Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Eugenics is not natural evolution

Currently the article states: "The eugenics movement relied on simplistic and faulty assumptions about heredity, and by the 1920s evolutionary biologists were criticizing eugenics."

But wasn't eugenics really just an attempt to apply artificial selection to human beings? People were selectively breeding livestock and crops this way for thousands of years so I don't see how it had anything to do with any modern theory about heredity, whether faulty or not.VatoFirme (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, and one I've seen raised in comments about the film, but to show it in the article we need a reliable source. The current statement in the article summarizes Expelled Exposed which doesn't raise that particular argument. . . dave souza, talk 08:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

why? The puropse of this article isn't to debunk stuff claimed in this film, any more than the purpose of Muppet Show is to debunk the notions that frogs can speak or host television shows. We just need to note that it is ID propaganda. The ideas of ID belong debunked at Intelligent Design, not here. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

The claim has been made repeatedly that Wikipedia has no definition or standard for propaganda. I have noticed a pattern of reluctance to read reference material, so to facilitate matters, I'll include part of the Propaganda article here:

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.

— Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion

I hope this helps clarify.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is relevant to the article how? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(shaking head) Please, no more veiled hostility.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim has been made repeatedly that Wikipedia has no definition or standard for propaganda. I would have said that the claim has been repeatedly made that there are no guidelines for the propaganda film category to determine what should go in it, and that a working definition of propaganda for the purposes of that category would be helpful. This is very different from saying that there is no definition in Wikipedia; in fact, the definition you just quoted was mentioned several times, including in my very first post which started the present debate. Also germane to this debate is the definition at Propaganda film, which, as the article naming the category, should help guide what goes into it. That article gives a similar definition:

A propaganda film is a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is 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.

I feel that both of these definitions are too broad to determine what goes in the category; it would be absurd to include in the category included every film which seeks to influence the viewers' opinions or behavior of its viewers. Indeed, it would include every documentary which either has a point of view, or hopes that the viewers will do something with the knowledge they gain (as opposed to just satisfying idle curiosity). Furthermore, the films described in the "history" section of the propaganda films article paint a very different picture of what makes a propaganda film; nearly all of their examples are films which explicitly seek to increase patriotism and/or argue the correctness of engaging in some particular war. Now, I can accept that this is just the prototypical example of propaganda, and not part of the definition, and I'd be willing to accept more general criteria for inclusion in the category, as long as any criteria is applied consistently. But I don't think that it's reasonable for the category to include every film which seeks to "influence opinions or behavior" - do you?

--skeptical scientist (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow the expert sources, per WP:V. . . dave souza, talk 07:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave, WP:V does not mention anything about catagories. However, WP:CAT (section 2.1, number 7) states, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Hope that clears things up. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 12:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so. We've provided reliable sources which describe the movie as propaganda, do we have any reliable sources saying that this description is controversial? All the claims that it's not propaganda that I've seen so far are unsupported original research. . . dave souza, talk 12:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look later. I'm busy right now. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 13:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Are film critics really reliable sources when it comes to determining whether or not a film is propaganda? If several film critics call X a bad movie, would you be comfortable putting X in Category:bad movies? I'd be comfortable with using a film critic as a reliable source to determine the critical reaction to the film (clearly) and purely factual data (the release date, the genre, the stars, etc.) I would not be comfortable with using film critics as reliable sources for matters of opinion, such as the quality of the film, since movie reviews are supposed to be opinion pieces. Whether a film is "propaganda", depending on your definition, may be a matter of opinion (e.g. if your criteria is whether the film strikes you as dishonest) or fact (e.g. if your criteria is whether the film's creators are attempting to influence an electorate to support some particular candidate or policy), and we have no idea which definition the film critics are using when they call the film propaganda. Even when it's a strictly factual matter, it can still be hard to assess, since the motives of the filmmakers may not be explicitly stated and one may have to attempt to infer motive from the content of the film.

I still think the real problem is inconsistency. Neither Fahrenheit 9/11 nor Casablanca is in the category, despite reviewers labeling both as propaganda. (There's a debate over whether Casablanca should be in the category here.) When the tag has been previously added to certain other articles, editors have removed it with comments such as,

I removed the category from the michael moore films as they are documentaries. Now, I don't pretend they aren't biased, but the category is propaganda films, not films with bias. Propaganda films are films such as those produced by the government in wartime about how you can do your bit and stuff like that. It's not for documentaries which happen to go against the status quo.[1]

Now, there's nothing wrong with using a particular definition such as "films such as those produced by the government in wartime about how you can do your bit," as long as it's done in a consistent manner, but I think there is something very wrong with using that definition for other articles, and a very different one here, regardless of what film critics say. That's why I've repeatedly suggested that there be some sort of attempt to reach a consensus (preferably at Category talk:American propaganda films) about what definition we are using, so at the very least we can be consistent about it.

I would like to be clear that my problem is not really that Expelled is classified as a propaganda film, which would be fine if it met some definition that were then consistently applied to other films. My problem is that the definition that many editors here are using to judge whether it should be included in the category seems to be very different than the definitions editors are using elsewhere, resulting in the appearance that the category is being used in a PoV manner to denigrate Expelled. (I'm sure that this is not the case, but I think you can agree that the appearance is there?) That is what I am advocating we correct.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

An WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That does not mean this categorization is incorrect.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely the definition "propaganda" lies in the intent i.e. what did the producer intend when making the film. I'm arguing against my own conviction here (that it is P) but I think that ought to be taken into account. If it can't be shown that Stein et al intended the film as Propaganda then it probably shouldn't be catted as such, damnit! TheresaWilson (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't mean the current categorization is incorrect. I'm not trying to argue that the current categorization is incorrect; I'm trying to argue that it's inconsistent, and some agreed definition/criteria for inclusion would really help this situation. We've been arguing this for two and a half weeks; I've made a proposal that we 1) try to get some consensus on what determines whether a film is a "propaganda film" and 2) determine whether Expelled meets that criteria. This is my best idea for what we should do in order to reach consensus; if someone else would like to propose another method of reaching consensus I'm open to suggestions, but right now I see a lot of arguing back and forth, no consensus, and not a lot of effort to reach one. skeptical scientist (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a proposal for inclusion criteria at Category talk:Propaganda films. I encourage everyone here to weigh in. skeptical scientist (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't that require all editors to be neutral in thought? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Or neutered in thought. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, good luck with that one. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(chuckling) It was a great line. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should consistently apply its definition of propaganda, and not rely on film reviewers or critics, few of whom have any real credentials as experts on propaganda, and many of whom have their own biases with regard to the film in question. Intent is a good criterion, but a filmmaker may deny any intent to present an unbalanced view. I suppose that we all consider our own viewpoints "fair and balanced." If Leni Reifenstahl said that her intent was to be fair and balanced, would we delist her films from the propaganda category? In such cases we would have to consider the content of the film itself for evidence of the maker's intent. Plazak (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Leni says anything these days.  ;) However, point taken. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Only "we" can't conclude intent from content unless it's completely self-evident, as that would be WP:original research; we have to rely on a reliable source to do it for us. Anyways, I completely agree with what you are saying. This is roughly the definition I was proposing at Category talk:Propaganda films.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Although placing this in the category is not technically inaccurate the loaded nature of the word "propaganda" leads me personally to believe it is inappropriate. Ideally I feel the category should be used sparingly unless the film is the creation of a specific government or political/religious organization. If this is included as a propaganda film than The Root of All Evil?, The Corporation, Fast Food Nation,Trembling Before G-d, Category:Social guidance films, Category:Television commercials, etc. would belong. I'm skeptical any of those would be placed there. After editing this a few times I hopefully have nothing more to say.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to fit perfectly, since it comes out of a "political/religious organization", not to mention the unscrupulous underpinnings of the movie.

That said, propaganda has never been restricted to government or religious sources. As mentioned above, both Hollywood and German film industries produced propaganda films at a stupendous rate during WW-II. Warner Bros. is frankly proud of its "propaganda films".

The movie lost all defense when it chose a path of deceit. I'm sure many of us would feel less strongly about this issue if the movie had simply presented its case in an honest and straightforward way. Movie makers (and viewers) are entitled to any viewpoint they wish, but they should embrace a certain integrity, which this film fails to do.

Perhaps we should create a special category: Exceptionally Bad Lying Propaganda.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First what organization? It's not made by a church or the Discovery Institute from what I can tell. Second it being a lying this or that isn't what this is really about. This is a film concerning Evolution and Intelligent Design. In my experience that's up their with Scientology and Star Wars at drawing Wikipedian concern. If this were a lying poorly reviewed polemic about Social Security or Ovarian cancer I think it probably would be half as long and no one would go through the trouble of putting it in a propaganda category. (And for the record most of Hollywood's propaganda films were done in conjunction with the government, at least to some extent, or they couldn't use shots from the actual war and such. The exception might be the cartoons, but I think even they had some government involvement)--T. Anthony (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Beck10" :
  • [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/8621/>
  • [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/8621/]>Glenn Beck / Ben Stein interview 10 Aug 2008
• "moore" :
  • [http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/02/is-ben-stein-th.html ''Is Ben Stein the new face of Creationism?''], Roger Moore, Frankly My Dear... Movies with Roger Moore, [[The Orlando Sentinel]], February 1, 2008
  • John Moore, [http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=607100&p=2 "Science is not philosophy"], ''National Post'', June 23, 2008

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, the problems you reported have been resolved. This automated thank you message was generated by dave souza, talk 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda films

I still think the way the propaganda films is being used in this article is problematic. Due to my concerns about the use of the category generally, which was sparked by its use here, I started a discussion on it here under categories for discussion. Since I know a lot of editors here feel strongly about the inclusion of Expelled in this category, I wanted to give you a heads up, and encourage you (once again) to participate in the debate. skeptical scientist (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm indifferent. There are good reason of excluding and including it. We66er (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to Category:Political documentaries, as it strongly resembles other films within that category. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good move... the film seems to be just as political as it is scientific. Saksjn (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's meant to be witty or not?--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What other films in that category does it resemble? The ones I've looked at seem to be serious well-regarded documentaries, while the clear majority view of film reviewers is that Expelled is blatant propaganda, utilising typical techniques of the propaganda genre. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Films by Michael Moore, as well as others criticizing his techniques, are found in that category. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The film is primarily pseudo-scientific. I have no problem with you leaving that category in, but it is not mutually exclusive with propanganda films. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the film at all and cannot comment on the soundness of its argument, but that is not what makes it propaganda. If we started labelling political documentaries as "propaganda" on that basis, we could pretty much label them all. Mangoe (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A little research into the history of this

This article is absolute bollocks. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a student newspaper. Describe the movie; present the author; by all means, explain the context, but, for the sake of G-d and Darwin, spare us the reviewing drivel!

