careful wording of proponents.--ZayZayEM 06:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well OK then! :-) Honestly, though, I was hoping Jim62sch would actually comment on his edits, as is standard WP editing behavior. But it's certainly not necessary, if everyone else sees no problem. Thanks. --profg 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've noticed that you like to tie editors up with fruitless talk page objections and questions. Since the net effect is always the same, I see no need for it. Odd nature 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd nature, please assume good faith. Thank you. --profg 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have with you many times in the past, and it only lead to additional disruption on your part. I suppose that is why WP:AFG has a clause that says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Odd nature 19:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think we can see in the discussion above that I was not engaging in anything that would lead you to attack me in this way. Please stop immediately, as it does not contribute to this article at all. Thank you. --profg 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not an attack to state one's view. See WP:SPADE and WP:WORD--ZayZayEM 01:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is if it's patently untrue. I can't just say "ZayZayEM is deliberately vandalizing dozens of pages" and then claim that "I'm just stating my view that ZZEM's edits are vandalism" when they obviously aren't. "Stating one's view" does not excuse attacking someone. Thanks. --profg 03:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You can say "ZZ *appears* to be vandalising dozens of pages". This is clearly a supposition, not an accusation and not an attack. Also if I have been vandalising, or at least been disruptively editing several pages, the comment is quite warranted, and should cause me to think about my actions.--ZayZayEM 04:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but Odd nature did not write "you appear to tie editors up" etc., he wrote "you like to tie editors up" etc. -- both an accusation and an attack, not just "his view," especially considering its lack of veracity. Thank you.

hey profg, please stop tying up editors here with your nonsensical comments. And as a bonus, stop crying like a persecuted little school girl. Thank you - The MAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The website section seems unnecessary, but I left it for now after cleaning it up somewhat. No sense having a long digression from Stein's blog, though-- I don't think Wikipedia should be a place to speculate on the content of a movie, and that seems to be what the long quoted area was used for. Recommend "website" section be deleted... "external reading" should suffice. I mean, duh, websites have additional information. *forehead slap* --Daephex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.18.243 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Text cut from Ben Stein

Someone cut this, perhaps rightly - it isn't directly related to Ben Stein. I NPOV'd the rest of the description of the film, mainly by not describing it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The movie has been criticized by several of the interviewees, including biologists PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and anthropologist Eugenie Scott, who were asked to be interviewed for a film named "Crossroads" on the "intersection of science and religion", with a blurb which described the strong support that had been accumulated for evolution, and contrasted this with the religious who rejected it, and the controversy this caused. On learning of the pro-intelligent design stance of the real film, Myers said "not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest." Richard Dawkins said "At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front"; and Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education, said "I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t."

The stupid burns...

From the Producers

My head seriously hurts after reading this. I'm agreeing with one commentator that it does sound more like angry teen angst (or just William Dembskiish) than serious film documentarians.

There rationale for the *name change* may be relevent:

The release references “Crossroads,” as a “tentative” title, if that’s OK? So just to set the record straight, the film was titled EXPELLED only after we began to see the disturbing pattern and shocking information that the footage reveals! So, thanks for the title guys, we couldn’t have done it without you! And we’re still considering using “Crossroads” for something else! Watch out.

They also say of the original film synopsis as "We think that the information is very clear. Do we need to provide a course in English grammar before conducting an interview?", which I think is a fair cop. Mildly deceptive as it was, it wasn't exactly false, and it really isn't up to these guys to explain it to the assumptive.--ZayZayEM 06:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that expelledthemovie.com was registered before the interviews, as mentioned above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I believed a word of it. My "fair cop" comment is directed that the Crossroads synopsis could still be legitimately used as a synopsis for Expelled. Producers: "The information is very clear", I wouldn't say very, but it is clear enough. It's a bit deceptive about the motives/direction the film was going to take, but it does outline the expected content.--ZayZayEM 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Selective editing in trailer

See Richard Dawkins' site. It's rather apparent that they've spliced together two different statements where Dawkins is supposedly saying that, as a scientist, he is hostile to a rival doctrine. There's a cut both within and at the end of the obviously cobbled together sentence. (90.196.219.155 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Slant of this very article

The wording of this article is clearly unbalance: "Stein relies on arguments about freedom of speech and teleology", Relies? Like, a crutch or a cop out? That sounds like opinion rather than knowledge. "with the enticement that a winning stor" (sic) Enticement? Like you know for a fact they're bribing people? What on earth? And the overly frequent use of the word "claim", where "fact" may actually be applicable (while they can only "claim" Intelligent Design is real, the stifling of scientific questioning of Darwinism in general is a provable "fact". But due to that very stifling, this is the first time it's really been brought to light so people refuse to believe it and slap it in the "claim" category. It's like saying I merely claim people have jobs.)

Then this very talk page is filled with three separate commentaries about how Stein is an idiot, and the movie will be crap, and other sentiments that interestingly echo those of the very people exposed in the film trailers; nothing to do with the article itself! And they remained undeleted. Any other talk page I've been on, if your entire comment is off the topic of improving the article, out it goes. For these reasons I have labeled this article as unbalanced. I'm hesitant to make the needed edits myself as I have known about this film from an inside source (and interviewee in the film itself) for some time, before its public unveiling, and do not want add to the problem by hypocritically, though unconsciously, adding my own slant. I feel that would only add to the problem, rather than balance it out.

But for those who are willing, step back and realize you've been systematically spoon-fed Darwinism and anti-First Amendment sentiments for the last several decades. Whether or not you believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism (which are two similar, but different things, FYI) is actually beside the point. Those theories being "wrong" does not automatically make Darwinism "right". With that in mind, look at this article objectively, and within the very guidelines of Wikipedia, and you'll realize that the way it is written is biased, practically for the sake of it simply to discredit this film as a hoax. I can tell you for a fact, fancy editing aside (which I do find resorting to that disappointing after hearing about this for so long), this film's message is very real, and to paint as otherwise is inexcusable for anyone but the closed-minded. 68.167.251.165 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a nice rant that probably should be removed as offtopic. First, get an account if you want to be taken serously.

You also did not give one specific example of something you want to reword. Let me look at a few of your complaints:

• "Stein relies on arguments about freedom of speech and teleology", Relies? Like, a crutch or a cop out? That sounds like opinion rather than knowledge. What would you prefer instead?

• "with the enticement that a winning stor" (sic) Enticement? Like you know for a fact they're bribing people? What on earth? What would you prefer instead?

• And the overly frequent use of the word "claim", where "fact" may actually be applicable (while they can only "claim" Intelligent Design is real, the stifling of scientific questioning of Darwinism in general is a provable "fact". Those are indeed claims as I read them. Mere advertising "puffery". Like what someone might say to promote any movie or a breakfast cereal. By the way, using the word "Darwinism" brands you as a backward drooling uneducated creationist and its use is highly offensive in many quarters. So try to keep that in mind next time or you will make yourself look even worse. And in a certain way, yes questioning evolution based on no data and no reasoning is frowned upon, just like claims of alien abduction and ESP based on no data are discouraged in academia. So what? This is news?

• What talk page material so offends you that it must be immediately removed?

• You sound like you have a WP:COI problem, so probably should not even be editing this page.

• You violate WP:SOAP in your post

• We have multiple WP:RS WP:V sources that indicate intelligent design is creationism. Including the ruling of a republican federal judge. Care to file an appeal of the ruling to get it changed? Be my guest. But until then, go cry somewhere else.

• Evolution is based on genetic evidence, DNA evidence, laboratory evidence, field observations and fossil records. Hundreds of millions of pieces of data all agree. It is not based on "brain washing" or "Faith" or "religion" or "atheism" or some other horse manure. Take your complaints to a religious website. We don't need to hear them here. Thanks.

• The movie is not a hoax; it is a real movie, as far as I can tell. Its premise is just pure nonsense and the material on its website is just plain wrong and misinformed, based on a completely idiotic creationist interpretation or misinterpretation of the data. But other than that, it is fine. I am sure the film will do fine, so stop panicking. And relax.

--Filll (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought I'd be accused of promoting the "let your voice be heard" *contest* with those edits. I've changed "relies" to "utilizes", it is a more neutrally worded way. I'm not gonna suggest anything better than "enticement", I thought it was far better than labelling it as bait or a bribe, or promise/offer.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Documentary film vs. movie

Filll removed the word "documentary" from the intro, stating in the edit summary "this is not a documentary but a polemic pushing a certain agenda". However, documentary is a genre of film, like comedy or drama. It does not imply that it is a completely neutral presentation of facts, or even that it's entirely accurate. All documentaries reflect the bias of their creators in some way. Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine are described as documentary films, even though they clearly push an agenda. (Moore's newest film Sicko is described as a movie in the intro, but is in the documentary film category.) Expelled is correctly categorized as a documentary film. Eseymour (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, in Filll's edit summary the second time he removed the word "documentary," he implied that I was edit warring when I undid his first removal. However, one revert does not equal an edit war. Filll him/herself reverted my first edit on this article without even leaving an edit summary. Eseymour (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

I am shocked and dismayed at this failure to WP:AGF. I had no intention of causing anyone any offense whatsoever. How on earth this was taken as offensive is beyond me. My goodness. --Filll (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll, I am shocked, shocked at your failure to assume the assumption of good faith.  :-P Seriously, though, what made you think I was not assuming good faith? I'm not taking offense to you at all, but when you revert my edit and say in your edit summary "Do not edit war," I take that to mean you're implying that I was edit warring. Which is ironic, because the very edit which you summarized with that admonition would have been an extension of said edit war. Anyway, do you have a reply to my argument that this film should be classified as a documentary? Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I will bow to consensus, but my preference would to only let those real documentaries be labelled and described as documentaries here. And that includes stuff from Michael Moore, which is a bit hard to characterize as true documentaries.--Filll (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentary implies that it will present at least a nominally objective presentation of facts. Whereas in actuality this film presents a totally partisan view. In that sense, neither film nor documentary are particularly accurate, but promo is. Film is at least neutral, documentary is not. Odd nature (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that documentary implies a journalistic style of nominal objectivity. for the film genre of documentary, what is meant is that people are identified by name, and only regular interactions are filmed (i.e., fictional scenes are not set up and shot piecemeal like regualar films). If this is not what the makers of this film have done....then we should do away with documentary as a descriptor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting up fictional scenes in order to gain the participation of the interviewees is exactly what the makers of this film have done according to the source in the "Claims of deception by interviewees" section of the article. Genuine documentaries don't dupe their participants into participating. And if a lack of fictional elements distinguishes a film from a documentary while duping it participants, then Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is a documentary. This movie is a partisan promo film promoting a single viewpoint at the expense of other views and facts. That's not a documentary. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison with Michael Moore documentaries is very relevant. Right wing-agenda docos are just as much "documentary" as left-wing ones. Almost any documentary has some sort of agenda - eg The Corporation (anti-corporate), Why We Fight (Jingo-istic), March of the Penguins (environmentalism) - most propoganda films are documentary by their nature.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not personally put March of the Penguins in the same category as An Inconvenient Truth or Expelled or Michael Moore's films. I think you are comparing apples and orangeshere. --Filll (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a documentary. You're confusing propaganda with documentaries. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Films can be both. I used MoP because while it's message isn't strong, it still has one. Quite a many Nature documentaries are hippie environmentalist (sometimes worse, like transcendalist, reincarnationist, or creation-based glorification) mouthpieces. Documentaries are films that document stuff. This film is not fictional, it does not rely on actors filling a role. It is a genuine documentary. It will also most likely turn out to propoganda as it will be censored and pushing a message.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Inferring and describing content from the trailers

The film's long format "super trailer" implies that this film is so controversial that any scientist who watches the film will be summarily fired from his or her job, and suggests that the content of this film is so dangerous that teachers, legislators and the media should not view it either. This trailer suggests that Darwin's theory of evolution was responsible for the Holocaust[19] , a frequently-used and oft-discredited creationist charge.[20] It promotes the intelligent design explanation for the species observed on planet earth and their behavior, and denigrates and mocks an incorrect portrayal (see Strawman) of mainstream scientifically-accepted understanding of the origins of species.[21][citation needed]

Ok Is cite 20, Hovind's DVD an illustrative example that Darwin=Holocaust is a frequently used creationist charge? If this is all it is, we need a reference to show that it is also oft-discredited (Talk.Origins?) . Also I strongly suggest finding a source that points out this fallacy in direct relation to Expelled, lest we be accused of synthetic OR.

I've also added [CN] to the latter sentance, again we need a citation that specifically says the trailer "denigrates and mocks" mainstream science (Pharyngula?). I doubt the trailer itself (the current reference) openly admits to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 09:40, 14 December 2007

Of course we can find many many examples of creationists who claim that the holocaust was caused by evolution. You doubt this? Why dont you find a few and make yourself useful? --Filll (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not doubt it. Have seen numerous accounts. I think I've experienced at least one. Please read my writing. I am asking that references reference what is stated.

• We need a specific reference that shows the Darwin=Holocaust is "oft-discredited". I suggest looking at Talk.Origins.
• We probably should find a specific reference that points out the poor use of Darwin=Holocaust in direct frame of reference to Expelled. This will avoid claims that we are bringing in an indirect argument through WP:SYNTH/WP:V.
• We need a reference that specifically describes the trailer as something that "denigrates and mocks" (a creationist-created parody of) mainstream science. I suggest looking at Pharyngula, or a similar blog. The trailer itself does not openly admit to a mocking tone.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Presenting relevant arguments

Expelled is about:

1. alleged (religious?) discrimination by the scientific community against cdesign proponentists (Discovery_Institute_intelligent_design_campaigns#Campaigns_claiming_discrimination)
   • (focuses on?) Sternberg peer review
   • (focuses on? mentions?) Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)
2. asserts intelligent design is within reasonable freedom of inquiry
   • history shows scientists believed in creator/God
3. alleges science is a dogma
   • dangerous dogma (Darwin=Hitler)

Nothing I have seen attempts to assert intelligent design is science. (It actually brings ID closer to its religious roots)

Nothing I have seen attempts to encourage "teaching the controversy".

And it certainly does not proclaim "Intelligent design is not creationism". (seems to be asserting opposite)

Counters from the scientific view should focus on what "Expelled" is about, not general replies to ID. We should include counters that evolution is not dogma, Darwin=Hitler is a poor and fallacious argument, and the consensus on the outcomes of Sternberg, Gonzalez and general claims of discrimnation against IDists. Aswell as countering any false portrayals of fact found in the documentary (eg. if it mentions any Banned books).

Again, I ask that I not be hated here. And certain brother-in-arms against creationism treat Wikipedia is not your battleground a little nicer.

By bringing up irrelevant rhetoric here we play into the hands of these self-vilifying losers.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Status of ID paragraph

Don't hate me...

I really don't think that belongs here. It is far too much pushing an agenda.

This article is about Expelled not Intelligent-design-as-a-theory. That is discussed in great detail throughout the relevant pages of wikiepdia.

I agree wholeheartedly here. ID vs. evolution is outside the scope of this article. It's easy enough to link them, and we don't need redundant material all over the place. ~ethana2

We can bring out specific criticisms of the film itself, but not generalised criticism or reception of intelligent design in general.

This film doesn't seem to be pushing the official line of ID as the DI (used to be) pushing it. Although they do seem to be not-camoflaging their religious motivationa s much lately. I think we should stick to topic and focus on criticism of the film directly, and not open ourselves to accusations of UNDUE weight or SYNTHetic OR.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you and think it's necessary. WP:NPOV is very clear when it says "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and "articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Leaving out the status of ID gives the films producers, who are all ID promoters, undue weight. The reception of ID in the scientific community, which the film seeks to portray as hidebound and censorous, needs to stay to add balance to the viewpoints of the promoters in the opening sentences, which they get in by the necessity of having to describe the thesis of the film. Otherwise those views are left standing as if fact. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is any perspective presented in the article. No ID perspective is presented, therefore no counter is needed. Once the movie is out and we can get some content in here, we can counter it. So far its a preemptive counter, and that's POV. We are countering what we are expecting is in the film, not what we know is in the film, so its OR. Now, granted, I'll give a million dollars and BJ to anyone who wants one if this film is a biased propoganda creationist POC, but we can't verify that just yet, so we can't put the counter in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 06:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

None of us has yet seen the film. I have however, watched the 3 trailers, several times each. I have read through the website several times. I have read interviews with the directors and producers. I have watched interviews with Ben Stein about the movie. I have read commentary about the movie from the Discovery Institute and other creationists. From what I can glean, arguments that are definitely creationist and intelligent design arguments are featured prominently in the film. Of course, this might turn out to be false, which would be surprising considering the trailers and interviews and comments. But it sure looks like it is focused on intelligent design arguments. So...in light of that, I have to agree with FM.--Filll (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what points of view the movie pushes, this article is not the place to re-hash those debates. If the movie brings forth unique claims, those could be discussed here. Otherwise, just summarize the claims (which look to be more about academic freedom than the details of ID per se) and briefly note the counterpoints. This particular paragraph especially doesn't belong in the intro, which should remain as brief as possible while still giving the reader a basic description of the subject. Eseymour (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, according to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE etc.--Filll (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, eh? So even though WP:NPOV says "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" .... "articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" he wants us to leave out the viewpoint of one-half of the controversy. Is he serious? I have to wonder if he even bothered to understand that policy and consider how what he proposes jibes with it. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll, do you think that any article about any work of art which deals with a controversial subject should have the arguments over that subject repeated in the article? I don't understand the need to shout down any mention of ID in Wikipedia. Seriously, are people so afraid of ID that they can't allow it to be mentioned in any context without a paragraph-sized disclaimer that ID is not science? Can't we just keep it simple with something like a wikilink to Intelligent design and (if necessary) a few words like "which has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community"? BTW, simply posting links to WP guidelines isn't a valid argument. Please explain why you think those guidelines support your position. Eseymour (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, consider this: would you rather have ID argued about in one place, or in dozens? Every article in which you reproduce the argument is going to attract people trying to edit that paragraph to suit their own viewpoint. Surely it's much better for WP to keep that sort of thing to one (or very few) articles where it's most relevant, and link there from all the other articles that touch on the subject. Eseymour (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent> No offense, but have you perchance READ the policies that WP operates under? This film is supposedly about the treatment of the scientific community of a supposedly valid scientific theory. Read the film's website and watch its trailers. Read the interviews with the films host and directors and producers. You are claiming that the scientific community's view of this purportedly valid scientific theory is inappropriate? I think not. I also would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a religious recruiting tract for some very narrow interpretation of a very minor religious sect which is ostensibly part of Christianity, although many doubt that it is.--Filll (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for any point of view, Filll, and that includes anti-creationism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its purpose is to accurately describe things--in this case, a movie that is being made. The article should briefly describe the content, but it shouldn't actually present arguments for or against ID. That's what the main ID article is for. I understand that you really don't like the fact that this movie has been made, but this article is not the place for editorializing for or against it. Eseymour (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is promoting a particular view at the expense of views, it appears to me it is you. Odd nature (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I smell a sock.--Filll (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to waste your time baselessly accusing me of being a sock puppet (of what other editor, may I ask?), that's your prerogative. I'd prefer to continue discussing this on the merits than going down that road, though. Eseymour (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuanately your proposed alterations to the article ignore and violate our core content policy. Until which time you show recoginition that NPOV requires both sides be presented, there's nothing to discuss with you. Odd nature (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where have I said that only one side should be presented? This is an article about a pro-ID movie. It should describe the movie as such, and not drag in arguments that belong in the article which is actually about Intelligent design itself. Eseymour (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to reign yourself in. Thank you.--Filll (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hello, Kettle? Yeah, this is the Pot. You're black." Eseymour (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to me to be one out of step here. Please stop beating up on Filll for your failure to make the case for this to be a one-sided puff piece. Odd nature (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What have I said that constitutes "beating up on" anyone? I have presented a strong argument for why it's a bad idea to drag either pro- or anti-ID commentary into this article. In response I get a "reminder" that "Wikipedia is not a religious recruiting tract" and then I get accused of being a sock puppet for no apparent reason other than I disagreed with someone. Eseymour (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep laughing, why don't you?--Filll (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where have I said that only one side should be presented? Houston, we have a problem.--Filll (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the ID side being presented in the article requiring the inclusion of the standard anti-ID scientific disclaimer. I don't mind both sides being presented with their respective weights, but I don't see any presentation of pro-ID material that requires an "ID is not science as determined by scientific consensus..." disclaimer in this article?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The ID side is now presented. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please specify where this ID side is pls. I do not see it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please attempt to wrap your heads around WP:BATTLE

As usually a part of the pro-evolution side, I know that we have alarming numbers here on wikipedia.

I do not want to see this turn into another User:Moulton affair (ala Rosalind Picard). My issue with this article is not trying to give intelligence design a soapbox or anything like that.

I am trying to prevent this article from becoming a soapbox for either cause.

This article should do very little to describe the *entirety* of the evolution-creationism controversy. It should focus on "Expelled" the movie. As such it should only include details of the film itself, direct criticism towards Expelled:The Movie (eg. the *Crossroads* controversy), and direct rebuttals to the specific points brought up in Expelled itself, not generic criticism of intelligent design.

Fill's suggestion that we can add more creationist points, to counter balance adding in the off-topic scientific view is ridiculous. We should have neither points in if they do not directly relate to this article's subject matter.

Ben Stein and the film crew have shown a severe lack of understanding of several concepts in not just science, but also the PR-version of Intelligent Design. Therefore the status of one over the other is hardly directly relevent except in light of the peculiar and somewhat fantastic (as in fantasy) versions brought up by the film.

Don't make an essay. Don't make a critique. Don't bring in thoughtful analysis of points using additional sources to push points. Report what others have said about "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" like good little wikipedians please.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not added any material rebutting the content of the film or its points. I have, for weeks and weeks now, only tried to identify and introduce the arguments the film makes. Some have removed them, but I have again tried, to the best of my ability, to document from what we have available, the points the film is trying to make. So please do not lecture me or attack me. I have personally done NOTHING but try to describe what the film is saying. I have of course added one or two word commentaries on it, but I have not written any essays or long winded rebuttals. I think a paragraph describing how the arguments of the film actually are not slam dunks, but can be answered, would be perfectly appropriate according to WP:NPOV but I have not written any. Odd nature tried to add some, but people have vehemently attacked his rather limited initial efforts in an unfair manner, I think.--Filll (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Filll. As far as editing goes, my objections primarily lie with OrangeMarlin and Hrafn's POV agenda-driven edits. But I am worried about this edit summary [1]. I am happy to work towards collaborating, but will not take lightly accusations of trolling or lumping me with creationists. --ZayZayEM (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Then ZayZayEM your "objections primarily lie" in your own head -- I haven't made any substantive additions to this article (as the revision log demonstrates). It therefore seems that you are the one with an agenda here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Currently under stress in reality. I don't see NPOV and Verifibility as an incorrect agenda to possess here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell was wrong with the edit summary? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The objections to my edit summary:

Neutrality should not be a problem now that more of the pro-ID material is included

are an extremely bad sign. Not a creationist huh?--Filll (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

POV is not Tit-for-Tat. My problem is not with a pro-creationist or a pro-evolution point of view being expressed. My problem is with undue weight being placed upon material not directly related to "Expelled". This is not balanced by adding in off-topic pro-ID material to counter the off-topic pro-evolution material. (Will we then need even more off-topic pro-evolution material to counter the off-topic pro-ID material introduced to counter the off-toic evolution material introduced to counter pro-ID points that weren't originally in the article).

I am trying to nip this in the bud. I do not want this a spiralling out of control soapbox for either side. Wikipedia has very clear information on the status of ID as pseudoscience elsewhere, readers may be directed there, but this is not the correct page for such dissection of the topic. --ZayZayEM (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather agree, have reframed the intro to summarise relevant points from a reliable secondary source. ... dave souza, talk 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Kitzmiller v Dover findings

I'm not going to continue to re-revert for the time being these reversion by Orange Marlin[2].

I would like a rationale why it needs to be included here. As far as I am aware, Expelled does not deal with Kitzmiller, it does not deal with whether ID is religion (in fact it supports that ID is religion), nor does it deal with ID treatment by the judicial system.

I think OrangeMarlin's edit summary is rather telling that it's inclusion here is to further a battle against ID through using Wikipedia as a soapbox. ID may be wrong and stupid, but wikipedia is here to present facts. This is an article about a movie, it should deal with the movie alone, while directing readers to appropriate pages to gather more context. Inclusion of Kitzmiller v Dover here violates several guidelines on POV and weighting, as well as only using sources directly related to subject matter.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Intro

I agree with ZayZayEM, who has done a much better job at explaining himself than I have. For the purpose of clarity, here is what I think the intro should say:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial film about intelligent design. Starring Ben Stein, it is due to be released in February 2008. The film makes the assertion that intelligent design proponents are discriminated against by the scientific community, citing the Sternberg peer review controversy as an example,[1] and alleges that evolution is a belief-system rooted in dogma rather than the scientific method. (This contrasts with the consensus mainstream scientific view that evolution is a well-supported theory and that intelligent design is not science.)

Although not yet released, the film is being promoted by...

This provides the benefit of a more concise intro which still provides the mainstream view without becoming argumentative or sounding like the article was written to smear the movie instead of accurately describe it. I welcome your comments. Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

By all accounts (trailers, website, press release interviews), the movie is a viscious biased narrow-minded angry ignorant bigoted attack on science and the scientific method and data. It is being championed by the people who want to take us back to the Dark Ages and establish a theocracy (and maybe have some more religious wars with the Islamic World). Therefore, the claims of the promotional material should be carefully laid out, and then the other side also presented, by WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT etc. If you do not like it, please feel free to edit Conservapedia instead. I am sure you will find it a far more amenable environment for someone of your mindset. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You've made it abundantly clear that you hate this movie, Filll. But let's just discuss one thing at a time. Please explain how the intro I have proposed fails to accurately sum up what the movie claims and how it varies from the mainstream scientific view. And, please, let's not make this personal. Eseymour (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to briefly set out the mainstream position. I think we can do better at working it in than any ptoposal I've yet seen, though. Maybe something of the form "Whereas evolution is generally accepted as... Expelled asserts that..." Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But Expelled says the exact same "evolution is generally accepted". They do not attack acceptance of evolution. They attack the basis for acceptance, the scientific method. That is why the current disclaimer is so off-whack. It is correct, but it countering all the wrong points. It makes the article appear like a vacuous crappy evo vs. creationism debate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I think that Eseymour's suggestion is clumsy and reeks of bad English. Therefore, I do not favor it particularly.

It also does not present the mainstream side appropriately. I have fleshed out the pro-creationist and pro-intelligent design position considerably. And it is only fair that the mainstream position get a least some airing, including references and citations of course. Fair is fair. And WP:NPOV is WP:NPOV. Please do not make this personal or there might be negative consequences, and all would feel terrible about that. Try to WP:AGF here, instead of trying to pick a fight. Thanks awfully.---Filll (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEm's and Eseymour's objections to the article's existing content and proposals for changes all ignore the basic requirements for presenting all significant views found in WP:NPOV in my view. I don't think their tagging of the article is justified nor are their repeated calls for ID's reception by the scientific community to be removed or reduced to a mention in passing supported by policy. My opinion is that they are arguing for a very one-sided presentation of the topic that violates the core tenet of WP:NPOV which is where conflicting signifcant views exist they must not only be presented but given prominence to reflect the degree to which they are held in order for an article to neutral. Odd nature (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stay on Topic. We need to present "all significant views" directly relating to the topic. That is, "Expelled" the movie, not intelligent design. Please point to where a significant view promoting intelligent design exists in the article?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Parentheses are definitely to be avoided. I do not support this proposed intro. I think the two sentance *disclaimer* left after removing the Kitzmiller sentance is fine for the time being. I would like it fine-tuned to deal with Expelled particular nonsense though, not a generic ID-is-not-science disclaimer.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion these points are well covered by the NYT as a reliable secondary source directly related to the subject. ... dave souza, talk 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I would have been OK with ZayZayEM's suggestion, i.e. the second paragraph inthis version without the Kitzmiller sentence. Unfortunately the article has devolved significantly since then. Ugh. Eseymour (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Longwinded footnotes

This footnote in particular is atrocious in its blatant use of OR to push a point about Expelled that is not supported by any third party source provided.

# ^ This creationist claim that is part of a Discovery Institute campaign (New book by Discovery Institute Fellow shows influence of Darwinian principles on Hitler's Nazi regime, Discovery Institute) and is repeated over and over in creationist literature. For example:

• Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust, Jerry Bergman, CEN Technical Journal, 13(2):101–111, 1999.
• The Holocaust and evolution, Jonathan Sarfati, Creation 22(1):4, December 1999.
• Darwin's Deadly Legacy: The Chilling Impact of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries, 2007
• From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Richard Weikart, Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.

This is all fine to list uses of the tactic, but we have no third party source to tie this back to "Expelled". This breaches WP:OR on Synthesising information.

DI uses the tactic. Expelled uses the tactic. Expelled is about a DI-related issue. ***Expelled is using the tactic in the same context as DI *** Likely true, yes - Supported by a verifiable reliable source, no. Includable in Wikipedia, no.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather agree, have trimmed it and set the point in the context of a reliable secondary source. ... dave souza, talk 14:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if one looks at the history, the reason this long footnote was included was because of assorted creationists and POV supporters who wanted citations for the fact, which they doubted, that any creationists or intelligent design supporters EVER said that evolution was the cause of the Holocaust. Look, you guys cannot have it both ways. If you insist that every statement be cited, you cannot object when the statement is cited. It had no cites, and you complained. I added one cite, and you still complained. So I added a bunch. Then I realized that it broke up the text with a long sequence of numbered superscripts, so I put several together into one to make it a bit more attractive. And now the complaint surfaces that this footnote was introduced as some covert way to introduce an unrelated POV. NOT AT ALL The only reason that footnote was created was because of endless badgering and whining of creationists who want to pick apart every statement. This I find EXTREMELY outrageous and is a very bad sign of obnoxious editing behavior and attitudes. So please reconsider your claims and charges. I, for one, am getting a bit tired of this nonsense. I think it reflects extremely badly on those who are complaining now. --Filll (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Was getting mixed up with the cites from the lead. The claim that Darwin somehow influenced the pre-Darwinian racism of the Nazis (Gott mit uns!) is original research by interpretation of a primary source without a secondary source picking out that point. Will comment it out until an appropriate secondary source is found. .. dave souza, talk 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Creationists for Genocide, by Hector Avalos may provide you with what you're after. It goes quite a bit into the history of genocidal racism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well back to the original point. The trailer suggests that Darwin's theory of evolution caused the Holocaust. I think this should be in there. I also think it should be noted that this is a common claim among creationists (and apparently now, by intelligent design supporters too). I also think it does not hurt to state it is discredited, for WP:NPOV purposes. I fail to see how this is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or something like that.--Filll (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have to confess I've not watched the video, so if it's incontestably obvious the source can be used to note the point, and briefy pointing out that it's a common creationist claim with a suitable source would then seem appropriate to avoid undue weight. .. dave souza, talk 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I put those extended footnotes in there was that I was pushed to add cites.--Filll (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pushed by whom exactly? Certainly not me. You still have not cited what I have asked for. Citations that use these perfectly valid arguments in the context of "Expelled". I have never disputed that Darwin=Hitler was a)a creationist tactic b)a DI tactic or c)oft-discredited. I have disputed it's direct relevance to expelled, and as well as the direct relevance of it being a DI tactic (as opposed to merely a creationist). Please do not perceive me as a creationist. I can not see how else you are totally misreading what I am asking help with here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is simple. Just watch the long trailer. As Ben Stein talks about the horrible things that evolution has lead to, we see 3 different views of Nazi Concentration Camps/Death Camps. So I wrote that the film implies that evolution was responsible for the holocaust. Which I think is quite accurate. Of course, we cannot know the details until we see the entire film, not just the trailer. But that is what is in the long super trailer. --Filll (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

and again, I have not disputed this, nor requested it be removed. I really would like to see it restored, in full, without the need for long-winded cites. However, if you wish to tie "Expelled" use of the poor argument with the DI's campaigns, please find a source connecting the two. In addition, when describing the claim as "oft-discredited creationist claim", you need more than just a source of creationist using it, but also a source showing it is "oft-discredited". I think we now have the necessary sources for that from Talk.Origins and Avalos. However, we do not have a source proclaiming any conspiritical link between "Expelled" using the argument and DI's wedge.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Expelled is a film about ...