Arik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.163.38 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at the edit history, it seems that the first attempt to categorize this as propaganda was made by you, Thegreyanomaly, in this edit apparently made the night before the film was released. That attempt was beaten back. On the day of release, it was again stuck in the "propaganda" category, this time by The Houesse (see this edit). The edit summary for the latter is a masterpiece of original research :

This film IS NOT a documentary, and IS propaganda. This is not POV. The film is a political piece intended to sway public opinion, and as such, is propaganda and not documentary.

It's not clear so much that this view remained by consensus as it was buried under the avalanche of material based on people/reviewers actually having seen the film. It's hard to count the number of times that people attempted to recategorize the film, due to the many small edits made to the article; but the sense I have is that several people have camped out on the article to ensure it doesn't get recategorized. Appealing to "consensus" is a bit off the mark.

And I'm not trying to argue that it isn't essentially fallacious in its arguments. I really have no idea on that matter, but it isn't relevant. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Imo there is no consensus for the film being categorized as propaganda, and never has been, but there is also no consensus for removing the tag, so we are left with the status quo. As far as I can tell, this is likely to continue forever. At least I can take some consolation in the fact that while Wikipedia seems to be biased in this situation, it shares my biases. :/

--skeptical scientist (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In reality this tag is well cited. The sources are in consensus. A large number of sources have been calling it propaganda, and as a result the category is a form of cited content. Last time I checked you are not allowed to removed cited content without consensus, and well there is no consensus amongst editors. Also there was a debate about this Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed/Archive_12 that I am tempted to cut and paste onto this page (the current talk page). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all "the sources" are not in consensus. A handful of people have called it propaganda, so yes, the fact that it has been called propaganda is cited. No one is removing that (as far as I know; if they are, I'll be the first to revert them). Categories are made without citation; it even says so much at WP:CAT, so to say that the category is cited is untrue. I'll admit there is no consensus on whether this category shoudl be included or not. So when there is no consensus, the default is not to include the questionable category (it is better omit something that might be true than to include something that might be false). The fact is, the category is just a way of weaseling in the statement that "Expelled is propaganda" when such a statement would be removed (or altered) if it were actually in the article itself. Categories are meant to be navigational tools (which this one isn't), not POV labels. It would be nice if people could leave their personal opinions aside when editing this article, though it seems that is too much to ask. R. fiend (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The tag is not well cited. The "citations", apart from the AAAS, are all film reviews. According to WP:RS, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." So there is reliably sourced material saying that movie reviewers have called Expelled propaganda, not that Expelled is propaganda. Similarly, the AAAS statement is not a reliable source except as to the stated opinion of the AAAS. However, revert-warring will not get us anywhere, and any debate here is likely to end with no concensus, so I give up.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to have the guts to call propaganda as UT said in the most recent archive. There should be no special treatment to this piece of filthy propaganda; there is no consensus for removal, so no one has the right to remove it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does NOT need to violate policy in order to prove to the world it's got balls. It's been quite plainly pointed out that inclusion in this category violates numerous policies. Furthermore, someone with such strong feelings and biases should not be making controversial edits. Don't tell me what I do and do not have the right to do. -R. fiend (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Furthermore, someone with such strong feelings and biases should not be making controversial edits." Excuse me, then why are you currently engaged in an edit war to remove the propaganda tag? skeptical scientist (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I have no strong feelings about the movie. I haven't even seen it. -R. fiend (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines propaganda on rather different terms than do movie reviewers. As I said, I don't really have a dog in this hunt as far as the merits of the film are concerned. It hardly surprises me that it is widely condemned as inaccurate to the point of being deceptive. But that's not the kind of usage of "propaganda" that we can use neutrally. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

When more or less the entire scientific community comes out calling this film propaganda, it should be pretty clear that there is at least one neutral point of view calling it propaganda.

And since when is being well-versed in biology and being able to tell truth and lies apart make a person biased? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not just the scientific community labelling it as propoganda. Film critics and non-science journalistc have slopped it of as a propoganda piece as well. It's practically unequivocal. --ZayZayEM (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no evidence in the article that "more or less the entire scientific community" considers the film propaganda. There is only evidence that the AAAS issued a statement calling it propaganda. As I pointed out in my previous post, this cannot be used as a reliable source for a statement of fact, only a statement of opinion. There are no reliable sources mentioned in the article which can be used to support a fact such as "Expelled is propaganda" - this is why the article doesn't say, "Expelled is propaganda^[9]," but rather says, "Multiple reviews, including those of USA Today and Scientific American, have described the film as propaganda.^[10][11][12]" The former would be an unsupported assertion, while the latter is a supported fact. For the same reason, Wikipedia should not be placing it in Category:Propaganda films. skeptical scientist (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry greyanomaly, you officially lost this argument when you argued that it needs to be included because Wikipedia has to "have the guts". WP:Wikipedia is Not A Pussy is not a policy I've ever heard of. It's been pointed out that the sources calling it propaganda are primarily opinion pieces (not reliable sources), and that policies on categorization and NPOV are violated by the inclusion of the category. While you can argue that there is no consensus for removal, the onus would be on you to prove there is a consensus for inclusion, and even then it would matter little, as policy trumps consensus.

It seems to me you're on the wrong site. Why don't you join us at [www.rationalwiki.com] where NPOV is not a policy and hatchet jobs on stuff like this is welcomed? You can skewer the film to your hearts content there. We even have a category:bullshit. -R. fiend (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"policy trumps consensus" No, it doesn't. See WP:IAR. Policy is enforced only insofar as people think it should be enforced, and, as such, is completely dependent on consensus. As for your claim of having no strong feelings about the movie, that may be true, but you certainly have strong feelings about the article (as do I, as do all of us here) as evidenced by your long history of posts on the talk page. I agree with you that the propaganda tag should be removed, but edit-warring is not going to get us anywhere, nor is claiming that the burden of proof is on those you are arguing against. The best thing we can do is stay calm and continue to explain our reasoning for why the tag should be removed.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit I have somewhat strong feelings about Wikipedia enforcing its policies, remaining POV, and refusing to let people insert their opinions into articles. That is not the same as having unsurmountable biases for or against a subject.

As for burden of proof, I'm sorry but it is on those who want to label the movie as propaganda, that's basic policy and common sense. You want to say something is true? PROVE IT. I've been trying to discuss this and lay out specifically why this category is not appropriate, but the only response ever seems to be "all the sources say it's propaganda" [revert], disregarding the fact that, first of all, that's not true, and second of all, those that do say so are opinion pieces, and hence not reliable sources. Add to this the fact that WP:CAT says categories should not be used unless they're self-evident and uncontroversial (this fails on both counts) and you've got a sound summary of what's wrong with it. "But it's propaganda!" is not convincing counterargument. There is no argument that various people have labeled the film as propaganda. No one denies that and the article makes that very clear, however, the article does refrain from giving it that label, except through this categorization. This is why I thought a category for films described as propaganda might work, but people though it sounded too weasel-wordy and open to abuse (they were probably right, but that's still better than POV). Maybe the best course of action would be to take this to RfC. -R. fiend (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. skeptical scientist (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

R.f. you ought to read WP:Civ. I have no problem calling in an RfC. Also, remember what UnicornTapestry's point in the archives. Hopefully they will return soon. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm acquainted with WP:Civ, thank you. As for UnicornTapestry's point, what exactly are you referring to? Vague statements such as that do nothing to answer the specific points raised above about the inappropriateness of this category. You even admit in your edit summary that your edit is POV ("rv npov"). And isn't U.T. the one who said that category:Propaganda films wasn't quite right and this deserved its own category "Especially Bad Lying Propaganda"? Yeah, there's good neutral party. Shall I give Tom Cruise a call and ask him to clean up our Scientology article? RfC sounds like the way to go. -R. fiend (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

All sarcasm aside, an RfC sounds good. This sort of dispute is why content RfCs exist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was respond to that whole chunk right now, but I am busy at the moment and for most the day (pile of homework). I made a typo on 'rv npov'. My finger slipped and I meant 'rv pov'. I clicked save page before I noticed my error. Criticism of science and criticism of Scientology are quite different. The former consists of facts and theories and hypotheses, the latter carries a worldview. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But this article isn't about science, it's about a movie. You can use science to prove an argument (such as ID) unscientific for being unfalsifiable, but you can't scientifically prove a film is propaganda. The latter is what this is about, not whether the reasons why various people were fired is misrepresented, not whether "teach the controversy" is a valid argument, not whether Hitler was inspired by Darwin. It doesn't matter if the movie is about science, ID, 9/11 conspiracies, global warming, who killed JFK or who let the dogs out. The most that can be said about the propagandistic nature of this movie is that some reviewers have called it propaganda. It cannot be said that it is certainly propaganda. -R. fiend (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just love the fact that neither Sicko, Bowling for Columbine, or Farenheit 9/11 are labeled as 'propaganda films' and this is even though this article explicitly compares Stein's filming to Michael Moore's! Orwellian doublethink at its finest. The Squicks (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You should read that book again me thinks.--Woland (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I thought that we all have freedom of thought, public & polite discourse. Although I haven't seen this movie, many of you criticizing those who may have a different worldview that doesn't happen to be evolutionary (which gives you your excuse to live your life with only YOUR self defined standard) - smacks exactly OPPOSITE of this. It is indeed sad when more & more Americans are AFRAID to say what they want to say because you are so vicious in the media - you attack, belittle & ridicule. How sad & pathetic. I look forward to hearing all sides of an issue - not just your evolutionary drivel that has been FORCE FED on me every single darn day in the newspapers, tv & the psuedo-documentaries, magazines & other places all the years of my life. Don't you know that is why the great New York Times is now a pathetic reflection of itself? Same with CBS, NBC, ABC. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS OVERWHELMING DESIRE TO CRITICIZE AND DENIGRATE? Didn't you have enough of Hilter, Stalin, Poi Pot and other ruthless dictators who force their views on others through whatever means possible? Enough of you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.179.180 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A thought from an outsider