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial film which presents the case for the creationist idea of intelligent design." (emph added)

O RLY?

I'd say something more like "aims to illustrate a perceived persecution against educators and scientists who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes by an alleged scientific xxxocracy". (sorry, my vocabulary fails me)

They don't present a case for anything. (Foremost because they can't). This is a whining film. "Waaa! we're persecuted. Just like Jesus. Pity us. Overthrow the Darwinist warlords. They are godless commies. Think of the children. Our nation was built on God..."

This film presents the case against intelligent design, but tries to undermine that case by trying to show that it is wrong. It's an anti-case.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the previous wording was closer to the truth, judging by what I have seen in the trailers and the promotional materials. This could be wrong, of course. So on this point, I have to say I partially agree with ZayZayEM.--Filll (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, judging by Ben Stein's discussion on the O'Reilly Fact, it lends credence to the current wording.--Filll (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think perahps we should emphasise the persecution, as whatever weak case they present for "the craetionist idea of intelligent design" is going to be second to it. AFAICT they still aren't presenting any case; They are pulling the same lame trick of bringing up repeatedly refuted *holes* in *EVIL*ution, and then saying "hey, Jesus³!". --ZayZayEM (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I was working from the third paragraph of the NYT article "But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism." and the ninth "advocates of intelligent design, who assert that the theory of evolution has obvious scientific flaws and that students should learn that intelligent design, a creationist idea, is an alternative approach." Probably more accurate to say "is a controversial film which presents claims of persecution to promote the creationist idea of intelligent design." The 13th paragraph starts "Judging from material posted online and interviews with people who appear in the film, it cites several people as victims of persecution.." ... dave souza, talk 11:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this reversion

[3] ???-Filll (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We agree!!--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, have tweaked it to be clearer that the DI are denying statements made by those promoting the film rather than others commenting on the promotion. ... dave souza, talk 13:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentary status

• Documentary: A documentary is a creative work of non-fiction.

• wikt:Documentary

• A film, TV program, book etc that presents a social, political, scientific or historical subject in a factual or informative manner.
• That serves to document something.

• NB also 3. of a film, book etc) Presented objectively without the insertion of fictional matter (emph added)

• Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to "document" reality. (emph added)

• The Academy Award for Documentary Feature has included as winners and nominations

• Darwin's Nightmare which had "perceived inaccuracies, sensationalism, lack of objectivity and incompleteness"
• An Inconvinient Truth in which it is alleged "Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain" and of its companion book "This is a slick propaganda book. The pictures are very good. But there are factual errors."
• Super Size Me "Critics of the film, such as McDonald's, argue that the results were because the author intentionally consumed an average of 5,000 calories per day and did not exercise, and that the results would have been the same regardless of the source of the overeating"
• Bowling for Columbine "The slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery on display in Bowling for Columbine should be enough to give pause to its most ardent partisans"

Documentary is not limited to objective films (that is but one definition). Any film made from documentation of reality counts as a documentary, with an attempt to portray factual information in an informative manner counts as documentary.

Being a propoganda mouthpiece (something, may I remind, which has yet to be verified, a keystone of Wikipedia) does not preclude a movie from being classed as a documentary.

Dare I say Expelled is unequivocally a documentary?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Agree entirely. Eseymour (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I right to assume I can rightly restore "documentary" to the lead, and add appropriate categories?--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay my last edit to this article this year is going to be to restore this stuff.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup badly needed

I don't see a problem with bias in the current version of this article, but the pro/anti-ID tit-for-tat is severely reducing the quality and readability of this article. The intro should be as short as possible, leaving all details to the body of the article. I do think the section on "People presented in the film" is very promising, and should end up being the bulk of the article, since these cases are the evidence the film presents to support its thesis. Anti-ID editors: you should focus your attention at presenting rebuttals to the film's claims (appropriately cited, of course, to avoid original research). Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks great at the moment. Very easily read. Points are presented in an orderly non-disjointed manner. --ZayZayEM (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the article could be improved. But I don't think it's bad enough to require a cleanup tag. Cleanup is for worse cases than this, IMO. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your changes improved the readability or the neutral tone of the article at all, so I've restored the sourced content you deleted.

Also, calling fellow editors "Anti-ID warriors" is a personal attack and incivil; I've removed it. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL if you want to continue here Eseymour. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of those policies, thank you. Considering some of the very pointed comments made towards me on this page, I'm rather surprised my comment touched such a nerve. (ZayZayEM referred to "brother-in-arms against creationism" and no one batted an eye.) As you surely know, it's considered bad form to edit other people's comments unless they're clearly beyond the pale. (And if mine was so bad, I find it odd that you reproduced it in your comment.) Anyway, I've re-edited my comment to be less colorful. If you feel the need to do that in the future, you might consider adding a note to the person's talk page so they know you've edited their comment. Also, I have no idea which changes you're talking about. It would be helpful if you'd post diffs when referring to specific changes. Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "tit for tat" writing style is just what characterizes all WP articles which are written to conform with WP:NPOV. Many do not like it, but that is how it is. There are other wikis which do not conform to this, if you prefer, like Conservapedia or wikinfo.--Filll (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if it can be written less tit-for-tat, while still preserving the information, that's great. The less we segregate the views, the more readable the article could be. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware that the cleanup tag was only for severe cases. I just wanted to draw attention to the structure problems which, while they don't make the article completely unreadable, would surely make any professional editor recoil. Eseymour (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it is very new, and more material will be added. Remember, we have not seen the film yet. We have no reviews yet. So this article is going to change, no matter what, in the next few months. What is going on now is the slow addition of material by various parties. Eventually it will get better, if people put enough effort into it.--Filll (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You want another source?

How about

"He said he also believed the theory of evolution leads to racism and ultimately genocide, an idea common among creationist thinkers. If it were up to him, he said, the film would be called 'From Darwin to Hitler'."

[4] --Filll (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beliefnet reported that the film "presents a world of ... "the new scientific movement" (Intelligent Design) ... vs. the tired, old `theory' of evolution. Relying on news-clip montages, interviews, even cut-away shots of concentration camps, `Expelled' talks of faithful scientists and other believers losing jobs, losing grants, even losing friends in defense of ID.

[5]--Filll (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of others: [6], a newspaper blog. [7] October 31 entry of Stein's own blog for the movie. And from Salon : [8] on November 13, 2007. Maybe I am incorrect, but it seems to be a major premise of the film. And it is being promoted that way. --Filll (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Goldmine: Colorado Confidential sees a preview. Looks like my prediction was right, whining and evo-bashing, no evidence for ID. I'm gonna be ducking out of wikipedia for a couple of weeks while I hash together a shell of an Honours thesis. Have fun.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

After a half hour or so, "Expelled" wanders off to blame the theory of evolution for Communism, the Berlin Wall, Fascism, the Holocaust, atheism and Planned Parenthood.

I still don't get how Darwinism can be responsible for both Communism and Fascism... it's silly.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The mental process involved is call "compartmentalisation", and allows mutually-contradictory ideas be genuinely (if superficially) held. The 'logic' is roughly along the lines of evolution=bad, fascism=bad, communism=bad, so evolution=fascism & evolution=communism, in spite of communism!=fascism. As long as you're careful not to think about why evolution is like communism and why it's like fascism, at the same time, you avoid having to acknowledge any contradictions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

This article appears to be rather long for a film that has not yet been released. It might be one of the longest such articles ever written. It might even be a coatrack used to soapbox against Intelligent design and/or Creationism? I'll take my answer off the air. Ra2007 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly do you claim is dubious? The fact that this film is promoting intelligent design and/or creationism? That intelligent design is creationism according to most scientists? That the claims of discrimination are being used to promote creationism and/or intelligent design? This makes very little sense. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the coatrack comment is one we should pay attention to, as is definitely a valid concern here. I am not saying that this article is a coatrack, I am saying that the risk of becoming a coatrack, and being perceived as a coatrack is real. We should work together to make sure it is not a coatrack.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad this concern is getting some traction. Ultimately, a good course to pursue is: the article should stray from Expelled: No Intelligence to the minimum necessary to write an article about the (yet to be released) film. Wikilinks often provide sufficient means for interested readers to learn about this or that tangent. No need to explain everything in this one article. Ra2007 (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens is that when statements are challenged by creationists, they are bolstered with more material, and cites and footnotes etc. And it grows and becomes bulkier. I have seen over and over, on the articles Discovery Institute and Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design and Level of support for evolution and Evolution as theory and fact and several others, that creationists aggressively push these articles in the direction of being over-cited with tons of extra footnotes and material. That is how it goes... Look at Intelligent design now, a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, etc. And think about why it looks the way it does now. Editors here do not want to spend endless hours looking for material to add and extra cites and footnotes. They are forced into it.--Filll (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I will point out that I see this going on now on Objections to evolution. A section that had one cite, then had 2, then 3, and will eventually probably have 10 or 15 or more. Because of creationist whining. I guess the heavily cited text might be viewed as more useful, but creationists have to realize WHY these articles become like this.--Filll (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that akin to letting terrorists win? I've been continually saying this is not the Intelligent design article. It is a small side step on the whole controversy and given the extensive, in detail, heavily referenced, and even featured content on wikipedia about the whole shebangs, this page should do its best to remain as focused as possible on "Expelled" the movie and its specific brand of inanities.

I don't expect to see comments about Mathis' deceptive interview tactics on Intelligent design and I don't expect a fullscale rebuttalor dissection of Discovery Institute campaigns over here.-ZayZayEM (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll also note that most of the footnotes appear to have been added to appease concerns expressed by myself. I have repeatedly noted that I am not a creationist. And I've also noted that these footnotes have mostly not addressed the specific concerns I have been trying to present, but appear to be generic responses tailored to fit creationist agendas. This is not what I want, it is actually the exact opposite of what I have been wanting.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think three or four sentences with cites are not overdoing it at all.--Filll (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• "The film implies that Darwin's theory of evolution was responsible for the Holocaust,[4][20][21] a part of an ongoing Discovery Institute campaign,[22] and a frequently-used[23][24] and oft-discredited[25][26] creationist charge."

This is one sentance with eight citations.

[4][20][21] all show that the film does indeed contain Darwin=Hitler/Holocaust arguments. These are all sound.

[22] is a link to a DI/CSC sponsored book titled "Darwin to Hitler". No link to "Expelled" is established.

[23] is a DVD (The Dangers of Evolution) by Kent Hovind (creationist), i am going to assume this film contains the Darwin=Hitler argument. It is being used as an example that the argument is a "Frequently used... creationist cahrge". No link to "Expelled" is established.

[24] is a lengthy note that aims to illustrate "This creationist claim that is part of a Discovery Institute campaign". It links to the book listed in [23], but further lists four more "examples" of creationist literature that utilize the Darwin=Hitler argument. I think we can agree this list is no by means exhaustive of the creationist literature that utilizes the argument. This list is being used as further examples that the argument is a "Frequently used... creationist charge". No link to "Expelled" is established.

[25][26] are links to Talk.Origins and an essay by Hector Avalos. Both are being used to support that the argument Darwin=Hitler is "oft-discredited creationist charge". Both also support the statement that the argument is "frequently-used". No link to "Expelled" is established. However, their inclusion is in with our WP:UNDUE policy that guides us to counter/disclaim false pretenses presented by fringe elements.

I really think we can cut this down a little. First to go are [23]&[24] as both [25]&[26] establishthe claim is "frequently-used" by creationists. Why have an incomplete list of examples? (WP = Tertiary resource, guys). That the argument is being used by "Expelled" as part of an ongoing Discovery Institute campaign, is rather dubious. One book does not create an "ongoing ... campaign", nor would it be totally unreasonable to assume that Mathis, Stein and Premise came up with the Darwin=Hitler link all by themselves - It's not a new argument, and it's not specific to DI campaigns.

How about this instead (of course numbers will change):

• "The film implies that Darwin's theory of evolution was responsible for the Holocaust,[4][20][21] a frequently-used and oft-discredited creationist charge.[25][26]"

The length of the footnotes section here is just astounding, considering a lot of the quoting etc. contains information not directly relevant to "Expelled".--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not object strongly to removing the link to the DI campaign. However, a couple of other editors asked for it and were quite insistent. So we have to see what consensus is here, if this really bothers you. I think having a couple of links to show that this claim is probably part of the movie, then a couple of links to show it is rebutted, and a few listed examples of this claim being common among creationists should not be a problem. After all, WP is WP:NOT paper, and these are just footnotes and cites. This should not be some reason to worry, frankly.--Filll (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the example list. Both the Avalos and T.O links establish it as a common creationist tactic. While WP not Paper, WP also WP:NOT indiscriminate lists of information. I'm also perplexed that somehow "insistent" editors need get there way. How do I become more insistent? Also this was just example of over-citing/footnotes being used for OR in the article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of consensus. You have to convince people. And it can be a matter of inter-editor relations. Someone that others trust more from working with them for months might carry more weight than an anon, for instance.--Filll (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper article

[9]

It's a small, independent newspaper, but it's a start. It also makes some excellent points that we should work in. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we've been working from it with a bit of detail in the review section and a couple of other references. Other "reviews" are beginning to surface........ dave souza, talk 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ZDnet has picked up on the Nova article,[10] more significantly I've found A review of the film by a Baylor Professor! Who could that be? Seems to be rather coy about his name, but the publisher gives a clue as to their impartial approach – Christian News New Zealand, "Sponsored by the Elusive Brethren & Right Wing American Fundamentalists". Seems to have greatly enjoyed the film and found it very funny, describes some animations but doesn't say if they include farting noises..... dave souza, talk 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian News New Zealand is a spoof site. "Elusive Brethren" is a spoof of Exclusive Brethren, whose cack-handed electioneering helped cost the centre-right New Zealand National Party the New Zealand general election, 2005. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It did seem that the review was pretty far over the top. And the byline of the publication did seem a bit extreme.--Filll (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the parody publication a bit, I notice that it not only links to a few other parody sites, but also to some real sites with articles that are so extreme it is hard to know if they are real or tongue in cheek. --Filll (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That figures. It captures the Uncommon Descent style pretty well, if memory serves well. ... dave souza, talk 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Kitzmiller v. Dover describes this movie?