Without being intimately familiar with this question (I haven't seen the film), there is one thought that occurs to me regarding its categorization as "propaganda". In general, one man's propaganda is another man's truth. It's a label that's a little bit like "terrorist" or "unjust war"; it depends where you're standing. Therefore, we can't provide a citation that it, in essence, is propaganda, but we can cite that it has been called propaganda. Why not have a category for films that have been labeled as "propaganda"? It seems uncontroversial to say that it's been called that, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the proposals at this categories for discussion entry for Category:Propaganda films. You can read why some editors there didn't like that solution, while agreeing that some solution was advisable for the current PoV/abuse issues. The CfD was closed no consensus. skeptical scientist (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I can see that this ground is well-trodden. I'm sorry it was closed as a "no consensus", because I thought the "container category" idea makes a lot of sense, and didn't seem to garner much specific opposition. Is that something that could be implemented without going via CFD? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the questions should be pursued in a broader sense because the use/misuse of categories are contentious in a variety of domains involving controversial articles. Categories are being used to controversially "define" given topics deterministically, which naturally presents NPOV problems, and ironically raise questions about whether or not wikipedia is engaging in "propaganda" itself when its editors attempt to influence or shape the reader's pov toward a topic thru that kind of misuse. Having seen the film and read accounts of how it has been used as a tool in ID activism (influencing legislation etc), it is could be described as propaganda in the classic dictionary definition. So could An Inconvenient Truth be categorized on this basis. It would certainly be easy to find sources claiming it is, but that film doesn't have that cat tag. The reason that one would be and the other not is simply due to whim and the degree of muscle strength exercized by editors camping on the articles. This is an example of the NPOV problems such use of categories bring to the surface. If these were academic rather than agendized decisions in the use of categories in controversial articles we wouldn't be seeing these sorts of categories applied so unevenly. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda, again

Once again, I've removed the propaganda categories. The endless discussions make very clear that there is no consensus that they should be included. While there may not be a full consensus on their removal, in such contentious decisions as these, the default is not inclusion, especially when they violate policies of NPOV and categorization in general. The discussion at Categories for Discussion did not yield a consensus about exactly what was to be done with the category, but did reveal widespread belief that the category is inherently problematical. There was simply no consensus on if the solution was deletion, renaming, specification of what is to be included, retaining as a "container" category, or nothing at all. Categories are meant to be navigational tools, not a back door for POV or labeling, and as such the American propaganda films category is utterly useless, as it contained one movie (this one). The accusations of propaganda are well covered in the article, and none is is trying to remove them. -R. fiend (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that, given the un-cited nature of categories, it is best to err on the side of not including controversial categories that we can't even decide what to do with. R. fiend said it well; all I can really add is, "yeah." -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

There seems to be a mini-edit war brewing over the description of the film as "controversial." Seems it should be discussed here before it gets worse. Personally, I care less about whether or not the word is used here than I do about Wikipedia being consistent in its labeling of films. This is not easy to do, but it is important if we intend to remain an unbiased, NPOV site. Though it could be considered a weasel word, I do think it is pretty clear that Expelled is controversial. However, the same is true of Fahrenheit 9/11, the tagline itself refers to the controversy, but it is not called a "controversial" film. What's the best way to be consistent here? -R. fiend (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a RfC, not just about this movie but about movies in general, that addresses this. --Woland (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. By the way, if anyone tries to protest describing Fahrenheit 9/11 as a "controversial film", they may find themselves in a bit of a pickle. -R. fiend (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how anyone could protest calling this or that particular movie controversial. In addition to my earlier comment; I don't see why reliable sources doesn't apply in these cases, or at least why people don't seem to think so. If sources indicate that that there is a controversy surrounding a subject then it is of course appropriate to describe it as such.--Woland (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the issue would be whether the word "controversial" should be the first thing mentioned. In Fahrenheit 9/11 the controversy is mentioned in the second paragraph. This is a minor point, but it would be nice to avoid accusations of placement bias. -R. fiend (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

<ri> "In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Americans today: Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life? Or has the whole issue already been decided… while most of us weren’t looking?"expelled_press_kit.doc and "TALLAHASSEE — This week's private screening of a controversial evolution documentary by pop culture icon Ben Stein was a subdued affair..."[2] . .dave souza, talk 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But, should it be in the first sentance? That the movie is controversial is clearly explained in the body text. I do lean slightly towards inclusion of the term as the notability of this movie rests primarily on its controversial nature. It is admittedly "open to interpretation" and a subjective rather than objective descriptor. However is it is more neutral than terms such "criticised", which could be considered another sourcable assessment of the film.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As WP:intro section states "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." However, I think that moving the word controversy down to the second or third paragraph would be better, putting it in the lead makes it read like some crappy movie review, not an encyclopedia article.--Woland (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As the sources show, this film is unusual in that it was made and promoted as "controversial" before it was released or shown to critics, and critics subsequently described it as controversial. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that the controversy should be mentioned in the intro, the question then is should it be in the first sentence (in this case, basically the very first word)? I think it's a pretty minor point, but as I said, I like to see consistency in how things like this are handled. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a good comparison, as it was also promoted as controversial, and it describes it as such slightly later in the article. But I think it's a minor enough point that I 'm not going to make a fuss about it. If someone is adamant about it not being in the first sentence, make your case here and we'll discuss it, otherwise leave it for now. Let's just not have an edit war over it. -R. fiend (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rearranging the intro

Leroyinc continually reverts [3] the intro, reorganizing/removing cited content without consensus. This must be stopped. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What has he removed? Looks to me like he just rearranged some stuff. I have no strong opinion on which his better, but that is a matter for discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that their version was fine. Whats the issue?--Woland (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm convinced Leroyinc's version is better, if for no other reason than currently the 2nd and 3rd sentences sound awful together. "The movie contends..." followed next sentence by "The film contends..." Poor writing, and seems to imply the movie and the film are two different things. I'll revert it. If there is a problem, state specifically what it is. -R. fiend (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair point about the 2nd and 3rd sentences, I've revised them to overcome that objection, having first reverted from Leroyinc's version which was as follows –

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 American documentary film, directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein. The film, which defends intelligent design, contends that mainstream science suppress criticism of the evidence for evolution and of the modern evolutionary synthesis. The film was very controversial for its assertion that this scientific theory contributed to the Nazi Holocaust, communism, atheism and Planned Parenthood.[2][3] [4][5] [6]

Furthermore, the film claims that American educators and scientists who believe that there might be evidence of intelligent design in nature are being persecuted for these beliefs.[7]

A couple of problems – the film doesn't defend ID, it promotes it without ever defining it. It was controversial for promoting ID, and the overblown assertions merely added to that controversy. All the references bunched together fail to make it clear what reference supports each point – or not, given that the rewrite deviates from what the sources say. . dave souza, talk 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to Leroy, mainstream science DOES NOT suppresses criticism of evidence showing evolution and of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the theory explaining this evidence. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The film itself generates the bogus claim, so it doesn't make sense to say it defends a claim it makes Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is the overview saturated with criticism? Counter points should be made in their own section, not included in the film's premise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.185.51 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro is supposed to give a general overview of the article (see: WP: lead section ). As such I think it is pretty good. The criticism doesn't even appear until the second paragraph and even then it only talks about movie reviews so I don't understand what you mean.--Woland (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article misses the point, the movie has nothing to do with supporting science or intelligent design, it's about the scientific community's inability to allow discussion. Academia should be the first place for open discussion but science, being just as dismissive and fundamentalist as most religions, won't allow discussion about anything that runs contrary to its own beliefs. That's the point being made in the movie, and the article was written by someone who didn't like having his/her beliefs tried, and attacked the movie by ignoring its central theme.

Actually, the scientific community allows discussion of all scientific matters, it simply doesn't like to bring non-scientific, supernatural elements such as God into the study of the natural world. That's why we have philosophy and theology. In any case, this is irrelevant to this article, which is not the place for a debate on ID vs. natural selection. -R. fiend (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Limitations of science?

The film featured several people with degrees in Philosophy that challenged some of the grandiose claims of Dawkins etc, with the idea that science is not a replacement for Metaphysics and other philosophical pursuits. This is not a challenge to Evolution per se, but rather some of the larger visions that some of the scientists seemed to share, of a future where science replaces religion. This seemed to me to be the most interesting idea in the movie, but there is nothing in the article even mentioning that. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.127.82 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#Portrayal of science as atheistic and note that "That’s the real issue of Expelled — atheist scientists versus God — even though it wholly undercuts statements by intelligent design researchers early in the film that ID has nothing to do with religion." If you have verification of reliable sources saying something more, you're welcome to add that, citing the sources. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

Suggestions that the peer reviewers should have made before allowing this to be published. Especially since editing this post is not allowed.

1. Remove the TBN quote from Ben Stein. If this is about the movie Expelled, why not just focus on what was presented in the movie.

2. Remove all content that references ExpelledExposed.com. The NCSE is not an unbiased source of information. They are as much as a propoganda mill as the Discovery Institute is. The NCSE were successful, with the help of the ACLU, to get a science teacher fired for teaching intelligent design in the classroom http://ncseweb.org/rncse/19/3/new-tactic-getting-creation-science-into-classrooms. Expelled Exposed is a biased source that should not be relied on.

3. Remove the entire copyright controversies segment. It is now completely mute. Ono lost the suit and the producers removed the song from the DVD.

4. In reaction section quote a positive review (ie. Michael Medved http://images.michaelmedved.com/images/pdf/expelled.pdf) to offset the focus on negative reviews.

5. Guillermo Gonzales should include the quote from the film by the dean at Iowa State saying he didn't want his school associated with intelligent design.

6. Richard Sternberg should be heavily edited. Why reference outside sources to quote the movie?

7. Remove Nazi segment. It is completely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me as though you've got a rather biased take on this, see WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ, WP:V and WP:NOR for relevant policies. Some of the points would be worth discussing here, for starters I've looked at Medved's "review" and it's remarkably uninformative, other than the astounding revelation that a right wing political commentator likes Stein's message. . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As for facts: The article is semi-protected. Not only is it "allowed" to edit it, any established user can edit it. Only unregistered users and very new account are cannot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure any rational person can make the case that this post is not biased and would not be helped by some more content from sources favorable to the movie. I read your links provided and do not know how they can applied to my suggestions. Why not simply provide a link to www.expelledexposed.com and give up the illusion of fairness.Mathezar (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.198.119 (talk • contribs)

I suppose you are referring to the main article? We are usually referring to individual discussion contributions (such as this one) as posts or postings. Main space topic articles are called, well, "articles". You seem to confuse "fair and balanced" with fair and balanced. We do not aim for an "all sides are equal" postmodernist treatment, but try to reflect the weight of opinion as described by reliable sources. And the movie has overwhelmingly described as technically reasonable adept, but boring, dishonest, and propagandistic. The NCSE is a useful and reliable source (and, has not, at least not according to the link given above, "helped in getting a science teacher fired"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephan Schultz, Roger DeHart was the Biology teacher in Burlington Washington who resigned after his district reassigned him to teaching Earth Science after teaching Biology for 10 years. I was tempted to put a link from another source that referrenced what happened to Roger DeHart but figured I would be accused of using a "biased" source. So I referenced the "unbiased" NCSE whose take on the controversy is incomplete at best. So are you making the riduculous claim that if the NCSE found that a high school biology teacher was teaching ID they would just sit on their hands and do nothing? The level of intellectual dishonesty in this whole process is stunning. It is stuff like this that has teachers everywhere warning students not to trust the information they get from Wikipedia. Mathezar (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.107.251 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 December 2008

<undent> Mike Klein, please remember to sign your posts. Roger DeHart wasn't fired, he chose to resign when he was stopped from teaching what, in the overwhelming view of the scientific community and courts, is religiously motivated lies and nonsense. The NCSE rightly supported the constitutional right of children to learn science in science classes, not religious dogma. The level of intellectual dishonesty from creationists is unsurprising. . dave souza, talk 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is nothing but a diatribe against this movie. If you want to pretend that it meets the standards of Wikipedia in that it is a fair and balnaced treatment of this subject then I would have to say that the printed standards of this wiki are meaningless. Why even give people the illusion that there is any ability to discuss the issues with this post! None of the suggestions I made were entertained by the editors that are allowed to edit this post for a second.