One of the references cited for the opening sentence:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial film which presents claims of persecution to promote the creationist idea of intelligent design

is part of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. Huh? KvD can't possibly describe Expelled. If that court case is relevant to this article, it needs to go after a relevant claim. Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit it probably should be attached to another statement. It is certainly relevant for this article, but maybe not in that one place.--Filll (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It supports the wording of the prior sentence. Please read this page. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. The Kitzmiller ref is supposed to support the implication that intelligent design = creationism. That brings up another problem, though. It is not an uncontroversial fact that intelligent design is the same as creationism, so wording the intro of the article this way is sort of begging the question, and is POV. I do not think the intro of this article is the right forum for laying out the arguments over whether intelligent design and creationism are the same thing (certainly there are similarities, and examples of creationists incorrectly using the term "intelligent design," but there are significant differences, and even examples of creationists attacking ID-ers). If the film uses the term intelligent design, then this article should focus on ID and not bring up creationism in the intro. Eseymour (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure it should - we need to specific that it's a creationist film and not a software engineering film. Anyway, Ben Stein was very clear that it was a creationist film when he spoke on the O'Reilly Factor. Since you hear that ID is religious and not religious (from people like Dembski) and that it is creationist and not creationist, it's worth having an independent source like a judicial ruling. Just so that people don't end up thinking that Ben Stein is talking about software engineers being Expelled for their rejection of evolutionary computing, or something of the sort. Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Many intelligent design supporters and even a few young earth creationists and other creationists claim that intelligent design is not creationism. Ok, fair enough. The academic and scientific community on the other hand, which is the main focus of this movie, thinks that intelligent design is creationism. Also, a lot of the claims in the movie are essentially creationist claims. So if you claim it is a not an uncontroversial fact? That is why we put citations in these articles, or didn't you realize that?
• The description of exactly where the arguments laid out in the movie lie, and what sort of theories these "scientists" who are purportedly being discriminated against is completely reasonable for this article. Look the movie is basically a creationist rant using creationist arguments with a pinch of intelligent design thrown in; these creationists are upset that they are not treated as real scientists. That is what the movie is about. You think we should not mention that creationism is not real science, and neither is intelligent design? Please...give me a break here. This is what we call WP:NPOV on WP. I humbly suggest that you might find it useful to learn about it.
• We have not seen the film. We have a couple of reviews. And we have the promotional material. And we have the website. And the trailers. In all of these, we see evidence of both creationism and intelligent design. So what?--Filll (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The point that intelligent design is a creationist idea is cited to the NYT – read that article, which is the main secondary source for this article. The KvD citation is added to support that point that the majority view supports the description given in the NYT. That some find it "dubious" comes from the assertions of intelligent design proponents, who are a minority viewpoint in relation to the scientific context of this film, and whose assertions are not supported by reliable secondary sources. In describing this upcoming film, care is needed to avoid giving undue weight to pseudoscience. .. dave souza, talk 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My earlier basis for removal was that the KvD reference provides no new information or further directly relevant context that isn't supplied by other references. As the NYT source (and others) already refers back to KvD, do we need to directly refer to it with further longwinded footnoting. It seems like overkill.

We don't need KvD everytime we call Intelligent Design "creationism".--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually overkill is exactly what is called for.--Filll (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be NPOV. WP:UNDUE balance (i.e. expressing majority view as majority) is not the same as overkill. Overkill = more than necessary, by virtue it cannot be what is called for (otherwise it would not be overkill)--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The arguments of several on this very page push us to overkill.--Filll (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ID equals creationism?

Let me be clear. I don't have any problem saying this movie is about intelligent design, or creationism, or both if that's supportable by reliable sources. The problem is that the first sentence of the article states that ID is creationism. That's a valid argument, but there are also valid arguments that ID is not the same thing as creationism. As it stands, the intro only presents one side, and that's the definition of POV. What's more, there's no actual need to make that argument here at all. Eseymour (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design purports to be science (as does creation science, scientific creationism, etc). This movie makes the claim that intelligent design is valid science. This movie is about intelligent design and/or creationism. And therefore, it is perfectly reasonable, for WP:NPOV, to see what the scientific community feels about these claims, of this purported scientific field, and the claims made in this movie, at least as near as we can tell from the reviews, trailers, and other promotional material.--Filll (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you didn't answer my argument. I've never said this article shouldn't note what the scientific consensus is about ID. I am saying that you can't present the claim that ID is creationism without presenting the opposing claim that they are two distinct things. Even many scientists who reject both creationism and ID see important distinctions between the two. Eseymour (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that "there are also valid arguments that ID is not the same thing as creationism" is false. The arguments against tend to be either (1) bare assertions (which hold no probative value); or (2) fallacious claims that Creationism necessitates belief in a literal 6x24-hour creation. They have been discredited both by experts and federal court, and thus can be ignored per WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many more distinctions between Creationism and Intelligent Design than literal creation days. Most importantly, IMO, the goal of Creationism is to prove the veracity of the creation account in the book of Genesis, whereas ID simply infers design from observation of the natural world. I.e., creationism starts from a religious text, whereas ID starts from observation of nature. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which says that once something has been ruled upon by a Federal court, it can be stated as the truth without the need to mention opposing points of view. Eseymour (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Eseymour: I was simply debunking the arguments claiming that ID is not creationism that I have seen ID-creationists make. The goal of creationism (ID included) is to restore the primacy of the Abrahamic God in the creation of life, the universe and everything, with the veracity of the Genesis account only mattering to those creationists who are also Biblical literalists. ID makes no valid inferences, it merely rationalises prior religious preconceptions (most notably those based upon the Logos theology of John's Gospel). You are mis-stating my position -- I said "experts and federal court" -- making the "ID is not creationism" viewpoint a discredited viewpoint from a small minority (basically, a claim only notably made by the Discovery Institute itself). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ID holds that a supernatural "designer" was responsible for the creation and progression of the universe and everything in it. Which is the same thing that creationism is all about. Just because ID advocates try to make it sound superficially more scientific by calling it a "theory" and not specifically saying that the "designer" was God doesn't change the fact that ID is creationism. It's a religious view, and thus outside the purview of science. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We present the view of the film and filmmakers. And we balance it with a small amount of material from the science community. We both know I can drown you with 100 references. But then the article is unreadable. So please, give it a rest. We are only required to balance the views in proportion to how they are held in the mainstream, and in mainstream science, well over 99% of the relevant scientists think that ID is pure nonsense, if not worse. So we could have an article that was not just 75% pro-ID, but 99.9% anti-ID. Quit while you are ahead, or this article will really turn into a big time coatrack.--Filll (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Filll, surely you aren't trying to intimidate me by threatening to push more POV material into this article? The "percentage" of anti-ID should be determined by the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines, not a vendetta against another editor. Eseymour (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design is a creationist argument. All reliable sources on "Expelled" label ID, and/or ID presented in the film as creationism. This film is about "intelligent design creationism".--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether this film is about ID or creationism is a valid question. I don't care as much about which label we use (or both). What I will not allow is for the first sentence of this article to present the claim that "ID is creationism" without representing the dissenting POV. If editors continue to push that claim, I will pursue the next steps in the dispute resolution process. Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This thread is not heading in a positive direction, for anyone. We know there are plenty of references that say ID=creationism (we have tons in our other articles, after all, and they can easily be placed here. However, as stated on this page, several people worry about turning this article into just a mass of material and references about how awful ID is, which is a fair point. However, if you want to fight this sort of battle on every page, then that is what will happen to the article.) We also know that the ID supporters say ID !=creationism. However, according to WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT etc, we cannot let the ID position overwhelm the science position in an article purportedly about issues in science. Maybe it should be reworded slightly, but this business about threatening us with administrative action is just rediculous and violates any number of principles of WP, such as WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc.--Filll (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with the current version of the opening sentence. Of course, now we're back where we were when I started this section of the Talk page, and the Kitzmiller reference is out of place. If there are no objections (and I don't expect any, given that Kitzmiller is mentioned three sentences later), I will remove the ref. Thanks. (P.S. I was not using the dispute resolution process as a threat. That is the proper next step to take when a dispute cannot be resolved amongst the editors involved, and I was giving notice of my intention to puruse that process.) Eseymour (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense but I see this might be viewed as some as being unnecessarily combative. I do not think you have consensus for your views to remove material that criticizes ID and/or creationism and/or to describe the scientific views of these topics. So lets all slow down here and try to compromise a bit.--Filll (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To jump in...this is an article about a film, which is about, it appears, how the (biological) scientific establishment does not play fair (retaliation, ostricization, etc.) In that regard, taking the side of scientists, except with regard to claims about science (and not claims about scientists) would be POV in this case. Ra2007 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you have to get consensus for that view. The film claims ID is science. The people discriminated against claim they are being told they are not doing legitimate science. What does the science community say? Does the science community say that ID is legitimate science or not? Seems relevant to me (All your claims to the contrary).--Filll (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The view that taking the side of scientists, except with regard to claims about science, would be POV in this case of an article on a yet to be released documentary hardly seems controversial. Is it? Ra2007 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking the side of scientists about "what is and is not science" should not be controversial, except to some who subscribe to assorted forms of pseudoscience. It is not POV to allow the scientists to have some input into this matter. And this includes the sociological and historical implications of evolution. And so, that is what we do. Why is this so difficult for you? I wonder...--Filll (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is difficult, and I do think we are talking past each other. To the extent that the film makes statements about science, the POV of scientists is the NPOV. To the extent that the film makes statements about scientists, the scientist's POV is not the NPOV. Are we really in disagreement, or just not "hearing" each other? Ra2007 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack: painting ID as bad science, rather than pointing out "Expelled" is based on stupidity

Yes. ID is bad science. Yes ID has religious basis.

Is this relevant to "Expelled"?

"The press release for the film alleges that Stein discovers "an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma" and allows no dissent from what it calls "Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection." [3] However, there is no credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution which explains the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Scientists commonly hold religious faiths, 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 consensus of the scientific community is that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus[10] and that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science,[11][12][13] but as creationism.[14][15][16][17] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents",[18] and that claims by proponents have been "refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[19]"

I have bolded the part I feel is getting too off-topic here.

It seems really oddly *tacked on* to the end of a good balanced paragraph.

1. "Expelled" claims to have Stein *uncovering* some scientific dogma in Darwinism
2. *However* that's a crock of crap. See [1]: "no credible scientific challenge" and "Scientists commonly hold religious faiths" while still pursuing good science.

Great!

But then we get this:

1. "The consensus of the scientific community is that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted" -- riiight. Isn't this what "Expelled" claims? Science allows no dissent from Darwin, ergo, wouldn't we expect *scientists* to have *scientific* consensus.
2. "the overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as valid science" --- riiight. Isn't this what "Expelled" claims too. Science allows no dissent from Darwin, ergo alternative ideas are not called *science*. The film challenges (well, sorta) the scientific community as being wrong in their conclusion, but that's not addressed here.
3. "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled ..." -- riiight. How is this relevant to "Expelled" as described earlier, a film that uncovers some vast scientific conspiracy? What does the courts opinion of ID have to do with that?

It's pushing an "ID is not science" agenda. While that's correct, verifiable and even in line with our WP:UNDUE policy towards reality, it isn't relevant to "Expelled" as described in the paragraph. It's random rebuttal information that doesn't address the point presented.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to briefly set out the scientific side, straight out. If we belaboured the point, then it would be a coatrack, but a couple sentences about the mainstream view seems right, and in line with WP:FRINGE. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree, we'll get there in the fullness of time. Relax and enjoy your wikibreak , all the best, .. dave souza, talk 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am saying I think putting the first two points: "Expelled sets out to do this" and "that's baseless crap" is fine. I feel the part I have bolded is belabouring the point, on getting off topic. It's not false or misleading, it just appears out of place.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A few sentences to state the mainstream position and how it differs from the film's theme are appropriate.--Filll (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's fine. Again I am not disagreeing with this. I am pointing out the present paragraph meanders off topic. Instead of merely rebutting the film's theme it has random factoids about ID thrust in.--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It was probably as good idea, in the early stages of this article, to bluntly state the scientific case up front, so that we can then discuss the film's allegations without giving undue weight to them. Now that we have a few reviews, we can reasonably abandon this stopgap and use the reviews to give more relevant critique. This is the problem with starting an article on a film six months early. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have the exact opposite opinion. Bluntly stating the scientific opinion without an appropriate basis, being informative is not enough, is to be avoided, especially in a fledgeling article. Off-topic stuff is still off-topic. It's not about truth. Early in the article it was premature. Now it is just weird, because it is countering points not presented by the film. --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have reviews of the film, we should try and tie the criticism of ID to the film. E.g. the Colorado Confidential aarticle criticises them for ignoring Kitzmiller, as I recall. to introduce Kitzmiller than what we're doing at the moment? Anyway, off on holiday tomorrow, so that's about all I'll have time to say on the matter. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The extraneous material arguing about ID is hurting the quality of this article and doesn't help anyone: not science, not ID, and certainly not Wikipedia readers. This article is about twice as long as it should be. Eseymour (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy and presenting both sides of the issue

As long as our core content policy, WP:NPOV says "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and "articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" omiting how the scientific community, which this film attacks, views ID is never going to fly. I've restored the view of the scientific community, which is the majority view mind you, and will continue to do so as long as it keeps getting removed or downplayed to where it violates WP:UNDUE. I will not hesitate to seek to enforce WP:DE for any further POV pushing and disruptive editing and tendentious arguing at this article from recent arrivals and long term contributors who should know better. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

However - surely we can use the articles we now have to give a direct, pointed criticism of points about ID raised in the film, instead of presenting the majority opinion generically? Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Adam. We should have a directed *attack* that specifically focuses on the topic of the article: "Expelled" the movie. --ZayZayEM (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We believe it's true because we said it's true.