BTW I NEVER made the point that DeHart was fired, but an impassioned observer can say that the NCCE and ACLU's intent was to get him fired. This whole discussion is pointless. Rather than consider any of my comments you immediately launch into ad hominum attacks. "Lies and nonsense," what gives you the right to judge another's personal beliefs? Are the "lies and nonsense" of the NCSE acceptable because you happen to agree with them? Science poorly taught in not a guarenteed constitutional right. Why is the Miller Urey experiment still in biology texts if we are supposed to be teaching science in class. Why do text books include the metaphysical idea of naturalistic abiogenisis, when science has not even been able to approach the means of explained the disproven idea of spontaneous generation that is now being applied to the origin of life?

Apparently the editors of this post can lie better than me, because their lies are published.Mathezar (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're simply not up to speed with science. More significantly, WP:TALK requires discussions on this page to be focussed on improving the article, with verification in accordance with WP:V of proposed changes, remembering to comply with WP:NOR by ensuring that the sources relate to the subject of the article. You'll probably find it more productive to focus on particular points rather than making vague assertions about the NCSE which is well regarded in the majority scientific view. Stands up pretty well in court, too. . dave souza, talk 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"BTW I NEVER made the point that DeHart was fired" - how else shoul we interprete "The NCSE were successful, with the help of the ACLU, to get a science teacher fired for teaching intelligent design in the classroom"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're simply not up to speed with science.

This is from WP:TALK: No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.

I am guessing this is some kind of weird joke on your part Dave. Start with an ad hominem attack and immediately give a link that says you are not allowed to use ad hominem attacks on the discussion pages.

As to my science credentials what does that have to do with whether the Yoko Ono lawsuit should be removed from the post? Or any of the many other suggestions I made? I mean the only suggestion that I made that was even addressed in any way was my suggestion that a positive review be included if you were going to quote a negative one. I suggested Medved as an option, the editor that responded immediately constructed a strawman and said that the review was too biased, rather than addressing the larger point of why a negative review was quoted and no positive ones were.

If you feel that this post is fine the way it is fine, I can understand that. And if you only want to pull out the Wiki "Rule" book when it suits you that is fine too. But stop wasting my time and just be honest. The reality is that you do not feel this posting needs to be changed, either because you are blind to the blatant biases in this posting, or you are fully aware of them and just don't give a darn. BTW either option is not a favorable reflection on the editors of this page.Mathezar (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding civility, don't accuse other editors of lying as that's a personal attack which can get you blocked. As for you being up to speed with science, why do you suggest a problem with the Miller–Urey experiment still being in biology texts, if it is in such texts? As for abiogenesis, it's my understanding that this isn't normally part of science lessons in US schools, and as for the "metaphysics", science can only provide natural explanations. Assertions of supernatural causes are outside science, but scientists or anyone else are welcome to believe in them. There's plenty of evidence in the intelligent design article that the overwhelming view of the scientific community and courts is that ID presents religiously motivated lies and nonsense, but no doubt proponents would beg to differ. . dave souza, talk 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that criticisms of the article need to be addressed on their merits and not dismissed with a "intelligent design is a horrible lie!" Looking at your objections:

1. The TBN quote - I'm leaning towards agreeing with this. The quote does not appear in the movie, is from an otherwise insignificant interview, and isn't even directly about the film. The quote probably belongs in Stein's article, if anywhere.
2. Remove ExpelledExposed - Can you be more specific about where its referenced and what it says? There are a billion footnotes here and it would be easiest if you can point out the exact issues, and where they are cited.
3. Remove copyright controversies - No reason to remove them, but they were pretty minor issues which have been resolved. That section can probably be trimmed.
4. Include Medved's review - I'm all for mentioning some of the few positive reviews it got, but that Medved one is 5 sentences long, and says very little. But if you feel like quoting him I have no objection.
5. Quote from the dean about ID - If it can be reliably sourced I suppose it could be included. But are we getting away from the movie and too much into a discussion on ID? (That goes for the anti-ID material too.)
6. Richard Sternberg should be heavily edited - What specific changes would you like to see?
7. Remove Nazi segment - Well, that's a pretty big part of the movie there; it certainly isn't going to be removed. If you'd like it presented in a different way, explain how. R. fiend (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I will address what I can.

Medved review was short but it is easy to quote and since Medved is a former PBS film critic I thought it made sense to use him. But another review I found is http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-movie-review.php.

Gonzales segment. The following is a direct quote from Dr. Hector Avalos Religious Studies - ISU "What we wanted to stop was the use of the name ISU to validate Intelligent Design." The information in this section is a summary of the NCSE's Expelled Exposed website. My point is why come up with all this stuff about his research slacking off when we have a quote from the ISU faculty stating it is because ISU doesn't want to be associated with ID?

Sternberg. Sternberg's take on his experience is completely different. His account can be seen here http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php?page=summary. Again why should the editors rely solely on the NCSE's website when they can reference a first hand account.

Here is a copy of the above mentioned page.

To summarize what happened to me after the Meyer paper was published:

• There were efforts to remove me as a Research Associate from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH).

After Smithsonian officials determined that there was no wrong-doing in the publication process for the Meyer paper and that they therefore had no grounds to remove me from my position directly, they tried to create an intolerable working environment so that I would be forced to resign. As the OSC investigation concluded, “[i]t is... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.” In addition, it was made clear to me that my position at the Smithsonian would not be renewed despite my excellent record of research and publication.

• My supervisor was replaced.

I was transferred from the supervision of a friendly sponsor (supervisor) at the Museum to a hostile one.

• I lost my office space.

I was twice forced to move specimens from my office space on short notice for no good reason, my name plate was removed from my office door, and eventually I was deprived of all official office space and forced to use a shared work area as my work location in the Museum.

• I faced onerous work requirements.

I was subjected to an array of new reporting requirements not imposed on other Research Associates.

• My access to specimens was limited.

My access to the specimens needed for my research at the Museum was restricted. (My access to the Museum was also restricted. I was forced to give up my master key.)

• I was ultimately demoted by the NMNH.

Despite official assurances of fair treatment from the Smithsonian to congressional investigators, when I applied for renewal of my Research Associate position in 2006, my application was denied and I was offered the position of Research Collaborator—a demotion—without explanation.

• Pressure was put on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (part of the National Institutes of Health) to fire me.

• My political and religious beliefs were investigated.

Smithsonian officials attempted to investigate my personal religious and political beliefs in gross violation of my privacy and my First Amendment rights.

• I was smeared with false allegations.

My professional reputation, private life, and ethics were repeatedly impugned and publicly smeared with false allegations by government employees working in tandem with a non-governmental political advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

• I was pressured to reveal peer reviewers and to engage in improper peer review.

I was repeatedly pressured to reveal the names of the peer-reviewers of the Meyer article, contrary to professional ethics. I was also told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand, in direct violation of professional ethics which require editors to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas.

Summary

In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy. I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena.Mathezar (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your response deals almost entirely with Sternberg, and I think the best place to address that for now is Sternberg peer review controversy (if it isn't covered already; I haven't read that article yet). Once it's sorted out there, we can try to summarize the situation and Expelled's take on it here. As for Medved, go ahead and add a quote to the appropriate section. If someone reverts you try to hash it out here. As for the TBN quote, I'll wait for input from others on the issue, and if no one else chimes in I'll remove it. Now what about the other issues? -R. fiend (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The TBN quote is a direct statement by Stein of his aims in the film, and as such is both significant and directly related to the article subject. These reviews did not come up on the usual aggregator, Rotten Tomatoes, and while their significance can be questioned, no problem mentioning them as long as they're not given undue weight compared to more reputable reviewers. The second one seems rather muddled and could be difficult to summarise accurately. . . dave souza, talk 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I still take issue with the TBN quote, for multiple reasons. First of all, it does not appear in the film, it is from an interview which discusses the film, but is about other issues as well. It is the opinion of one person involved; Stein does not speak for the film's aim, just himself. It seems out of place, it has no context and reads like an epigram, which is unencyclopedic. If it belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it belongs in Stein's article in a section on his views of science, with some context. Cherry-picking his most ridiculous statements (which was likely a hyperbole, anyway) and posting them in prominent blockquotes just strikes me as turning this article into a hatchet job. -R. fiend (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Stein is the primary voice of the movie and this was in an appearance to promote the movie. The quote is clearly relevant (although integrating the quote rather than using block quotes might make sense). Most of the other objections raised above have even less merit. The copyright issue for example is relevant - legal controversies surrounding a movie are obviously encyclopedic. Quoting Medved is not at all necessary per UNDUE. We have no need to pretend that there were many postive reviews when they were almost universally negative. #5 and 6 I don't see the logic for but it seems off the top like unnecessary POV pushing bordering on OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JoshuaZ. These complaints have no merit. Raul654 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, here's my take again:

1. If he quote is to stay, it should be incorporated into the text, rather than remain as some sort of epigram, otherwise it reminds me too much of this sort of shit.
2. Not without further discussion/explanation.
3. Should certainly not be removed, but not sure it's as significant an issue as the article presents it.
4. A brief quote in paragraph 2 of the "Reactions" section would not be inappropriate, and would not detract from the fact that the reviews have been overwhelmingly negative.
5. Needs further explanation/justification
6. Issues should be raised at Sternberg peer review controversy. This section would then reflect consensus there.
7. Certainly should not be removed. Any specific changes should be raised for discussion. -R. fiend (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What about using the direct quote from Dr. Hector Avalos for the Gonzales segment? A direct quote from a member of the faculty of Iowa State University seems a better explaination of why Dr. Gonzales was denied tenure then a rehashing of the reasons the NCSE put on their expelledexposed.com website.Mathezar (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if it would be possible to split this posting into two sections. A plain vanilla version and a new section that deals with the controversy surrounding the film (ie. Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed vs Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed Controversy). This is just a suggestion.Mathezar (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No - the article is just fine as it is. Wikipedia is not a forum for giving uncritical presentation of propaganda films - that is, your so-called "plain vanilla" version. Raul654 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's it? End of discussion. Do you mind if we actually discuss this before coming to a snap decision about how this post is "just fine as it is."?Mathezar (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually. as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a forum for giving factual statements about a subject, and is not a forum for excessive critical analysis. In an article on the film Expelled (which this allegedly is), the Gonzalez section should be foremost about how Gonzalez is presented in the film, and once that is established then we can go into the "here's another take on the situation" or "here's what really happened" sort of thing. As it is now, that section is about Gonzalez, and in two paragraphs the only thing it says about Expelled is "Expelled portrays Gonzalez as a victim of religious discrimination." That's sort of thing is fine for Gonzalez's article, but not for an article on the movie. This article has partially been written backwards, it seems. Is any other movie's article written this way? -R. fiend (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source giving more information about how Gonzales is portrayed? Interestingly, this particular point is covered in Roger Ebert's review which suggests that the persecution of Gonzales is shown as happening in the 1940s, before Gonzales was born. . . dave souza, talk 11:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If we can find reliable secondary sources countering every claim the movie makes then we shouldn't have much trouble finding a source saying what those claims actually are. Besides, are we really going to suddenly take the position that using the film itself to write a synopsis here is original research, even though that is the method used in every other film article on Wikiepdia? Why is there so much resistance to making the article on the film actually about the film rather than what the film is about? Is there really a problem with rewriting the sections on Gonzalez and the like so that they begin something like "Expelled features an interview with Guillermo Gonzalez, a astrophysicist at [etc etc] who claimed [whatever]..." then some background and the other stuff like the statement that he "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy" (which really should be cited, by the way). The section is particularly poor because it doesn't even make clear what Gonzalez or the film claims about how his support for ID harmed him, beyond the most cursory "religious persecution." Additionally it says he's a faculty member at ISU before going on to how he was denied tenure, meaning, presumably, he's not a faculty member there anymore. Does no one else think things like this could use a rewrite? -R. fiend (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave, your link to the Ebert article has nothing to do with the point I made about the Gonzales piece. I will try to state this as simply as I can for you.

If we are discussing the merits of the film, and we are trying to understand why Gonzales was denied tenure, and the film contains a direct quote from an ISU faculty member stating that Gonzales was denied tenure because ISU did not want to be associated with ID, then why in the world do you have to go to an outside source for an alternative explanation?

BTW the link reguarding Gonzales trajectory also includes the quote "Because the issue of tenure is a personnel matter, I am not able to share the detailed rationale for the decision, although that has been provided to Dr. Gonzalez." Which to me means that there is part of the story that is not being told by your source and we have two ISU sources, Gonzales and Avalos, stating it is because of ID.Mathezar (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TBN Quote problem, I checked the link on the TBN quote and found that it referenced an article by Ken Miller that doesn't even contain the entire quote cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathezar (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I'm still waiting for your responce to the Gonzales section. If I don't hear from you I am going to rewrite that section.Mathezar (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I finally get why this post is so poorly written, it has been written and edited by people who haven't even actually SEEN the film. The are relying solely on reaction to the film in the media to write this post. Mathezar (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was unable to respond sooner, a rewrite will be welcome. Of course it must be based on a third party reliable source or sources, per WP:V, and any opinion or analysis of the film must similarly come from a reliable secondary source in accordance with WP:NOR. A straightforward description of the relevant section will be welcome, provided care is taken to avoid opinion or synthesis of facts. To meet WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE we must show mainstream views of the points made by the film, as provided by Expelled Exposed, Scientific American and by various film critics as well as other relevant secondary sources. Others will no doubt contribute to amending and discussing the rewrite. dave souza, talk 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If I rewrite the Gonzales section and use a direct quote from the movie, will that suffice, or will I have to provide a link to a third party website?Mathezar (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Direct quotes are fine, but they have to be shown in the context of independent third party secondary sources, and mainstream opinion. . dave souza, talk 19:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave, this sounds crazy, if I rewrite the Gonzalez segment I am not allowed to quote the movie itself if I can't find a transcript of the movie created by a third source? Is this post about the movie or reaction to the movie?Mathezar (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say that? You can quote the movie verbatim, you can describe it in a way that does not include any interpretation or views about the movie, and for such interpretation or views you cite secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. The section as a whole has to be based on a reliable third party source per WP:SOURCES, and we've got a couple representing mainstream views. The various arms of the Discovery Institute are too involved and unreliable to be treated as independent secondary sources for WP:PSTS, but can certainly be shown with attribution in the text such as "the DI said" or equivalent, to meet WP:QS. The context of mainstream opinion has to be given due WP:WEIGHT, and shown as described in WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:FRINGE. So, quoting the movie is fine, probably best done from the DVD or similar recording, opinions and context must come from secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I may be repeating myself here, but in an article on the film, the claims of the film should be given the most weight, whether or not they are true. Once that is done, contradicting views can be given (provided, of course, they are reliably sourced). This is not a place to hash out in great detail why Gonzalez or Sternberg or anyone else lost their jobs; they have their own articles for that. Rather the section should be something like "Expelled featured an interview with Flazlo Plitzzzmann, a former professor of biology at the University of Wasilla, who claimed he was fired from his job and ostracized by society because he once mentioned he believed in God. He claims everyone in academia are Satanists intent on destroying Christianity as we know it. According to the University, however, Plitzzzmann was denied tenure because he faked his credentials, and during his tenure review all he had to show for his three years at the University was a spec script for Gilmore Girls" (obviously real examples should be used int he article). The back and forth he-said/she-said stuff should be confined to the Plitzzzmann article. Keep in mind this article is not about Intelligent Design, so I'm not sure how fringe ideas enter into this topic so much. Other than reviews and opinions on quality, are there mainstream and fringe views about what the movie is about? -R. fiend (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless the film is a reliable source, the "claims" of the film should NOT be given more weight. An accurate summary / description of the content of the film is important, yes, but its impact on the real world (which includes the fact that notable scientist and other experts have gone out of their way to specifically debunk the claims the film) are more important. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The film is a reliable source on the film. That is what this article is about. This attitude that the claims of the film are of secondary importance to the film's article is silly, and not used for any other article. Look at the article on The Eternal Jew. Does it give more weight to the fact that Jews are not subhuman parasites, quoting experts on genetics, theology, and other fields, or does it describe the goddamn movie? It does the latter, and the views presented by that movie are most certainly fringe. Why is this movie singled out? -R. fiend (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave, heres the deal, and its been the deal since you've been involved in this article: you have no right to call anyone biased. To paraphrase a line from the Bible, why do you worry about the speck in your brother's eye, when you have a log in your own. Essentially saying: until you can act in a unbiased manner you have know right to assume that any of your efforts are unbiased and other's are not. I need to take this advice as well. I am in no way saying that I am unbiased, we all are. So instead of calling each other's efforts biased, lets try to see our own bias. Saksjn (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. My suggestion that Mathezar might have a rather biased take on it responded to accusations that sections are biased and that "The NCSE is not an unbiased source of information. They are as much as a propoganda mill as the Discovery Institute is." which is clearly out of touch with mainstream scientific opinion. We all have our biases, and article coverage is governed by WP:WEIGHT. . dave souza, talk 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I fully admit I am completely biased. That being said I checked out the "Bowling for Columbine" and "An Inconvenient Truth" pages I tend to agree with the comment that this particular post is a "hatched job" that other similarly controversial movies did not receive. My question is that if you are going to be allowed to cite expelledexposed.com ad nauseum then there should be no complaints using the Discovery Institute and similar sites as well.Mathezar (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Discovery Institute and similar sites are already cited, and although theirs is a fringe view and not a reliable source for any views but their own, their opinions or arguments can be shown and attributed provided that they're not given undue weight. You may have noticed that the other movies you mention have had a much better reception by film critics, and what you think of as a "hatched job" endeavours to give due weight to majority views. . dave souza, talk 19:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I take exception with The Discovery Institute being labeled a "fringe view," while the NCSE is not labeled the same way. Here is a link to a Harris poll on evolution (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581). This poll states that 12% think only evolution should be taught in schools, 23% think that only creation should be taught, 4% think only intelligent design should be taught, while a wopping 55% think that all three should be taught. The response that aligns closest to the Discovery Institutes position is 55% and the one that more closely aligns with the NCSE is a meager 12%. So whose is the fringe view on this subject?Mathezar (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

While speaking of fringe views, it appears that most of the harsh criticism of the film is itself a fringe view, based on the fact that this had the third biggest opening for a documentary, and the 12th largest gross for a documentary in the United States since 1982. Of course that information is not from a reliable source, since this is from the article itself, and everyone knows that Wikipedia is not reliable. Shouldn't we expect that a film that criticizes the scientific and media establishments should receive poor reviews from those same establishments? There are no unbiased sources - which is exactly the message that the movie contains.Donmore5 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that NCSE is not going to be an unbiased, reliable source on a film that basically accuses the NCSE of malfeasance, their statements on the film are certainly appropriate for the article when properly attributed. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the film received very poor reviews from across the spectrum. Attendance and gross sales have nothing to do with how a film is perceived. -R. fiend (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Gonzaelez section, as well others could use rewrites at least to an extent. If nothing else, this article needs more about the movie itself and less about the movie's subject. Why not rewrite the section and post it here first? Then it can be discussed and edited before becoming part of the article. As I said above, some of those sections now hardly mention the movie at all, and really need to be rewritten so they're actually about the movie. -R. fiend (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As above, I'm in general agreement with this, and posting drafts on the talk page is often a good way of getting agreement on a suitable revision. Look forward to the proposals, . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW Dave, have you actually seen this movie yet?Mathezar (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NCSE new website and changed links

NCSE changed to a new website structure, which changed links to the site.

Reference 90 Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Reference 126 Expelled Opens in Canada

If someone could update the article with the working links, that would be appreciated. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. But let me remark two things: First, you can certainly to such updates yourself. This is not a COI issue. If it leads to trouble, let me know. Secondly, a science-focused organization should very much try to stick to best practices. In this case, that means Cool URIs don't change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating on request. (1) Actually, an antievolutionist at After the Bar Closes was moaning about not being able to correct things on the main page, so posting the links with a request for update demonstrated that even as a new user, he could have entered something here, where it could be acted upon by an editor. (2) I programmed stuff back in 2006 to handle URL redirection in migrating to a new site, but apparently that either couldn't or didn't get used after I left when the site did get changed. NCSE's legacy web site says that they are working on it, but I don't think that it is a high priority. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Happy Darwin year ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the ADL's criticism be mentioned in the lead section?

I believe that the Anti-Defamation League's criticism is worthy of a sentence in the lead section. I recommend something like:

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League described the film as being an outrageous misappropriation of the Holocaust.

I'm not advocating that particular sentence, but I think that something to that effect should be added. What do others think? — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 11:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think some version Roger Ebert's description of the film ("cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.") should be somewhere in the intro. He's certainly the best known film critic there is. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are both minor details that really don't belong in the lead. Inclusion elsewhere is fine, however. -R. fiend (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The lead is not the place for criticism. It already is cluttered with over two full sections of it. Criticism is fine for keeping a NPOV, but that doesn't mean filling over half the lead with it. TheAE talk/sign 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Lead is already overjammed with criticism. Leave it for later in the article. Plazak (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead is the place for criticism, as specified by the WP:LEAD guidelines. The lead is meant to summarise the article, and so if the article is critical, the lead must be critical. The lead is not "cluttered" or "overjammed" with criticism; it simply reflects the fact that the weight of respectable sources are critical. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states, "...include mention of notable criticism or controversies..." So yes, it should mention the criticism, but that doesn't mean more that 1/2 should be of it. It says mention it, that is, says that there has been a big critical reaction to it and perhaps give a major one (for example, Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic), but that does not mean "we don't support criticism sections anymore, so put it all in the lead." Not at all. TheAE talk/sign 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all criticism should go in the lead. I'm saying that the lead should reflect the balance of the article. The body of the text contains a more detailed account of the ADL's response to the film, and I believe that this is worthy of brief mention in the lead. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead addresses the criticism and controversy of the film well. It doesn't need to summarize every individual example of criticism and controversy. The ADL's statement was no more notable than many others. It should, however be moved to the response section, as it clearly doesn't belong in the Canadian box office section. I'll do that if no one objects. -R. fiend (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

View of Bias?

I noticed that all of the writers of this "review" seem to be evolutionist themselves, therefore greatly swaying the results of the article.

This would not be a problem, however, the point of the film is being enacted even here on Wikipedia, on this page. Those with edits that disagree with the views here are reverted, and only those with the one sided bias remarks remain. Intriguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.224.176 (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a review. It is an article about a movie using reliable sources. I see no evidence of censorship of opposing views when they are using said sources. --Woland (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you wouldn't! Mathezar (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And what would be your insinuation there?--Woland (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing really, it's just that you probably see the NCSE as an unbiased source in regards to this movie (why else would it be so heavily cited in this post), and think that the Discovery Institute is just a propaganda mill. Never mind that the NCSE sees themselves as being portrayed in a less than favorable light (even though if you actually watch the film, there treatment was on a whole pretty fair), so how could they be an unbiased source? Mathezar (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The NCSE well represents the overwhelming majority expert scientific view, as required by WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. . . dave souza, talk 15:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave, how can you pull out a blanket policy (which I didn't even bother reading, because it does not address my point) and say that it can be applied to an organization that is attacked (or perceived to be attacked) in this film. NCSE is not a credible source for Expelled, period, end of discussion. Using the NCSE as a source for editing this post is like using GM Public Relations as a credible source for editing a post about Michael Moore's "Roger and Me."Mathezar (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The NCSE is a reliable source for science and science education, the film is promoting ID pseudoscience and these policies apply, as does WP:PSCI. Wikipedia doesn't do affirmative action to promote equal opportunity for minority fringe pseudoscientific views, we show them in the context of majority expert opinion on the subject. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave, Please either address my point or save your breath. You obviously don't understand what I am saying, or at a loss as to how to respond. Mathezar (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DRINK! Raul654 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Every time someone says this page is fine just the way it is, everyone take a shot! I'm getting drunk just thinking about THAT game! Mathezar (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(Rather than simply being an article about an unpopular film linked to an odd concept like The Secret or The Celestine Prophecy--T. Anthony (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't "an article about an unpopular film linked to an odd concept", it's an article about a propaganda film which features in a campaign, for example, to influence science education in the largest state in the US which determines its textbooks on a state-wide basis. With a creationist dentist in charge of education, anything is possible. Not as trivial as the "odd concepts" featured in the fantasy films you mention, though the articles on them don't seem any kinder. . . dave souza, talk 15:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, your paranoia is showing. Yelled at? Anyway, always glad to oblige with a quick reply. . . dave souza, talk 16:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about education, which is why I edit here. You've added a lot of words explaining that you're indifferent. Um. . . dave souza, talk 18:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Kids will get an education, or not, whether this article is a stub or the current behemoth. They might get a better education if they don't rely on Wikipedia. Still you have a point so I'll happily withdraw most of my words.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is biased. Acts as if the people who were in the film wouldn't restate there remarks and try to say they were "manipulated" ahha you either feel the way they did or you do not. They just didn't have time to pretty up there little words with persuasive garbage and not be as direct as they were had they known it would have been on a film. But it would have said the same crap. This article is CRAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.137.126 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it. You do of course appreciate that reality has a liberal bias. . . dave souza, talk 18:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Reality has a liberal bias," what is that supposed to mean? Mathezar (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's a catch phrase from the Colbert Report. It's intended as humorous, but I would say many liberals mean it when they say it. By "mean it" they mean the idea that liberalism corresponds best to reality. Hence liberal parts of America like Oregon and Rhode Island are doing okay right now while conservative parts of America like Nebraska or Utah are struggling with double-digit unemployment. (Scratch that, reverse it)--T. Anthony (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Go google: quote from this, see context. . dave souza, talk 10:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is biased

This article is very biased, it sucks.

Serriosuly, we already have an article on Creation VS Evolution, why continue the argument here, plus make it extra biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.37.204 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Aww, the shame. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the authors have been (to their minds) extremely generous. They are acting like Stalin in the old Russian joke, where after a long search an old Russian soldier is found who could offer a fond memory of his time fighting under Stalin. He says he saw the great man shaving and when he asked him what he was doing. "He said, 'Comrade, I am shaving.' Can you imagine the generosity of the man? Instead of slitting my throat right there, he tells me he is shaving!"75.62.147.110 (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction 2nd sentence

Thanks for working collaboratively to improve this article, Dave souza. I removed "academics who see evidence of intelligent design in nature" because I think we could improve its readability and clarity. I tried "academics who research intelligent design", in the sense that I just researched the lines on my hand, but I can see how "research" implies theoretical and experimental exploration of ideas and therefore isn't the best choice. Can we come up with something short and straightforward to use here? Would "academics who advocate intelligent design" work? It might be too strong. How about "academics who study intelligent design"? - Enuja (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The NYT as a good secondary source uses the "see evidence" formulation, the filmmaker's release says "believe in". My preference is for the former. There's also the self-contradiction in that the film promoters are claiming religious persecution of belief in God, while at other times denying that it's about religion. It's not easy to get the balance right, and the article has increasingly tended to treat the pseudoscience position as equal, in contravention of WP:GEVAL, so that needs improved. . . dave souza, talk 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If "academics who believe in intelligent design" is good enough for the press release, why isn't it good enough for us? The only objection I can see to the "believe in" bit is that Wikipedia isn't presenting the self-proclaimed "scientific" nature of "intelligent design", but since this is about the film, if the film says "believe in" that appears to me to be the best way to put it, at least in the second sentence of the introduction. We get into what this actually means for each person in the interviews of specific "expelled", and I think that's where it should go. I'd really like to keep the introduction as easy to understand as possible, and I simply get tripped up by "academics who see evidence of intelligent design in nature". - Enuja (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll go along with that. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it. Thanks! So why put both evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis in the second sentence of the intro? I understand the distinction, and think it's important to evolutionary biology, but I don't think that the movie makes the distinction, so the intro of the article about the movie doesn't seem like a good place to put both ideas. As it sits, the sentence doesn't explain the distinction but instead appears repetitious to readers who don't already know about evolution and the modern synthesis. In other words, I don't think it's appropriate or possible to educate readers about this issue in this intro, and the current version doesn't educate, it just confuses the uneducated. - Enuja (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation

A request for informal mediation has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-07/Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Named parties to the mediation are:

• dave souza
• Nerdseeksblonde
• Yopienso

I am offering my services as an impartial mediator for this issue. Discussion regarding the raised matter can take place at the Mediation link above.

Informal mediation is non-binding and seeks to find consensus. Although I am an administrator I do not exercise any of my administrative rights while conducting mediation. If any parties find me unacceptable as a mediator, please advise and I will attempt to find a replacement.

Manning (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm happy you're willing to help. I accept. Yopienso (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For information, mediation dropped i.e. case withdrawn . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Change

The actual percentage is 10% not 8% as the page says, it's a minor edit but I can't make it since the page is not editable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strictscrutiny (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I have updated this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Miller

Kevin Miller is now working on a film about Kent Hovind according to this press release. Should we include a note about that in the article? It seems as of yet that Miller is not notable enough for his own article nor is this new film. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see something more than a press release. Sometimes (I'm not speculating this is the case here) press releases are too much like "the checks in the mail" and it may be premature to put anything here yet. Good catch, though - I'll keep my eye out. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PZ Myers on the phone for the conference

Do we have any non-blog sources for that exchange? If not, I'm not sure it should be included in the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Partisan external links

Would anyone object if the critical and supportive external links were removed? That would leave an-already numerous seven links and restore some neutrality to the article.  Skomorokh  15:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a serious neutrality problem with the ELs, although the classification is a bit unclear. The NCSE and SciAm links are certainly notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, notability is not the threshold for inclusion of links. All the links fail WP:ELYES (if the "critical" and "supportive" headings are accurate) and I'm not sure whether any of them constitute "sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." (WP:ELMAYBE). I don't see how you could defend as neutral ExpelledExposed.com, which characterises the film as "anti-science propaganda". The SciAm compendium is a little less obvious, but it prominently includes Shermer as a reviewer, prominently links to articles titled "no integrity displayed", "Six Things in Expelled that Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know..." and "Never You Mine: Ben Stein's Selective Quoting of Darwin" and "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". The ARN link is more extensive, but still biased (it has a "Responses to Expelled Critics" section, but nothing similar for responses to proponents); the Discovery.org page is basically an inferior and more slanted version. The other two links are blatantly opinion pieces, and even if they were not would only be appropriate as external links (rather than inline references) if the article were in its larval stages.  Skomorokh  15:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