"The consensus of the scientific community is that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a matter of scientific consensus" is repeated over and over in the article. This is a meaningless statement, "X is accepted because X". Of course, most of this article is a rebuttal of intelligent design, which should go in the intelligent design article, and has no direct relevance to the movie. Only comments about this movie in particular should be presented here; for the intelligent design vs. random mutation debate, point the reader at the main article. scot (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the consensus on this page is moving in that direction (which might be why the big guns were called out). It certainly seems to me to be a coatrack used to rail against Intelligent design and/or Creationism? Let's start making this article better. Ra2007 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that we need to make this article better. It's in everyone's best interest to clean this up so that it stays on point. Eseymour (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started a reference analysis here. Feel free to update. Ra2007 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"I think the consensus on this page is moving in that direction " Hardly. Consensus with the ID supporters here maybe, that's all. And ID's status with the scientific community is relevant to any ID article I'd think. Odd nature (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Trim and refocus

I've reorganised the lead a bit to focus on the arguments presented in the film, as seen by the reviews we have. The best review to date is the NYT, and I've quoted its descriptions of ID in "quote marks" while providing referenced points by ID proponents denying that it is creationism, as requested earlier in this thread. I've left the references regarding the status of ID in place, but think that could probably be trimmed a bit as long as the majority view is clearly shown. .. dave souza, talk 10:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely better. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Biased tone of intro

Filll reverted some edits I made to the intro (in what must be record time, I must say!) I believe the tone of the intro is biased; it sets up the article as an attack against the movie rather than a neutral description of it. Saying that the movie "repeats the creationist claim" clearly is not a neutral phrasing. Secondly, the word "resurrect" implies that those dang old creationists just won't leave that issue alone--just say that the movie focuses on or touches on the controversy. Lastly and least importantly, I think it's inappropriate that the first thing the article says about the movie is that it's "controversial." It has been criticized, and that's appropriately cited. I don't think enough people even know about this movie yet to say it's controversial. Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is already plenty controversial. Read the linked references. And look at their site and trailer etc. It is definitely creationist and repeats the same arguments. By NPOV, FRINGE, UNDUE, WEIGHT etc the mainstream scientific view should be the dominant view here. And it is clear what the scientific view is.--Filll (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream view can be appropriately represented without using biased language. Just because a movie represents a creationist POV doesn't mean the Wikipedia article about it should be written like a hostile op-ed. Eseymour (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because scientific "consensus" (as if science were a democracy) says something doesn't mean that other ideas should be rejected without further thought. Consensus has changed many times in our history, and our biggest advances come from people questioning the status quo. Also remember we want a neutral point of view for Wikipedia articles, not a point of view biased in favor of one particular viewpoint. CobraA1 (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

So why not try to find some real sources for the material you want to include, instead of websites like the one you included?--Filll (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you look at the website, you will see these are creationist claims; "life is not because of random processes, all life acts as though it were designed by a loving god, there is no survival of the fittest, etc". To imply that Newton, Galileo and Einstein were creationists is the height of nonsense. This is the purest horse manure. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Which website are you talking about? I haven't added any new material to this article. Other than changing some wording to improve readability and neutral tone, I only restored a major chunk which another editor took out. That chunk consisted of one of the movie's producers defending himself against accusations. I think it's only fair that if you include people claiming someone did something nefarious, you include the accused person's defense of him/herself. By the way, please avoid using language like "This is the purest horse manure." It's hardly conducive to constructive editing. Thanks. Eseymour (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read all the sources, it strikes me that the intro is indeed biased, but in favor of the film and it's producers. Just the opposite of what you claim. Not only is ID controversial, but as the sources here and the ID article prove it's utterly rejected with the academic communinity and found to be a form of creationism in the courts. This article is so gentle on those points that it give undue weight to the film producer's viewpoint. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fine with the intro as it stands now. ZayZayEM agreed with me and removed some of the loaded words. I disagree with your implication that this article needs to have a discussion of ID itself; that belongs on the Intelligent Design article. Eseymour (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:NPOV requires that all notable views be presented and in proportion to which they are held. I've added the majority view of ID with the appropriate sources to correct this. Odd nature (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This opening sounds like it is trying to portray ID in a bad light. Immediately going into several sentences of criticism of ID in the opening paragraph is simply not appropriate, regardless of equal weight considerations or citations included. Talk about the movie, don't try to prove ID isn't science. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't read that way at all; in fact, the opening as it now stands is quite accurate. To comprehend why the opening is accurate, one need merely look at the premise of the movie. Ponder the premise and your eyes will be opened. Ephphatha! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 12:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I took the section about the Dover trial out of the opening paragraph, and it was reverted, with no discussion. That trial has nothing to do with this film, and I'm going to take it back out unless someone finds a citation linking it soon. GusChiggins21 (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A federal court ruled ID is not science but religous creationism. ID advocates and this film claim ID is science and not creationism. Clearly the Kitzmiller ruling it central to their claims. Odd nature (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a film, not about ID. See bowling for columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and An Inconvenient Truth, all controversial films, none have any analysis of the veracity of their content in the opening paragraph. A court case regarding the film would belong in the opening paragraph. This court case is about the movement being documented in the film, and it is not appropriate for the opening paragraph. It's similar to citing Plessy v. Ferguson in the opening paragraph of The Great Debaters. I think you may a POV issue, because it seems like you are taking it upon yourself to refute the content of the film, rather than simply describe it. I'm going to give 24 hours for someone to find any link between this case and this film, and then I'm deleting it again. Remember, this is a forthcoming film. GusChiggins21 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't do deadlines. Verstehen? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just giving time so we don't have a revert war. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I already provided this link in my initial response to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design#POV issues. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dover is mentioned in the review [11].--Filll (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, directly on the Expelled movie website is a link to the DI's opinion of Dover, calling the decision an example of a "troublemaker" [12]. Seems like we have multiple ways to connect Dover into this article, doesn't it?--02:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not how we are using it either. The review suggests that KvD is avoided by the film itself. But neither that nor listing it as a "Troublemaker" really excuses using it to describe a film it does not describe. (Off Topic: at that link, note Ben Stein's "X" looks suspiciously like a Cross).--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. I guess we cannot "rewrite" the article, then? Anyway, I agree with Hrafn. This legal result hangs like a HUGE cloud over this entire subject that the movie is trying to broach. It is a bit silly to avoid its mention or any mention of any dispute by scientists of the claims of the intelligent design community. In fact, it just plain lies to the readers.--Filll (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have a problem with mentioning it, it's just very unprecedented to give that much weight to showing the premise of a movie to be wrong in the opening paragraph. Why don't we have things that are more directly related to the movie in the opening, like "scientists are criticizing this movie, because they believe it portrays junk science in a favorable light". And then we could include the Dover case and the scientific consensus business in a separate section. GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I would prefer mention of KvD in the lead to be more along the lines of Teach the controversy, which goes "A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say..." rather than dwelling exclusively on KvD. KvD is important for correctly characterising ID's (lack of) legitimacy, which in turn is critical for providing meaningful context for the claims of discrimination contained in Expelled, but it is only one thread in that characterisation, and mentioning all the major ones would make the characterisation more solid. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

One likely reason that "Expelled" ignored the definition of ID from Of Pandas and People is that the book was thoroughly discredited in the 2005 trial of ID curriculum in Dover, Pennsylvania. They probably want to distance themselves from this devastating defeat of creationism and ID in the courts

The review does not use Dover in the way we are. Using a "mention" to somehow justify repeated use of the trial to detail ID-topics not included in the film is really poor.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As it is currently written. It does not have to stay written this way, or was that not apparent?--Filll (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the cross, this prompts me to bring out something that I have had in the back of my mind for a while. Stein is Jewish [13], and always has been. Let's face it; it is pretty obvious.

The people he is allegedly helping in making this movie, for the most part, loathe Jews with a passion. Some of the most vile antisemitism I have ever heard is from the fundamentalist creationist Christian crowd (ok maybe only exceeded by the fundamentalist creationist Muslim crowd; anyone remember "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew?"). The only reason these fundamentalist biblical literalists support Israel is they think this is part of some weird "Late Great Planet Earth/Left Behind/rapture" fantasy, and Israel has to exist to fulfill the prophecy (which somehow does not appear in any clear form in the bible, last I checked; most of this is extra-biblical and sort of hallucinogenic hermeneutics- a sort of entheogenic epexegesis). All the Jews who will not convert to Christianity are supposed to be slaughtered by those righteous evangelical fundamentalists in the End Times (immanentize the eschaton, anyone?).

What in the world do you mean by "fundamentalist"? I consider myself to be a fundamentalist in some ways (I do, after all, believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith) - and I've never, ever considered being hostile towards the Jews. I would agree that such teachings are extra-biblical, as I can not find such things in the Bible. CobraA1 (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

So I do wonder a bit about Stein's few "slipups" like the part about making fun of panspermia and mis-stating the entire premise of intelligent design. Surely he and the writers know what the Discovery Institute agenda is; he is a lawyer and law professor after all, and does not appear to be stupid. Is this just a clever way to disembowel these yahoos by undercutting their arguments? Not that it hasn't already happened quite a bit already (the trial sure helped), but this is just more of the "wrong" kind of publicity for them. Are they that clever? Or is it just clumsiness, more of the "cock-up theory"? --Filll (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit repetitious in spots

In the course of edit wars and trouble, this article has become somewhat repetitious and chopped up. I have avoided cleaning it up and just slowly added more material, but at some point we have to reduce the detritus and repetitiou. However, to people that want this to just be some pro-ID article promoting the movie, this does NOT mean we will remove the balancing material on the other side.--Filll (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just don't make it sound as it it's being hostile to one point of view for another. Remember Wikipedia's policy is neutral point of view, not consensus point of view. CobraA1 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well remember that neutral point of view does not mean sympathetic point of view. The proportion of viewpionts is in accord to relative prominence. And in science. ID is viewed as complete bunk.--Filll (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it does not have to be sympathetic - but it does have to be neutral. FYI, this is an article about a movie, not science, so I'm not concerned about the scientific majority. CobraA1 (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Care to notice what the movie is actually about? What is the theme of the movie?--Filll (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course there should be a small section about its controversial nature - but the vast majority of the article should be about the movie itself: Who the actors are, how well it's expected to do in the box office, a summary of the theme, what the critics say, etc. Just because the theme of the movie takes a stab at science doesn't mean we should try to duplicate the creation-evolution controversy article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraA1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• just going to butt in here. It's a documentary. It doesn't have actors (unless there are some dodgy re-enactments). The only *actor* is Ben Stein, and even then, despite Premise's harping on, being in Ferris Beuller was a small role, and the not the highlight of Ben's career.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are confused. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE etc. The notability of the film is tied up with its controverisal nature. If it was not for its controversial nature, it would not even have an article here on Wikipedia at all. If it was not notable, no one would care how much expected to make at the box office or who starred in it. Sorry. --Filll (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, NPOV says we keep a keep a neutral point of view, and FRINGE is in line with original research: I can't make up something or take something with only a dozen or so followers and put it in. "If it was not for its controversial nature, it would not even have an article here on Wikipedia at all." --Maybe, maybe not. And yes, the notability is going to ultimately depend on how well it does at the box office. If it became a popular movie for some reason other than the controversy, it would still be notable. Otherwise, we can throw out all of the Star Trek, Star Wars, and Stargate articles because they don't center much on controversy. Controversy is not the only measure of notability by any means. CobraA1 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

YOu are not going to convince me that the Stargate movie or the Star Wars movie would have merited this large an article on Wikipedia, before it opened, if Wikipedia existed then. I think you are sadly mistaken. And you make a very poor argument. Not at all compelling. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

CobraA1, you seem to be sadly misinformed about NPOV. Please read the policy carefully, with particular attention to NPOV: Pseudoscience, NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Also note the requirement under WP:NOR and WP:V for the article to rely on reliable third-party secondary sources. .. dave souza, talk 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean sympathetic. It also means non-hostile. It means neutral. You can negatively criticise without being hostile, and this article certainly needs work on that. That aside, this movie's notability has stemmed from it's controversy (not the controversy the producers hoped for though), it will be the focus of the article. This movie will likely always be notable primarily for its controversy, and seconarily for the inanity of it's claims, these two points will likely always be the focus of this article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Duping

I wonder if the reason for the use of the word dupe is this article: [14]. However, I support its replacment with mislead to make the article more accessible.--Filll (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"viscously persecuted"

For more on this treacly subject, read New Survey Supports Evolution, But Critics Disagree (the FASBJ article that it is based around can be found here). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up intro

Souza, first of all, looking up this page, agreement is the last thing I see. Most people seem to think the article as is stands is just ugly. Obviously it's idiocy to teach ID in classrooms, and there are plenty of articles on wikipedia to emphasize this point. To regurgitate all that content straight into the lead of this article wastes space and makes an unreadable mess. The resulting tone is one of impatience - as though you can't speak factually about the film for more than five seconds without needing to remind us yet again that it is wrong. This tone continues through the article, but I thought I'd take a stab at getting it out of the intro. -MBlume (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your suggestion violates WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way saying that the article should not refute the claims made in the film. I'm simply saying that there is a great deal of information in the article that is not necessary. For example, the long-winded description of a newspaper which reviewed the film - should we do this each time we site the New York Times? More importantly, the (many) problems of ID are repeated every other sentence. Is it not enough to state what the film is, how it was produced, what it attempts to accomplish, and why it fails? I have no wish to change the factual content of this article, I simply feel that its defensive and combative tone is not beneficial to the project as a whole. -MBlume (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, some papers and people and events are well known, like the New York Times. Some are more obscure, and I like to put a little bit of a word or two of description so the article is complete without forcing people to click the link. I personally find that style of writing extremely annoying and bad form. Also, the inclusion of a statement about Colorado Confidential was not initiated by me, but by a creationist who wanted to smear the paper. I just included the statement from their own website to be neutral. Also, you have to be familiar with WP:NPOV to edit here. All articles on WP have this tone. Some like it. Some do not. If you want to change the organizing principles of WP go to the appropriate policy page. This is the wrong page for that discussion. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll read that page in more detail tonight - thank you for directing me to it. At the moment all I can say is that there must be a way to do both. To accurately represent the reasons for the majority view, avoid endorsement of the ID line, while still maintaining the maturity, the calmness, in short, the gravitas, of the better-written Wikipedia articles. -MBlume (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to look at a highly rated article in this area, see intelligent design.--Filll (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Documentary status

Although I think it is highly likely someone will revert my addition of "documentary" back to the article, I would liek to point out that I have repeatedly brought this issue to the talk page and have been met with zero opposition once I have presented appropriate points.

This film consists of non-fiction footage, no actors and no pre-rehearsed script. It purports to document factual events, and while perhaps not presenting an accurate assembly of information, remains to be such a film.

Documentaries have been made dissenting against Einstein's theory of relativity [15], it is likely full of crap, but it's still a documentary, because it isn't fiction.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I can understand the desire to avoid suggesting that this film is objective, ZayZayEM is right in pointing to the chequered history of the documentary film. The John Grierson classics and films such as Night Mail are not lacking in pov. Risking the wrath of Mike Godwin, the most apposite example in relation to Expelled must surely be Leni's Triumph of the Will. In short, I agree with ZayZayEM, and won't be reverting the changes. .. dave souza, talk 06:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking the lead

"The film describes what have been called four or five ordinary academic disputes[5] as persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, and claims there is a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.[1][4] However, 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 that its promotion in American public school science classes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[5][6]"

This paragraph attempts to contrast (the only use of "However" I know) two seperate totally unrelated ideas

1. The film describes academic disputes and claims a conspiracy to keep God out of school
2. A court ruled ID is religious in nature

How are these points related in a way that requires direct contrast through use of "however". "However" would be useful if we were dispelling that

1. The academic disputes exist (nope)
2. God is not being kept out of schools (nope, it actually supports this statement)
3. there is a conspiracy to keep God out of school (again, no, it neither confirms or denies this, it just shows that a court ruling is at least in part responsible for keeping God out of schools, this could be in addition, or as aprt of a conspiracy)

The court ruling statement also presents information unrelated to the original statement about the film content.

1. That ID violates the Constitution, the first statement does not say that ID is Constitutional (perhaps the Constitution is part of the conspiracy?).
2. That intelligent design is a religious view, the first statement does not say that intelligent design is notv a religious view, it actually ties ID to religion by expliciting tying it to support for God in laboratories and classrooms.

This paragraph needs fixing. Mostly by removing "However". Expelled does not present a fictional scenario. ID/God are being kept out of schools, this is true. It presents a bizzare interpretation of this scenario, that this is somehow a bad scenario (in both terms of evil and poor science). The courts response to intelligent design does not appropriately dismiss this interpretation, it provides an odd juxtaposition of tit-for-tat that is not directed at Expelled, but at ID.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ID/God are being kept out of schools by the 1st Amendment, and taking your point, I've removed the "however" and made the statement less convoluted. Hope you find this a useful clarification. . .dave souza, talk 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The film describes what have been called four or five ordinary academic disputes as persecution of educators and scientists who promote intelligent design, the idea that there is evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes, and claims there is a conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms. 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.

I think the "however" was meant to indicate that KvD constrains the parameters of these disputes, by ruling ID religious/not science (and thus precluding some viewpoints' favoured outcomes). I agree however that the wording is rather clumsy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire article with its anti-ID bias completely supports the main point of the film. There is hostility toward scientisst who question the un-substantiated claims of Darwinism. As a biologist with over 30 peer-reviewed publications I have personally experienced this harrassment. It is too bad wikipedia is unwilling to take a NPOV and allow all sides to be presented on ID topics. It only hurts your reputation as a biased source of information.