please tag

This article needs a WP:NPOV tag. --24.119.32.80 (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds? We generally don't like defacing articles with tags and thus compromising reader experience unless there are serious concerns. Thanks for the comment,  Skomorokh  04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the neutrality of this article - after reading it I believe it should be titled "Criticism of Expelled...". It is very one sided and examples of this are all through it - in fact the content of this article goes a long way in supporting the general overall claim of the documentary. Even the overview has language like "rather than","almost no attempt" and "instead" in where the author states how the film apparently failed to deliver. Even though I am cynical about the ability of the academia/science community to respond to something like this objectively I am still suprised (only mildly these days) that wikipedia editors can look at this and believe there are no serious neutrality issues. You are kidding yourselves. On what grounds? Basically 90% of the article! djambalawa (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reflection of what mainstream media and activist/indie media says (as per WP:V and WP:RS). Since the coverage of Expelled has been almost universally negative, this article is almost universally negative. I don't really know how to say it any better than how the administrators have put it= verifiability, not truth. The Squicks (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP is right. This "article" is nothing more or less than a refutation of the movie's premise. Agree or disagree with the premise as you wish ... but don't justify your editorial bias by claiming that lots of people don't like the movie. Your refutation of the movie's premise only serves to underscore the movie's premise. You would better serve science by letting the charge of bias stand and leave the read to make his own mind up, rather than pro-actively trying to take the movie apart point by point. What you have created is a debate where the editor's of this article get the last word rather than those who made the movie. 98.169.244.123 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is brought up frequently, and though I hate to say it in a way there is some validity to this. Obviously a movie that has been as universally panned as this should not obfuscate that point, particularly when it is the result of deception on the part of the filmmakers. That being said, the format of this article appears to me not to follow the standard of other articles on movies and the like. Generally, an article summarizes the facts of the film and its plot or thesis, as the case my be. Then, where appropriate, there is a section on response, which points out errors, inconsistencies, deceptions, etc. as cited by reliable sources. This one seems to counter almost every point immediately, and in some cases give preference to those attacking the film rather than the film itself. While the whole evolution/intelligent design debate should be covered here to an extent, I don't think it needs to be actually brought into the article to the extent it has been. I think it's improved from its earlier, more POV incarnation, but I'm not entirely convinced it fully meets NPOV standards. If the bunchofnumbers above and others who keep addressing this point could mention some specifics it might help frame a debate which could lead to improvements, which would be more helpful than vague assertions. -R. fiend (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe that this article lacks NPOV. Those editing the article appear to be using words and phrases that have a negative connotation instead of using more diplomatic ones. (ie "claims", as opposed to "according to"; or "alleges", as opposed to "reports" or something less inflammatory).

At the very least, I'd like to state that adding the tag for contested NPOV is simply an admission that NPOV is contested, not that the article is incorrect. 192.158.61.142 (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking through the archives, I see that people who are editing this article have a HUGE POV issue. They should voluntarily remove themselves from the editing of this article, as they cannot possibly edit in good faith on this topic. I came here from the Ben Stein article (Bueller, Bueller) and am horrified at the sheer unabashed nature of the bias. This was just after looking at Archive 12. "Reality has a liberal bias", "Happy Darwin Day", etc. and allowing edits from an organization criticized in this film is inappropriate. I propose that the editors of the Barolo article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barolo be asked to re-write this article, and hope for a NPOV outcome :).--74.209.23.88 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is completely void of objectivity. The author of the article clearly has the agenda of discrediting the film.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.157.58 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 October 2009

The film clearly has the agenda of discrediting science, as shown by the reliable third party expert sources used as a basis for this article. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dave, Why should you care if this film has an agenda? And the main "reliable" third party source for this article is NCSE, an organization that was made to look pretty stupid by the makers of this film. Remove ALL NCSE citations in this article and then I may listen to your other suggestions. Mathezar (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The NCSE well represents mainstream science, which this article required is required to show, giving it due weight and showing how mainstream scientists receive the arguments in this film as required by WP:PSCI. Whether or not you listen is irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"which this article required is required to show" Dave, You seem to be tripping over your words a little here. I reject the notion that NCSE is the main voice of the scientific community. That is simply a gross over simplification. I will make my point once again, and I will use small words so you won't get confused. The NCSE is not a good source for this movie, since they were made to look stupid by the makers of this movie. No one can make the intelligent argument that the NCSE is driven solely by their love of science when they attacked "Expelled." Mathezar (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Remove ALL NCSE citations in this article and then I may listen to your other suggestions". To begin with, this isn't about satisfying you. It's about writing encyclopaedic content that is in keeping with the content policies of the site. Obviously NCSE is a reliable source, and is recognised as such by experts. But more to the point, what do you want removed from the article? EE is used as a source for quotes from the movie. Are you saying that they misquoted it? Which ones do you consider misquotes? EE is used as a source for the opinions of the NCSE. If, as you say, "they were made to look stupid" then their opinion is highly relevant. If what you say is true, then NPOV requires that their views be posted. Finally, EE is used as a source for other statements in conjunction with other sources. In those cases, removing the link to EE would change no content, but would remove a reliable source that's readily accessible and easy to understand. So what are you asking for, and how would that request be in any way in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia and its governing content policies? Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a great idea. Use Expelled Exposed, but put all references to that website in it's own section (a subsection of response to the film). But make it clear that Eugenie Scott, the head of the Exec Dir of the NCSE, was portrayed unfavorably in the film and that Expelled Exposed was created by the NCSE. I would just like to see the "information" put out by the NCSE to be put in some sort of context.Mathezar (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying you want all the quotes from the movie separated and moved into their own section, along with the commentary from the NCSE? What sort of sense would that make. If you have problems with the material that's sourced to EE, you need to explain why you think that material shouldn't be there. So let's start with something specific: which of the quotes from the movie, sourced to EE, do you believe to be inaccurate? Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been battling some editor names Charles Somethingorother over the inclusion of the lie that Sternberg controversy section of the article. There is a blatant lie that I tried to remove, and in response I was accused of vandalism! I really don't want to play the game of battle of the quotes in this article because it is already long enough. But if I am going to be falsely accused of vandalism I guess I can play the same game that the editors of this page have been, that is loading up this page with numerous quotes. So to answer your question the part that says that Sternberg circumvented the peer review process is a flat out lie, and is taken directly from the talking points given to those involved at the Smithsonian by the NCSE.Mathezar (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you think statements by the NCSE and the Council of the Biological Society of Washington are "lies" and so want to deleted them because, um, you sorta Know they're lies? These are reliable sources, if you've got a reliable source disputing their statements do please present it here rather than edit warring to remove properly sourced information. . . dave souza, talk 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the circumvention of peer review is a lie then it should be removed. Now, what evidence do we have that it is? Without a good source for that we have little to go on. NCSE is in general a reliable source, but in this case we have a film attacking them, so a defense of "the attacks against NCSE are unfounded because NCSE said so and they're a reliable source" is going to carry all that much weight. -R. fiend (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, Shermer and the BSW ignore that in less-politicized statements, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian, admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer's paper:

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process. (See Report, e-mail from Roy McDiarmid, "Re: Request for information," January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM to Hans Sues, emphasis added.)

This is from the Discovery Institute website and is a direct quote from page 24 of the congressional inquiry into the matter. The original source is clearly unreliable (and a lie even though I have been told that Wikipedia is not necessarily interested in posting things that are true). Mathezar Mathezar (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "congressional inquiry into the matter" note that "The report prepared by Rep. Souder, who had previously expressed pro-ID views, was never officially accepted into the Congressional Record."[4] You're putting the spin of an unreliable source up against reliable sources. Roy McDiarmid said it was "a really bad judgment call on the editor's part" and "acknowledged that the paper had been reviewed by three scientists and recommended for publication pending revisions. Doubts have been raised, however, whether the reviewers were evolutionary biologists."[5] That was before the publications, and there appear to have been other irregularities in the Sternberg peer review controversy which is the main article on that topic. .. dave souza, talk 09:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, The article does not address Sternberg's judgment at all!

He circumvented the journal's standard reviewing process to include the controversial paper, which argued that the development of phyla during the Cambrian explosion was not fully explained by evolution. The Society subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.

It seems pretty clear the way the this post was written that "He circumvented the journal's standard reviewing process." Am I missing something, or are you just circling the wagons here? I am not denying that the BSW changed their tune after the fact. But, I think that the earlier sources are the more reliable ones. And to question the veracity of the government report is just plain nonsense. If I was using the entire report to make my case I might concede you your point. But I am focusing on the quote from Dr. McDiarmid. Do you have any evidence at all that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication? Please get your facts together and get back to me soon. Mathezar (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So Dave, what is your response? Does this post address Sternberg's "lack of judgement," or does it simply say that "He circumvented the standard reviewing process"? Do you have any evidence that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication? Based on the facts, how can anyone agree that this passage should remain in this article? I apologize for being a little heavy handed here, but when I am accused of VANDALISM for trying to improve this article, especially when the facts should be justification for what I did, I will admit that I am taking this attack personally. And why you got involved in defending this nonsense about Sternberg without backing up your claims with the facts that is more than a little annoying to me. Mathezar (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Your silence is deafening. Mathezar (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And your rudeness is amazing. He's a volunteer, and its the weekend. He's not your employee, and you're not his customer, that there is any time constraint on him to jump when you want him to jump. Are you this peremptory to waitresses too? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not been rude to Dave, nor am I a vandal. Nor did I accuse editors of lying. I just have little patience for poorly thought out arguments :) Mathezar (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're being very rude, but if you lack the manners to wait patiently until Dave posts, or if after a week or so he hasn't responded place a polite message on his talk page to ask if he's seen this and politely request a response, then at least have some tiny bit of courtesy for the rest of us, who do not want to see you clutter up the page and have to wade through you bitching at Dave in order to find the posts with actual content trying to work out how to improve the article. Right now, you're just rude spam at one editor. Stop it. Its not polite, and its against talk page guidelines. Learn some patience, and treat your fellow editors with respect. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My intent is to remove the portion of the Sternberg article that claims that the Meyer paper was not properly peer reviewed. The above quote shows that it was peer reviewed PRIOR to its publication by Dr. McDiarmid. This quote clearly shows that the BSW source used in this article was a fabrication dreamed up by the BSW after they were called on the carpet by the NCSE. I think a couple of days is enough time for someone to attempt to rebut the aforementioned facts, at which point I will simply remove the erroneous passage. Mathezar (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources commenting specifically on this film state the peer review was not done properly, you're producing an unreliable source unrelated to the film quoting a partisan report and trying to synthesise a claim that the reliable sources are wrong. You seem to be proposing taking your arguments up on the talk page of the Sternberg article which is the right place, but don't remove properly sourced content. Talk first, preferably presenting your arguments and sources before adding what appear to be fringe view arguments into the article. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I reject the validity of the sources saying that the peer review process was circumvented at the article claims. You are free to find any source that says the congressional report misquoted McDiarmid. The source you posted regarding the McDiarmid quote confirmed what was in the congressional report. If the standard of reliable source is that they cannot be from a biased source and it has to be part of the congressional record then I would say that all the sources in this article should be tossed in the bin. I am not proposing adding fringe views to the article, I would simply like a properly sourced lie removed from the article. There were two parties involved in this controversy Sternberg and BSW. In this Wiki article Sternberg's side of the story has been all but ignored because it is seen as biased, but can't the same thing be said about the BSW's side story? But instead the BSW's lie has been bought hook, line, and sinker. Mathezar (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"you're producing an unreliable source unrelated to the film quoting a partisan report and trying to synthesise a claim that the reliable sources are wrong." No I haven't, I am using a quote from a congressional report that is undisputed to make the point that Sternberg had properly followed the peer review process. Like I said before you are free to present ANY evidence that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication. It seems funny to me that labeling someone pro-ID is reason enough to have them branded an unreliable source, but sources that are anti-ID don't get the same treatment. Mathezar (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As shown by the cited source, the partisan report organised by Rep. Souder is indeed disputed, and you're taking your quote from the discredited Discovery Institute, noted for quote mining. Your personal view giving credence to such sources does not alter the point that the NCSE and Scientific American are reputable sources on science and science education, giving mainstream views and not the fringe views promoted by the DI. . . dave souza, talk 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the CURRENT position of the BSW is what is represented in the article. But it is in direct conflict with a reliable quote from the president of the the BSW made earlier (ie Sternberg followed proper peer review procedures, and then no he didn't follow them). They both cannot be correct. This raises enough doubt about either quote that niether can be seen as reliable. So any mention about the peer review process is thus tainted. Mathezar (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The structure of the article itself seems to be more of a critique of the film, rather than a description. Each section is followed by a rebuttal, instead of simply presenting what the movie was about. All of the criticism or debunking should be left to a "Criticism" or "Reception" section, instead of being integrated into every paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.252.83 (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal fails WP:GEVAL and WP:STRUCTURE. . . dave souza, talk 19:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wow. The bias in this article is absurd and ridiculous. This is simply a liberal critique of the film, and is completely geared towards negating the movie. This article needs some serious improvement. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 02:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reactionary opinion is unsupported by the overwhelming majority of reliable third party published views about the film. Remember that reality has a well-known liberal bias. . . . . dave souza, talk 10:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" is not only a nonsensical statement, but it is also a completely arrogant statement. How could you even pretend that this article is not biased? In the opening paragraph it states that One of the few positive reviews appeared in Christianity Today. Not only is this untrue (because I have found numerous credible sources that give a positive review to the movie) but it is also a direct smear on the movie. This article is geared towards shining a negative light on the movie RATHER than talking about the perspectives and viewpoints given in the movie. The amount of predilection and bias in this article is definitely in plain sight. Maybe try reading WP:NPOV. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the link Dave souza provided? Reality -- as well as neutrality, evidently -- does indeed have a liberal bias to people who feel that anything that doesn't conform to a conservative viewpoint must be liberal. I guess your user page shows where you stand.