The Irony

The real irony here is that this incredibly biased entry about the film is evidence that what the film asserts is indeed true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.134.109 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So you think that only one side should be presented? You might be aware of the rules of WP. We have to present both sides, or all sides if there are more than 2, as long as they are significant. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and related pages.--Filll (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia contains what is objectively verifiable, not The Truth™. I say unfortunately, it's unfortunate if you think Conservapedia is a more reliable encyclopaedia than Wikipedia can ever be. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the greater irony is that Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html where he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... " and proposes editing pages on intelligent design, , evolution, or creationism. "Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" A longer transcript has been posted at WP:ANI#Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. ... dave souza, talk 11:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

They are also wrong: we can stop it, if the need arises, and they will almost certainly alienate so many people in the process that it will make the job of getting their POV into the article substantially harder. This is a lesson several people have learned the hard way. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

wait, by this logic, if someone made a movie Evil: No Time Cube Allowed branding academic refusal to discuss Time Cube as "persecution", and we wrote an article about how in reality, the refusal is due to Time Cube being so much nonsense, this would in fact "prove" that proponents of "Time Cube" are in fact persecuted? Wow. I can see that with this sort of approach, you can get yourself to believe anything at all. dab (𒁳) 11:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite. The film is blatant propaganda, and should be viewed as such. I have never come across any reliable source properly independent of the Discovery Institute who seriously advocated the idea that ID is anything other than creationism. As a Christian I find their stance puzzling: it's almost as if they are ashamed to admit that theirs is a religious perspective. And it fools nobody, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not being in the US, it is hard for you to understand this I am sure. It is about US law, nothing more and nothing less. Just the law. If you look historically, that is the same reason that creation science was spawned out of creationism.--Filll (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I understand it just fine, it just boggles my mind. The idea of teaching creationism - sorry intelligent design - on a par with evolution in British schools would be completely unacceptable. We teach religion as a compulsory subject, and we don't pretend that religion is science. None of my Christian friends, many of whom are scientists, have a problem with this, but of course the Biblical inerrancy movement is not strong here, and that is the fundamental cause of the problem. That which conflicts with the literal truth of the Bible must necessarily be wrong, therefore it is unacceptable to teach it as if it were right. My personal God does not require me to deny anything that conflicts with the traditional understanding of His word, and that I guess is where I differ form the fundamental baptists who have driven the attempts to pretend that creationism is anything other than religious dogma. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, creationism, and probably ID, is taught in some British schools, including state funded City Academies which have been sponsored by Reg Vardy the car dealer. This was shown on Channel 4 in The Root of All Evil? by Richard Dawkins, which is worth watching on YouTube or whatever. .. dave souza, talk 21:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Greene interview

Aren't we maybe giving a little too much undue weight to the speculations and opinions of one person? It's hard to see this paragraph as that relevant. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the discussion of Mathis, one of the producers, not Greene. Also Greene is notable; we just do not have an article on him yet. Also, I disagree with this removal:[16]--Filll (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Greene's article was deleted as non notable. And I actually agree with... most of JzG's deletions. 90% of that section was pedantic and boring. It might be worth keeping mention of the AiG/DI/christian organisations promotions of it, though, as, though not notable individually, they're notable en masse.. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Statements of the producer and executive producer about what their agendas are and why they made the film and what it depicts are relevant. I think that the complaints by the DI are relevant, as are the AiG and other creationist promotions. Until we get more reviews, this is what we have.--Filll (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pruned

I pruned the promotion section down to something more appropriate. This is not snakes on a plane, I don't see any evidence it has become a viral marketing phenomenon, and "so controversial you'll lose your job" or whatever is just marketing hype. I'm not convinced the quote about Newton and Galileo belongs, either - the world back then was vastly different. And we know what happened last time science and religion collided big-time: "and still it moves". The ID movement is a very modern and very American concept, specifically created to avoid the anti-establishment clause; to try to compare this deliberately-manufactured controversy with the work of historical figures during a period when science was evolving into what it is today does not strike me as relevant. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It might not be relevant in the UK. It is very very relevant in the US. It is hard from the UK perspective to understand the situation in the US. And this movie and its claims has substantial relevance. Even a good fraction of the candidates for president subscribe to these ideas, and the fate of education and scientific research in the US is in the crosshairs.--Filll (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"the US" comprises 300 million people. While some of them obviously care a lot about "intelligent design", I would yet have to be convinced that any of this has "substantial relevance" to the USA as a whole. And even assuming that intelligent design is of substantial relevance, from this it would not follow that this movie in particular inherits much of that relevance just by virtue of being about something of relevance. dab (𒁳) 17:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of those 300 million people, at least 200 million or more subscribe to the Discovery Institute position, and repeat back to pollsters and interviewers the policies of the DI when asked, including teach the controversy and similar campaign slogans. And this includes a large fraction of the politicians in the US. This is a huge issue in the country with the largest scientific and technical infrastructure in the world.--Filll (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading what I said. The promotion of the film is not significant as film promotion, and the relevance of the DI to Newton is as close to zero as makes no difference; DI is fighting a rearguard action against the scientific consensus, whereas Newton was helping to develop the scientific method. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The movie is significant as the latest propaganda push in what the BBC Horizon programme chose to call A War on Science. The British government and the EU have taken ID seriously enough to issue policies restricting it from being taught in schools. It's certainly of substantial relevance in Texas, which may be a small place but which has education under the control of parties supporting ID and apparently determined to remove evolution from science education. With luck this movie won't have much influence, but a lot of churches and religious people are going to use it to try to tip the balance and widen the influence of ID. The pruned material is significant in respect to the subject, and should be restored, with improvements as appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I restored some of the content deleted by JzG. I feel that overall, pruning was needed, but some information was useful and expanded upon points introduced but not elaborated elsewhere in the article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous statement

The science community rejects intelligent design not because it is associated with God - I take issue with this statement. Science is materialistic, and any theory that requires or admits the possibility of a Supreme Being is inherently unscientific. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember theistic evolution. However, it is possible that the statement could be better worded.--Filll (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Careful, Raul654, that's an ID line, claiming that science is materialistic! Science is secular and uses methodological naturalism, not materialism in its common usage. Scientific theories admit the possibility of a Supreme Being, but as that possibility is untestable don't take it into account. Agree that phrasing can be improved, and the point made more explicit. .... dave souza, talk 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I did conflate materialism with naturalism (In find these abstract philisophical concepts confusing). However, to get back to my original point -- as soon as your scientific framework admits the possibility of a supreme being, "God did it" becomes a legitimate scientific explanation. More to the point, I'm sure there are scientists who reject ID because it is associated with God. (Dawkins, for example) Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're basically right, but intelligent design is built on muddling up these terms and trying to persuade people that evolution=Metaphysical naturalism=materialism=atheism, and even though Dawkins essentially agrees with that logic, he does so from a philosophical conviction and accepts that people like Ken Miller are both religious and proponents of evolution. .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) By the way, Dawkins rejects ID because it's not science, and separately rejects religion because it's not subject to scientific proof. .. dave souza, talk 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Any inclusion of God or any other supernatural force or entity into science destroys science, since the answer to any question is or can be "God did it" or something similar. There is no reason to do science any longer at that point. Science has no position on the existence of God or not (and cannot make any statements about this question really), and many scientists are not atheists, which is the opposite of what the film claims however, and that I think is what was meant by that sentence.--Filll (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Intelligent design. I partly agree with Raul, that science does automatically reject ID because of its ties to religion - However, this is not the sole contributing factor to its rejection. The Ultimate Boeing 747 metaphor demonstrates that if religion is ignored, ID still remains an inferior proposal for origins compared to evolution (life) and other modern naturalistic explanations (the universe).--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if you allow the supernatural into science, and God into science as a cause, it turns out that all the science done so far in ID is just pure nonsense. After 20 years or more of trying, and the expenditure of many millions of dollars, all they have to show for it is failure after failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

indeed. There are many great thinkers who have contributed brilliantly to the question of the supernatural. The ID people just cannot compete, not because the topic is fundamentally invalid, but simply because they are incompetent. If you are interested in the supernatural, turn to Kant, or Jung, or Pascal, or any number of brilliant philosophers. The ID people are not even remotely in that league. They compare like a teenage garage band to a symphony orchestra. God take pity on America if this is the state of the art of their philosophy today. dab (𒁳) 11:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the ID people are not philosophers. They are using philosophy as a weapon against science however, and as a tool to shove creationism into the public school classrooms. --Filll (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent restructure

I'm going to have to say I do not agree with the recent restructure.

Dividing the now "scientific criticism" away from the "claims presented in the film" section it provides a rebuttal for is not a good idea. It divides the article and allows internal Forking of POV viewpoints. NPOV is best maintained by keeping opposed statements close together.

I think we should rollback to the earlier version.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not recommended to divide out criticism in this way. It is too easy to just remove it. I am going to revert since all these "improvements" have just turned the article into an increasingly biased mess with fewer and fewer references.--Filll (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still in favour of streamlining references. References that simply repeat each other without synergy and redundant off-topic agenda driven list should be avoided. "Example" style references that conflict with the facts being presented should also be avoided.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. Filll has a valid point about lumping the scientific community's view into a "criticism" section; it marginalized that view, which happens to be the majority view, and gave the view point of the film's producers and ID proponents undue weight. I've revert you're rewrite. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are two separate issues. I've retweaked wording on certain issues that had been maintained during Filll's structural rollback. No scientific references were removed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I seem to recall a large block or two of scientific references which were lost. I am going to put them back if they are not there now.--Filll (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

General cleanup required

The debates and edits appear to overlook a basic problem with this article: it's nearly unreadable. Please remove the semi-protected status, tag the article for cleanup, and allow other Wikipedians to wrestle the existing text into a readable, concise version. - 24.61.184.179 (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Get an account and you'll soon be able to edit the article. In the meantime any proposals or drafts for detailed improvements can be posted on this talk page for discussion, and will be most welcome. Thanks, . . dave souza, talk 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it unreadable? Frankly, the most unreadable features come from an endless parade of editors who come by to "tweak" it and mess it up, when it was quite readable a few days ago.--Filll (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to restructure it to a more readable format, and also to re-word some of the more blatant POV. Personally I think most of the "Scientific criticism" section doesn't belong in the article at all, but I'm wary of removing sourced information given that this is a highly controversial topic. Walton^One 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it did not exist before, and was integrated into the body. Criticism sections are discouraged, and it makes it easy for someone to come and delete all the criticism. For NPOV there needs to be criticism, but it has to be all through the article, not in a separate section. I just watch in amazement as a fairly reasonable article slowly turns into a pile of crap as one editor after another comes in to mess it up more and more. Amazing.--Filll (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Walton One created a lot of the mess himself and then complained about it. Isnt that great?--Filll (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is very uncivil and unfair. I am trying to help. If you don't like my edits, then revert them; I really don't care all that much. The scientific criticism stuff does not belong in the article at all; it's basically a POV screed about how evolutionists are right and creationists are wrong. However, it is sourced, so I wasn't bold enough to remove it outright. Walton^One 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you do not quite get it. NPOV means there must be stuff on all sides. Stuff that says ID is fantastic and the greatest advance in 1000 years. Stuff that says ID is produced by morons and nitwits who are trying to hoodwink the public. Both have to be in the article. Get it?

And when I wrote it, it had both. Integrated in. With many more references than are in there at present. And I am watching, editor after editor (not just you), come in, remove references, material they do not like, etc and it becomes biased and unbalanced and unsupported and the English gets messed up and so and so forth. I think you simplified one part, which is fine; made the English more simplistic which is probably good to make it more accessible. But as I try this experiment over the last few days of just letting people crap on my articles, I see what happens. They mostly deteriorate. And that is sad. You made maybe 1 good change and about 5 bad changes. Add that to about 20 bad changes of others, and we get a mess. Oh well. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Just my two cents. --Filll (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention to WP:OWN. Your definition of NPOV is twisted. It also ignores other policies of wikipedia such as notability and verifiability.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors (and I apologise for referring to others' edits as a "POV screed"), but I have not removed any sourced material whatsoever, just moved it around and reworded it. But when I saw it, there were a large number of statements along the lines of "intelligent design is not a credible scientific challenge to the modern theory of evolution for explaining the complexity and diversity of life on earth" and "Although evolution is unequivocally accepted by the scientific community,[8][18] it is not because it is dogma, but because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution." This is not NPOV; it's an uncritical endorsement of a particular viewpoint, presenting it as fact and not opinion. I agree that we need both pro- and anti-ID viewpoints in the article; but when I first saw it, it was overwhelmingly anti-ID. Feel free to revert my restructuring, or restructure it differently yourself, if you don't like the way I've done it. That's what a wiki is for. Walton^One 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The first statement you bear issues with is a fact. It is not an opinion. ID is not a credible scientific challenge to any modern origin theory. The second clearly labels this as the opinion of an entity "the scientific community" with references. The second part of that sentence could be improved. It also appears to be getting off topic and leaning towards agenda-driven language, but still essentially details a fact, not an opinion that requires attribution.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Credible" is an opinion, surely? The word means "believable" or "plausible", which is a matter of opinion - I don't doubt that it's informed scientific opinion, based on evidence and logical deduction, but it's still an opinion. On the second point, the "scientific community" is not a homogenous entity. As the article correctly states (with sources), a large majority of scientists reject intelligent design and support evolution; however, this does not mean that the entire "scientific community" shares one "correct" opinion, and that the opinions of the minority are wrong. Walton^One 10:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Credible 2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

credible 2. authentic or convincing

Science doesn't deal with "belief", so in this context meaning 2, particularly pertaining to confidence and trustworthiness of the statement is quite an obvious use of the word.

By all means provide a better alternative word. English has limitations, and I think a similar consensus will be reached on word usage here as "unequivocal" (as opposed to unanimous).

Whether by serendipity or purpose, credible is a carefully chosen alternative to less accurate "belief". Plausible may be close enough, and I don't think plausibility is really a matter of opinion .--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of semantics over the choice of wording, the general gist of the statement is that intelligent design is valueless or simply incorrect as a scientific theory. That may be true, but in the interests of NPOV we should not be taking sides in the debate. Nor, as I said, should we treat "the scientific community" as a homogenous entity and ascribe a standard view to it. Yes, we should make clear that evolution is the majority view in the scientific community, and intelligent design is supported by a small minority; the article already does this elsewhere. But we should not make a scientific judgment, even one based on published scientific sources, on our own account. Deciding what is "credible" and what is not constitutes WP:OR. Walton^One 12:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not "equal-weight'. WP:UNDUE. WP:FRINGE. --ZayZayEM (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First para

I am retiring as a Wikipedia editor. This revert with the edit summary "bad move on first sentence, kept "professional"; dividing this sentanceinto two ruins flow, and makes NYT comment seem off-hand. The description of the film is according to NYT, not just ID definition" has opened my eyes to the fact that I am wasting my time here. Bye. Avb 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See the source[17]

But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.
The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” According to its Web site, the film asserts that people in academia who see evidence of a supernatural intelligence in biological processes have unfairly lost their jobs, been denied tenure or suffered other penalties as part of a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.

Empahsis added. The NYT is clearly the source for both the description of the film as "a controversial documentary film that presents claims of professional persecution to promote intelligent design" and that ID is "an ideological cousin of creationism".

NYT is not an authority on what constitutes as creationism or not. They are a reporting MSM body. It is off-hand and trite to seperate this statement into two sentances. It misleads a reader as to the authority of the NYT and the context of their statements (ie. NYT mentions ID=creationist cousin in context of Expelled description). There is nothing grammatically improper about the sentance and is quite worded well to give readers a clear and concise mainstream NPOV definition of "Expelled" from the first sentance alone.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, NYT does not need to be an authority on creationism, just a reliable source, read WP:RS and WP:V. Let's not make up new guidelines here. I don't see an issue with calling ID a form of creationism and using the NYT source, particularly since the Dover trial ruling found that it is indeed creationism. In fact that sources can be used as well. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything like that. I am content with the current version that attributes both statements (1, describing the film; 2, ID=creationism) to NYT. NYT is a reliable source and can be used. It's authority however should not be taken out of context.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am criticising this version [18]. Which states "Intelligent design is an "ideological cousin of creationism" or a "creationist idea", according to the New York Times.". A blatantly ridiculous statement. This is not NYT position on the matter, nor are they an authority to announce such positions. NYT has merely reported vailable information (likely from Dover, NAS, Forrest or any number of truly authoritative sources which point out ID=creationism). To attribute this statement to NYT either belittles the statement, or oversteps NYT's actual authority on the matter.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, we can put another 5 or 6 references about ID=creationism in there to bolster this. Maybe I should.--Filll (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But you don't have to. They are used later on, in a better context. It is fine the way it is.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Since people want to fight this, I think that maybe it needs to be nailed down very firmly. People love to try to dispute this, even when it is right in the New York Times. Wow.--Filll (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Professional" persecution

I rv'd the descriptor "professional" to the term persecution in the lead, because it seems to me that this is getting overly specific for a film that no one has seen. Do any of the references make this distinction? I think short of that we should go with the broader term, at least for now. Guettarda (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate qualifyer. Persecution can have holocaust or inquisition like imagery. As much as the ID-market like to equate themselves with Galileo and us with Hitler, there is absolutely no torture, punitive or even judicial persecution at play. Any actual events detailed in the film will be about alleged professional persecution.

I'm sorry I reverted it back without checking the talk page first. (The edit history didn't point it out). If it gets removed again. I merely thought it was a positive contribution that assisted in conveying the appropriate meaning of the sentence.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Persecution can have meanings like that, but that isn't how the term is usually used. We're using it in the normal sense of the word. Guettarda (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's wild hyperbole. Richard Sternberg was "nearly" tortured, punished etc., well, actually, some people were rude about a paper he sneaked out after he'd already resigned as editor, and he kept his place as visiting scholar, complete with an office. Bet that really hurt. "Professional persecution" rather did suggest the Spanish inquisition, and of course nobody expected that. Anyway, Filll's clarified the sentence, for the better. .. dave souza, talk 15:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just checking, are you saying that "professional persecution" was a less accurate chracterisation of the scenario than just "persecution"? Does it suggest contract persecutors were brought in?--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't use sources that don't back up statements

"The film has been described as gaining media attention for a manufactured controversy, demonizing "Big Science" and claiming nonexistent scientific credibility for intelligent design to lend plausibility to the idea that evolution it is a notion to be believed rather than a scientific fact to be known, or a scientific theory to be accepted.(32)"

Has additionally been using this reference from The Christian Post. I do not know what this article is there for.

It certainly does not support the claim of a "manufactured controversy". Despite being full of usual creationist propoganda (straight from ARN) that attacks alleged "the naturalistic Darwinian creation story", it does not "demonize" Darwinism, nor does it focus on Expelled, but merely mention the movie in context of ARN's 2007 "Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories".

It does not really support significant "media attention" (if its not significant media attention, it's not important to Wikipedia). It is one right-wing fundamentalist online publication[19], I would not count it as MSM.

If it is there to somehow balance NPOV through addition of a right-wing fundamentalist source to balance the secular History News Network - ummm... that's not how NPOV works. (ie. your balancing source must still be relevant and consistent with the produced text, or otherwise produce new text to counter/balance other text)

The History News Network citation is sufficient and details this "manufactured controversy" in the context of Expelled:

This manufactured controversy will gain more media attention in 2008 with the release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a movie promoting “intelligent design”...

Note that the HNN points out this manufactured controversy existed before "Expelled" and is only going to excacerbated by the film's presence. I think the wikiepdia-text should be modified to better reflect this. To me it seems to suggest Expelled is creating the manufactured controversy, or responsible for placing it in the media spotlight. If its changed, spell excacerbate correctly =). --ZayZayEM (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly gives evidence of "scientific credibility for intelligent design" but I will remove it.--Filll (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Is the Conservapedia article on Expelled unbiased?

It was suggested above that the Conservapedia article on the same topic [20] 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)

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)

"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)

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 {{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)

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)

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)

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)

Well on controversial issues, NPOV dictates this style. I am sorry if you disagree with it or do not like it. Places that offer other styles are Conservapedia or Wikinfo.

As for the business of plot etc, until we have some good solid detailed extensive reviews of the film, this is a bit premature. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not mainly negative either. When I did a rough estimate, not including footnotes, it was about 88% positive.--Filll (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added two very long paragraphs of positive material from interviews with the producers.--Filll (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I said to Fairchoice that arm-waving is unproductive, and he needs to make specific line by line comments. Fairchioce has chosen to ignore this and persists with his "this article is teh suck" style commentary. The signal to noise ratio in these commentaries is far too low. We are not going to rewrite the article to minimise the impact of criticism due to some nebulous idea of "style" promoted by someone who clearly supports the film's agenda, and we're certainly not going to include material that doesn't exist in reliable independent sources. It is fair to note that this is a propaganda film promoting an ID agenda and using quote mining from interviews obtained, in some cases, under false pretences. That is a significant fact about the film and it will be emphasised in the lead if we are to comply with WP:NPOV. NPOV ≠ sumpathetic POV, especially in respect of blatant propaganda supporting a minority view. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposing view: Theologian faces a campaign for fire her for belief in evolution

PZ Myers pointed to a case where: "Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., said she faced a campaign to get her fired because she expressed the view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time." It was led by Phillip E. Johnson.[21]

Myers points to this case in relation to Caroline Crocker's case. Should it be included? WWORBERTS (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Article on "Expelled". Not Caroline Crocker or Nancey Murphy or Phillip E. Johnson or Creation-evolution controversy. Myers' blog entry makes no mention of "Expelled" movie.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Crocker's in the Expelled movie, according to the wikipedia article. Which I sourced and was just reverted. (Her part in the movie remains, but is not sourced.) Also Johnson is in the film, but that's a minor point. WWORBERTS (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she is in the movie, but this information remains irrelevant . It's about Crocker, not "Expelled". Only information pertinent to Crocker's role in "Expelled" is relevant here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:09, 6 February 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)

I really don't see why it's called a "documentary film." It is actually a propaganda film in "documentary-style," quite easily fitting the Wikipedia definition of having been "produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, propagandistic content." Whether or not it's deliberately misleading could be disputed, that it is misleading cannot be.

Why do the producers of this propaganda piece get to have their distortions labeled as "documentary," when it's clearly a misleading bit of advocacy?

Glen Davidson (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Glen Davidson http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic

Hi Glen, best to post at the foot of the page if you want to introduce a new section, and by the way the link to your article on Consciousness as electric field interactions is rather off topic here. Anyway, the point was discussed earlier and while some see a case for not dignifying the film with the title "documentary", that's a type of film rather than a comment on the truthfulness or content of the film. The classic case being The Triumph of the Will, which is an excellent documentary not highly valued for truthfulness or objectivity. .. dave souza, talk 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, thanks for the response. Obviously I don't know much about these things, and put my remarks under other remarks regarding the first paragraph because it's called a "documentary" in the first paragraph (my webpage has contact information and identifies me, on the other issue--otherwise I'd virtually be anonymous). I appreciate the link to the "documentary," Triumph of the Will, yet I'm confused about the purpose of doing so, since at the time of this writing it is clearly identified by Wikipedia as a "propaganda film," not simply as a "documentary." So I'm still left wondering why Expelled is identified as a documentary when similarly misleading movies are identified as "propaganda films." Glen Davidson (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It really only is a documentary in the sense of Michael Moore documentaries. We discussed it at length, and just decided to give in and classify it as a documentary as a compromise.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Miller's imdb data

Tried to add it but couldn't quite figure out how to make the hyper-link work. Note: Credit for writing this film has been wrongfully attributed to Kevin Miller the conservative talk show host. That's the wrong guy. The person who wrote this film is Kevin Miller the screenwriter. His personal web site is www.kevinmillerxi.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millstone99 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If he is not prominent enough to have a Wikipedia article, I think we will not link to him. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Millstone99 it would be nice of you to let the other editors here know that you are in fact Kevin Miller who has an interest in the movie. You'd also be wise to let the editors of the Ben Stein article know you have a vested interest there as well. And by looking at your edits is it safe to assume you've matured some and won't be vandalizing th Richard Dawkins article anymore? And please stop link spamming your blog, it's not what Wiki is about. Thank you Angry Christian (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this have relevance to the fim?

Increasingly off-topic thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This statement from the article doesn't have much to do with the film. Therefore it should be removed. It also doesn't flow well. 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.[10][11] Saksjn (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Perhaps it should be reworded, but the point is valid. What is going on with this movie, as near as we can tell from the promotional material and reviews, is that there is some claim that those terrible scientists, those evil satan worshippers, are conspiring to keep religion out of the classrooms and laboratories. However, this is actually in accord with US law, like it or not. Also, none of the cases brought up in the film actually have anything to do with discrimination against scientists for their religious beliefs, although it is pitched that way. But it is relevant to point out that in fact it would be against the law to allow what the filmmakers are screaming to be allowed to do; promote one narrow religious sect's views, constituting about 5 or 10% of the US religious views using taxpayer money at the expense of the other tens of thousand Christian sects and other 5000+ religions on the face of the earth. It is like saying, I demand the right to force you to be a Muslim using the power of the state (police powers and taxing powers) and basically force you to be a Muslim at gunpoint. Doesn't sound too appetizing? Well it shouldn't. And it is exactly the agenda the people behind this film are pushing. No wonder people compare them to the Taliban.--Filll (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Frankly, I think that we should get back to teaching and quit preaching to our children. Telling our kids "these are the facts we have, this is the process we follow, and this is what our results are" is great, but "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH US YOU ARE A STUPID UNSCIENTIFIC IDIOT," quite frankly, is not. Our science classrooms should be about the scientific process, not about what they should and should not believe. Science, in my opinion, has always been about asking questions and performing experiments to attempt to answer those questions. It has never been about blindly following the crowd, even if the crowd is fellow scientists. A person who creates experiments and uses them to confirm the validity of a claim is much more a scientist than a person who never performs experiments and simply argues endlessly about the philosophy of science.  —CobraA1 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Of course, our classes should teach the scientific process and the current understanding of mainstream science. Our classes should not be about promoting some religious view and branding it as science. Intelligent design does no experiments and just argues about the philosophy of science, which is what is wrong with it frankly. It is not science; it is just nonsense and a waste of time. And also, the classrooms in the US have to follow US law, whether the people who made this film like it or not. They do have a tendency to dodge that little part. Intelligent design is illegal to teach. So...--Filll (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC) It is highly relevant. A federal court of law ruled that ID is religion masquerading as science. Angry Christian (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Relevant to what? Describing "Expelled"? not really. Describing the controversy directly surrounding "Expelled"? again, no. Providing additional context describing the political climate around the evo-creo wars in the USA? Possibly. But as the original poster in this section says, it doesn't flow well. It does not substantially contribute to the reader's further understanding of issues directly involving "Expelled" and needs reworking or removal. One possible opportunity for inclusion may be use commentary highlighting "Expelled" and its producers complete ignorance/omission of such details while promoting ID.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) As I said, maybe the wording could be better. But it is relevant.--Filll (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC) So if asking questions about science and testing the theories is what were supposed to do... Why is ID so evil? Saksjn (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Who says ID is evil? Dude, please spare us the DI inspired nonsense. Thanks in advance for not insulting our intelligence. Ben Stein's propaganda piece is crafted for the uninformed and not the editors of this article. "Big science" is scheming to take over the world, remember? And the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not asking idiotic questions suggesting people think ID is evil. Good grief. My question is this - how long until Ben makes a movie that glorifies HIV denial. Angry Christian (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)\ This page is not for debating the subject, but improving the article, as AC notes. However, let me enlighten you just a bit. There is no problem with asking questions about science and testing the theories. None. And that is what science does; asks questions and tests theories. And when theories are rejected after testing, then they are no longer accepted, and are not taught, especially to high school students or junior high school students. "Intelligent design" was a theory that was tested 200 years ago in its initial form. And it failed the testing. And so it was rejected. Now in its present incarnation, as intelligent design has been "reborn", the two main ideas of intelligent design (irreducible complexity and specified complexity) have been tested, and failed again, and rejected again. First by the scientific community. And now by the courts as well. I'm sorry - which experiments documented these failures?  —CobraA1 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Look into the details of the Dover trial where immense amounts of evidence against irreducible complexity were presented. Literally the results of hundreds if not thousands of experiments. Hundreds of books and papers on the subject. Look into the scholarly reviews of Dembski's work, where the holes are exposed in specified complexity. Even the mathematicians and scientists whose results Dembski used in his work have denounced Dembski's attempts. This is all readily available if you are willing to do a little research. And Wikipedia can get you started on doing this research, which is what an encyclopedia should do; point out a few places to start learning about this. Watch the NOVA video Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial for an easy introduction to some of this. It is available online.--Filll (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Presumably by "its initial form" he's talking about young earth creationism, which has been debunked many, many times over, as described at length in our Age of the universe and Age of the Earth articles. Raul654 (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I'm aware of "debunking circles" where both sides "debunk" the other side endlessly. Usually it accomplishes nothing.  —CobraA1 09:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Swing and a miss. In order for there to be a debunking circle, there has to be a debunking of the well-accepted framework modern cosmology is built upon. There is not. The IDists and their creationist kin have not published one single peer-reviewed paper (Mr. Sternberg's subversion of the peer-review process not withstanding). As for what it accomplishes, for people who are paying attention and actually wish to get to the bottom of the facts, it allows them to see that once side has all the evidence, and one side has none. This is, by the way, debating these issues and getting to some objective, provable truth is the essence of the scientific method (you know, that thing you rather hypocritically tried to lecture us on a few days ago). I hope that clears things up for you. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC) And you want us to teach failed rejected theories? What about astrology and phlogisten and caloric theory and the ether theory? There are thousands upon thousands of failed rejected theories. You might hear about them in a history of science class, but not in a science class which teaches current accepted theories, not failed theories. And certainly not for high school students since it is challenging enough just to teach them anything at all, let alone teach them rejected failed theories in addition to current theories. So, learn a bit about things before you rant and rave so much. And this page is not the place for your rants; thanks. Go to a debating website if you want to, but not here.--Filll (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC) The biological theory of evolution itself refutes the "once rejected, always rejected" argument. At first, many people believed that life could come from non-life, known as "spontaneous generation." Lois Pasteur showed this to be untrue. Now, the idea that life can come from non-life has popped up again in a different form, and it is believed that all organisms have a common ancestor or a small set of common ancestors, which ultimately had their origins in non-living chemicals. It is not a scientific law that a theory cannot be rejected and picked up later (often in a different form). Many theories have reversed more than once as new information is gained.  —CobraA1 09:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) This is an incoherent and historically invalid argument. As you said above, theories get tested. ID is a theological position, unsupported by science. What improvements are you proposing for the article? .. dave souza, talk 12:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I didn't mention ID. And this argument doesn't contribute to the article, so I'll drop the subject.  —CobraA1 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Not true. The same scientific evidence used for the theory of evolution is also easily used for the theory of intelligent design. For example, many animals have similar bone structures. This could either be evidence of a macro-evolutionary past, or of a designer who used the same materials to build these animals (different cars also use the same or similar design systems, but all cars aren't identical. A Dodge Ram is a Dodge Ram.). Now, this is not contributing to the article, so you guys need to stop arguing about it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, is not a place to preach your view, and thus this is not the proper place to debate evolution vs. intelligent design. (ApJ (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)) "And certainly not for high school students since it is challenging enough just to teach them anything at all, let alone teach them rejected failed theories in addition to current theories." So now you're insulting high school students? I honestly can see your reasoning behind the statement but... Please man, NO STEREOTYPING! Saksjn (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Intelligent design is illegal to teach." The movie is not about getting ID into schools. Its about protecting the first ammendment rights of anyone who dissents from the main stream of science. Teachers and scientist can get in trouble just for saying that they doubt the theory of evolution, not that they support ID. That's a violation of the first ammendment! Saksjn (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC) "Also, none of the cases brought up in the film actually have anything to do with discrimination against scientists for their religious beliefs, although it is pitched that way." I have friends in college right now. Their proffesors will literally ask for Christians to stand up. They then tell them that there job is to make sure my friends leave college as atheists. I pretty sure that's a violation of the 1'st ammendment. The first ammendment is often used to fight christians. Well...it can also protect them. Saksjn (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Fascinating claims, Saksjn. I have atheist friends in college and they routinely witness christian professors dashing the brains from infants and eating them whole while listening to Rush Limbaugh and force poor atheist students to watch while playing Yatzee nude! Weirdist stuff you've ever seen. These college professors say it;s their job to eat the brains of infants and force atheists to watch. I think, but I'm not certain, that violates at least one of the constitutional ammendments. And it's all true, I swear to zeus! In fact I hear the atheist, liberal, devil worshippers (satanic cultists) at PBS are planning a special report on it soon - "Christian college professors who eat their young and force their atheist students to watch while playing yatzee nude" THAT documentary is going to rock some boats, let me tell you! Thanks for sharing about your poor, persecuted christian pals. I wonder if any of them will graduate and go on to eat baby brains? Gosh I hope not. Angry Christian (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Whoah! I'd like to see a little evidence for that claim. So now you've taken a somewhat civilized conversation and turned it into an insult parade. I didn't belittle anyone. You, on the other hand, just personally attacked and belittled my friends, my faith, and me. But go on, you are protected by the Bill of Rights, and I can take it. Saksjn (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Saksjn, you do sound like a high school student. Or younger. And your account sounds like a tract from Jack T. Chick. Frankly, in my experience, the opposite is more likely to be true. "Christians" ranting and raving cursing and screaming at everyone else, threatening them, harassing them, spewing hatred and anger at all those who hold different beliefs (even different varieties of Christian), declaring that Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Atheists, Agnostics etc should be jailed or put to death. And claiming that no one is allowed to disagree with these "Christians" since every word they speak is the word of God and they are divinely inspired and it is good to hate hate hate hate and kill kill kill kill because they are "Christians". I have had many arguments with "Christians" who claim that "love thy neighbor as thyself" appears no place in the Christian bible, and was never a quote from Jesus. So in my personal experience, the people with a far uglier record are the "Christians".--Filll (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Saksjn, you should look at the Christine Comer article for an example of "Christians" persecuting others, even fellow Christians. Also, you personally are allowed to believe anything you like. You are not allowed to force others to believe what you believe; remember a little thing called the Inquisition? Also, this page is not for debating, but improving the article. More outbursts from you will be deleted from the page.--Filll (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) May I suggest that this thread needs to either get back onto the topic of the article on this film, or close itself down. It has wandered way off-topic. HrafnTalkStalk 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Any "Christian" that tells you that "Love thy neighbor as thyself," is not in the Bible is crazy. Jesus said it, and it the way we should live our lives. The philosophy I follow in my life is a philosophy of treating others the way I want to be treated and accepting people for who they are. The Inquisition was evil and wrong, so were the crusades, so are abortion clinic bombings. I'm sorry if you've been hurt by Christians that attacked other religons. Unfortunately, some of us are guilty of those acts and give the rest of us a bad reputation. I personally have friends of other faiths. I have peacefully been freinds with Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and Mormons. About half of my friends are Atheistic. I know that some of us are radical extremists. Please don't allow that to become your view of all us. I have respected you guys through this whole discussion. Please, treat me with respect as well. Saksjn (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On Topic Thread: Illegality of ID in schools

RE this statement in the lead: "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".

Filll has agreed this could do with reworking. I'm adamant that it requires it.

Firstly we need to source this to a commentator on "Expelled" who directly points to the futility/inanity of the movie's premise. Otherwise it remains off-topic and subject to calls for removal. I have little doubt on being able to find such commentary.

Secondly we need to decide if this belongs where it is, elsewhere in the lead or further in the body.

Please try and keep this thread on topic. This is not a place to discuss the First Amendment or the fairness/legality interpretations that have been made on it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs. It's normal to provide context to issues. Our first requirement is to provide something useful. While acknowledging that this is a hypertext document, we still need to provide a context, a useful narrative. We may know this topic inside out, but we aren't writing for an audience that is necessarily familiar with religious politics in the US. Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not useful until it is related to "Expelled". Otherwise it remains a slightly confusing tacked-on disclaimer. Merely informative does not provide context or usefulness.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It follows on from the referenced premise that ID / God is being excluded from the nation's classrooms, and is referenced to Moore's review:

The PBS NOVA series did a terrific piece on the court battle over intelligent design as fought in the courts in Pennsylvania, a lacerating film of finely honed facts and dagger-sharp arguments that should be shown in every school district with intel. design-dreamers running for the school board.
ID is "creation science" is "creationism" is "God dun it." Teaching that as something provable beyond faith in a science curriculum is a big reason future Nobel winners will pour out of China and India, and not Kansas. That's the reason a consensus of the world's scientists fret so much over the time they have to waste on this non-debate. Stein found a Pole and the infamous Discovery Institute to back up his attacks, even though they offer no counter theories that they can back up.

So that's the reference, the current phrasing concisely states the legal position excluding teaching ID creationism in the science curriculum. Suggestions for rephrasing welcome. .. dave souza, talk 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are probably many ways to tie this statement in and make an elegant "segue". Reviewer comments are definitely one way. A couple of those who claim discrimination were teaching, albeit at the college level. I am positive some of the promotional material for the movie mentions "classrooms". Many of the claims of "good science" made in the movie promotional materials were tested in the trial. And so on. --Filll (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Advocates teaching intelligent design creationism in the science classroom

From http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981021.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1&query=expelled

"I'm hoping that (schools) will at least allow in science classes someone to say, 'What if it's not Darwinism, but what if there was some intelligent designer who created the universe?"

First of all, Ben seems to not understand that "Darwinism" does not have anything to do with the universe. Cosmology is not biology Ben, if you're going to attack "big science" you should at least take an introductory science class first. Otherwise you'll look like an idiot. Secondly, it would seem Ben is in fact advocating teaching IDC in the classroom. I believe there was some debate on that subject previously. When a guy who's saying we should teach IDC in science class cannot tell the difference between "Darwinism" and cosmology is it any wonder people are hostile to seeing this nonsense taught in out public school rooms? I think it was Kevin Padian who said "ID makes you stupid" I'm thinking maybe he's on to something.

I wonder if all of Expelled is this riduculous, confusing biology with cosmology? I seem to recall Stein being interviwed and saying "Darwinism cannot answer how life began!" as if he was onto something. Animal Husbandry cannot explain how life began either, that is a different branch of science. Here is the challenge, how do we incorporate/document how petently wrong Ben is without coming off like we're hostile to him. The readership should see that Ben does not even understand fundamental biology, or prhaps he's lying and saying crazy stuff like this to fUrther his cause. I prefer thinking he's just ignorant (on matters of science) and not a liar. Maybe we can kick around some ideas of how to incorporate this in the article in a NPOV manner. Angry Christian (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know from Win Ben Stein's money he is not a complete dope. He is also a lawyer, so he has to understand why you shouldnt identify the creator etc. He also is a practicing Jew, and these intelligent design people are a front for fundamentalist jerks that want to pop Jews in the oven. He has to understand all this. He is not stupid. I am wondering if he is not just taking their money and making them look incredibly stupid by playing along with them. So I frankly have my doubts that Stein is actually believing any of this. I think it is a very very clever way to undercut these flakes.--Filll (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"and these intelligent design people are a front for fundamentalist jerks that want to pop Jews in the oven." -- can you support this? I'm not familiar with any Christian, "fundamentalist" or otherwise, that hates Jews. I'm aware that antisemitism may have been a problem in our past, but I don't think it's been something that has been an issue for a long time. Even AiG, a creationist organization, makes this statement: "I don’t know where you could get the idea that the Bible fosters anti-Semitism. You could not have studied the Bible at all to have this idea. Indeed the Bible, including the New Testament, was written by Jews. How could it be anti-Semitic!?"[22] -- if creationists, who are considered to be more extreme than the ID movement, are against antisemitism, then why should I believe the ID movement is antisemitic? Besides, what does this have to do with the article?  —CobraA1 18:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The relations between fundamentalist Christians and jews is an interesting one. Most of them still hang on to the "christ killer" pathos and don't care for Jews personally. On the other hand, these same people strongly support the existence of Israel. At first glance, this might seem incongruous. You have to realize that the reason most of them support Israel is because they feel that the end times are approaching, and the end times cannot happen if there's no Israel. They also believes that the Jews will be the first ones wiped out during the tribulation. So Filll isn't quite right, but he's in the ball-park. (Note that this group includes: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye) Raul654 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 is right on the money. Remember Dr. Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptists stating that God does not hear the prayers of a Jew. And Falwell stating the same thing. And Fred Phelps protesting at the holocaust museum in DC. And the statements of various evangelical and fundamentalist leaders that the AntiChrist is a Jew. And suggestions that the unsaved to be slaughtered in Left Behind: Eternal Forces include Jews. And on and on and on... They support Israel because the Jews have to be in Israel to fulfill the prophecy of the end of the world they believe, but all the Jews will then die if they remain Jewish, according to their version of the prophecy.--Filll (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see no Biblical support for hating Jews, so I'll have to disagree with them. It seems to me that the meaning of the words "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are very different from what they used to be - it used to be they had very specific meanings, which have been lost and now people throw them around without respect for what they actually used to mean. "Fundamentalist" in particular means somebody believes in the five fundamentals of Christianity, which have nothing to do with how somebody views those with the Jewish faith. Personally, I think Israel has the right to exist, but not for the same reasons. For one thing, I'm not going to advocate genocide, and I think they have a long and deep cultural history that is certainly worth preserving. In addition, is there really any reason for anybody to advocate that they cease to exist? I'd never advocate destroying a nation without a very, very good reason for doing so.  —CobraA1 11:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read Martin Luther on the subject you'll find that he gave some very influential reasons. Evangelical has long covered a wide range of opinions, both agreeing with and opposing evolution. The fundamentalists in the US initiated the anti-evolution movement in the 1920s. However, your own beliefs aren't significant in terms of this discussion page, which is about ways to improve the article. Got any proposals? . .. dave souza, talk 12:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Two points (1) This attitude exists. Educate yourself. (2)This has nothing to do with this article, except tangentially, so any further comments on this topic should be summarily deleted from this talk page.--Filll (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The left behind video game has been criticised by many Christian groups. Yes, I do know that historically Christians have been anti-semitic... which makes no sence becasue Jesus was Jewish and so were the first believers. Thankfully it seems like my fellow Christians have begun to understand that in the past 100 years or so. Saksjn (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone with an agenda brings it up

This edit by Davesouza [23] appears to introduce too much information not directly related to "Expelled". I understand that because "Expelled" is being used a propoganda tool for conservative legislators, information on the so-called "Academic Freedom Acts" might be contextual. However this text block is far to specific to the Florida act, which is not a response to "Expelled" but the recent failure/success in school standard lobbying by creationists to amend evolution to being a theory (Evolution was instead marked as a theory).

Is Hays' really stupid "half-monkey half-human" quip or the fact that they are "unable to name any teachers in Florida who have been disciplined for being critical of evolution in the science classroom." really adding any extra description of Expelled, or providing further context for the film.?

We have a section entitled "Screenings" that seems for like "Florida Academic Freedom bill and Alan Hays".

Wikipedia is not indiscriminate information.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As you'll have noted, the addition summarises main points from Ben Stein weighs in on evolution fight - 03/10/2008 - MiamiHerald.com and improvements are of course welcome. It's significant that the film, before release to the public or any open showings to film critics, is being openly used to influence legislators considering a bill to alter education relating to evolution. Hay's quip is of course his point of view, and reflects the educational background. Their inability to name teachers who have been "expelled" or even disciplined goes to the heart of the premises of the film. Obviously the author of the newspaper article felt the background information was necessary and appropriate in discussing this showing of the film. The section was titled "Screening to Florida legislators" and in my opinion the issue is significant enough to have a stand alone section, but the more general title accommodates the showing to various Christian conservative leaders such as James Dobson, as noted by the NYT. "Screenings" can also accommodate any further significant private screenings. .. dave souza, talk 09:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, nor a media outlet. There are different uses of the medium. Miami Herald has a duty to inform its readers on a wide spectrum of information - such as views of politicians. I still fail to see how the comments or views of a conservative politician not involved in the production of this film is relevant. He is the target audience, but is not an authority on these matters, and his opinion here serves little purpose other then to expouse his stupidity and ignorance. Right now it is too focused on Florida-specific incident. That might be okay for the Miami Herald, but not for wikipedia.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks like the first significant use of the film, extending beyond focussed publicising to sympathetic groups. I'm pressed for time to review it right now, got proposals for improvements? .. dave souza, talk 09:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I live iin Florida and the whole controversy over evolution/ID started before Expelled. While people may have mentioned Expelled in relationship to the issue,, it has not been a major part of the controversy. Saksjn (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not yet know what sort of reception the film is going to get. This Florida screening might be the most significant event associated with the film. When it opens, it might disappear almost immediately. So...--Filll (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ben Stein thinks it's significant in relation to the movie, see the "HeraldTribune.com - News - News stories about Sarasota, Manatee and Charlotte counties in Florida, from the newspapers of record. - HeraldTribune.com". Retrieved 2008-03-13., "Intelligent Design could slip into science class - 03/13/2008 - MiamiHerald.com". Retrieved 2008-03-13., "Hernando Lawmakers Weigh In On Evolution Bill". Retrieved 2008-03-13. and "Actor Stein Plays Role In Debate On Evolution Education". Retrieved 2008-03-13.. More later, .. dave souza, talk 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The movie-legislation connection certainly seems to be getting considerable news coverage, at least if Google-news is anything to go by. It seems to be a three-ring circus, with both Ben Stein & the DI's Casey Luskin (who let the cat out of the bag that the bill would make it easier to teach ID) in town hyping Florida's clone of the DI's model Academic Freedom bill. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And if any of the legislators in the audience talked, they could be in trouble – see "Legislature invited to movie about creationism debate". Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite web}}: Text "The News-Press" ignored (help); Text "news-press.com" ignored (help) ..... dave souza, talk 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: "Lawmakers attend Tallahassee screening of movie by Ben Stein : tallahassee.com : Tallahassee Democrat". Retrieved 2008-03-14. and usefully "Eyes wide open :: tallahassee.com : Tallahassee Democrat". Retrieved 2008-03-14. "we'd like to credit the majority of Florida legislators who stayed away from the private prescreening of a movie Wednesday night — an event that wasn't open to the public and press..... the evening at downtown's IMAX Theater, which was rented out to Mr. Stein's group for $940, was a bust, with only about 100 people attending the movie. And most of those weren't lawmakers ". See also [http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=503 "Florida Citizens for Science � Blog Archive � A quick analysis"]. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite web}}: replacement character in |title= at position 30 (help) and [http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2008/03/13/florida-luskin-lets-cat-out-of-bag/ "The Austringer � Florida: Luskin Lets Cat Out of Bag"]. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite web}}: replacement character in |title= at position 16 (help). . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)