Wikipedia must reference sources that comply with two policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The "bias" you perceive in this article is merely a reflection of what the sources say. If you can find more acceptable sources, or clean up the article, go for it. Better yet, suggest your changes here. That would be far more productive than whining about "liberal bias" when something conflicts with your personal views. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is liberally biased does not mean it conflicts with my personal views. You're right, the best thing for me to do would be to attempt to add neutrality to this article -- unfortunately, I fear that every attempt I make will be reverted (judging on viewing the page history and previous archived discussions on this article). I think you're getting the word "reality" confused with "human populace," because reality can be synonymous to sensibility and validity. Perhaps the human populace has an INITIAL liberal bias, but that doesn't mean that reality is liberally biased. The reason I'm saying that this article is biased is because the "reliable sources" listed do not reflect a neutral perspective on the movie (since this movie did not solely receive negative reviews, there is a plethora of positive reviews from reliable sources that I have found). -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources, may I congratulate you on your user page quote from Harun Yahya, the only man to find proof of Divine Creation in a fishing lure, complete with hook. There must be a parable there. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Be nice, ask for the reliable third party sources that support his POV. Please CTS, post them here are lets discuss them. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here are a few reliable sources for the movie that can be used:
Screen Rant Review
American Spectator Review
-- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Very good. One more or less neutral source and one admittedly non-neutral source. Both are well written and thoughtful reviews. No matter. Now, how do you suggest they be incorporated into the article? Do you have any text to suggest, or existing text you might modify? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think one place to incorporate these reviews could be in the lead. The lead is currently slanted towards the negative reviews of Expelled. I don't think we should remove the negative reviews from the lead, but I think we should integrate one of the above reviews into the lead as well. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't the purpose of the lead section in any Wikipedia article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is for summarizing the body of the article. If something isn't mentioned in the body, it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.

I think most of the reviewer comments currently in the lead don't belong there; it's enough to say that the film's reviews were "largely unfavorable" and provide some primary reasons, and use the Reception section for explaining details and providing quotations.

A quotation should go in the lead only if a particularly notable review or reviewer said something. Any detail about reviews should go in the Reception section. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that the lead is summarising a section which itself is a summary of Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The two new sources found to support the idea of many positive reviews fit the pattern, but were not noted at the time as far as I recall, possibly because the reviewers are not among those chosen by aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes as significant enough to feature. Any rephrasing of the lead has to give due weight to the majority expert opinion of reviewers, and Rotten Tomatoes summarised that. At the same time there were a minority of more or less favourable reviews: Screen Rant Review has an interesting summary – "Short version: Your opinion of the film will with almost complete certainty be predicted by your opinions on Darwinism vs Intelligent Design." The term Darwinism does of course imply an opinion swayed by anti-evolution sentiment, as the term doesn't have that meaning in science, and there were reviewers whose politics would have suggested support for the religious right who thought it a badly made film. So, add these to the other reviews considered in the detailed article, and lets see if we can work out a suitable summary for this article. . dave souza, talk 10:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. The only reason people would make such an article is because they are infuriated because Ben Stein made them look like fools. Not only is the article more biased than any other page on wikipedia, but it is defended and called unbiased by people who claim that they have "the majority" and "expert critics" on their side. The article is written subjectively and is defended with highly subjective language. The fact remains that even if 99.9% of people on earth support one side of an issue, the other side should be represented, even if the other side is considered entirely ridiculous by the vast majority of people. I hope those who believe that "the 'experts' are always right" will come to remember people like Einstein and Gallileo, who proved them all wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.169.94 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. What you suggest doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy, specifically the one about undue weight. If 99.9% of reliable sources agree in their view on a subject, then that view should get proportional coverage in an encyclopedia article. That's the way neutrality works. Wikipedia isn't a forum where all sides get equal time. Wikipedia merely reports in a way that doesn't give undue weight to one side, based on what verifiable and reliable sources say. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Er...would that be the same Galileo who was initially told by the church authorities that his heliocentric theory of planetary motion could only be discussed as a hypothesis, not as observed fact, because it contradicted certain verses of the bible? Later, before his works were banned altogether, he was instructed by the pope to give equal weight to the geocentric view in his writing, and to include the pope's own words. Any of this sound familiar?--Charles (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The anon's argument is a Non sequitur. Galileo wasn't an encyclopedia, which has the purpose of reporting consensus based on verifiable and reliable sources. Scientists and researchers don't share that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The other anon's argument may not be entirely correct, but its point remains valid. Besides, for the representation that is present in that article to be the way it is, 100% of people would have to be completely against the film. (please note that not everyone who believes in the Bible follows the pope). And if what you people say about "a person's opinion of the film is directly related to their views on evolution vs. creation", then the vast majority of people would actually be in support of the film. It is truly absurd when people ignore truth because of technicalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.169.94 (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the first time I've seen the Galileo Gambit used seriously. Well done BON. TheresaWilson (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Sentence

I reverted a good faith edit of the 2nd sentence just now (reason for the edit was that the sentence was long and unweildy), not because I disagree that it's too long, but that the edit took out information that might be important to have in the lede. I'm up for discussion about trimming it down without removing important content, though. Quietmarc (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One Question?

Shouldn't sections, or at least portions of 2.3-5 be put under Reception, and given the subtitles of Controversy of the Film? Other articles on WIKI do this type of structure when a topic, as well as its issues that it brings up become this extensive. --AKIRA70 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I ask this question because of the vast amount of inferences and implied language in the article sections 2.3-5 which seem to subtlety imply the reviews for and the reaction of the film, and not directly stating summaries of the film (More like what happen behind the scenes). Either as an attempt to shed light behind the scenes or a reaction, nevertheless, should be put in a different section. Possibly since this article has even acquired a separate article titled "Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", maybe they should be put there.--AKIRA70 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexpelled, Should it be removed?

I saw that the Dawkins video "Sexpelled," is both mentioned and linked in this article. Has anyone taken the time to watch this video. If I may be so bold as to offer up my humble opinion, it is childish, moronic, and should be considered beneath the editors of this article.

I propose that it be immediately removed. Does anyone want to try to defend the intellectual "value" of this particular video? Mathezar (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone has a problem removing "Sexpelled," from the article. I'll delete it in the next day or so unless I hear from someone. Mathezar (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sternberg peer review controversy 2

I am again proposing that the section of the Sternberg section that states that he circumvented the peer review process be removed. Based on the quote from BSW president Dr. McDiarmid. The quote is contained in the Souder Staff report (link here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489 ) and reads as follows:

I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process.

Dave Souza claims that this quote cannot be used as reason to remove the section in the Sternberg section, claiming that the source is not reliable and that the report was never entered into the congressional record. But has failed to produce any evidence that the quote is false or a fabrication.

To be clear I am not using the findings of the report as a reference, merely the quote. The quote is not disputed at all that I could find, and it definitely casts doubt over the Sternberg section as it is currently written (ie he circumvented the standard peer review process).

Based on the facts, I believe it is appropriate to remove the section of the Sternberg article that falsely accuses him of circumventing the peer review process.

BTW, Dave, with all due respect, I know your thoughts on this (even though I will admit I feel that we are talking past each other on this issue), so please don't bother to respond to this post unless you can provide direct evidence that the McDiarmid quote is a fabrication. Mathezar (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:HEAR WP:DR. You are becoming disruptive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The master of the baseless accusations strikes again. Mathezar (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have an entire article on this: Sternberg peer review controversy, so it seems whatever we say here should reflect that article. I looked over it quickly, and will look into this matter when I have more time, but it seems that the article in question was peer reviewed, but there have been credible, widespread accusations that the review process was flawed. Why don't we just say that here? That seems it would go a substantial way towards building a consensus and trying to make sure the article is NPOV. -R. fiend (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the above article is that Sternberg was the sole reviewer. He claims that there were three others, but cannot or will not name them. The list of peer reviewers for that year is missing. Meyer's paper has been repudiated by the journal. Given these facts describing the review process as flawed seems to be putting it politely. I do not agree to removing the section.--Charles (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking a bit more carefully, it seems you summed it up pretty well. Perhaps the article should basically say what you just did? Although I do have concerns about getting overly detailed on this single point.

Anyway, Mathezar, I think the place for you to bring up the quote you're so adamant about would be at Talk:Sternberg peer review controversy; it's really out of the scope of this article. -R. fiend (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

R. fiend, Thanks for the advice. Where were you a week ago when I was battling Dave and Killer Chihuahua for what turns out to be no reason. I have posted something on the Sternberg discussion page. We'll see what happens there. If my argument works there I'll be back! Mathezar (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have read the Sternberg peer review controversy, and find it more balanced on the peer review process than R. fiend and Charles have made it out. The most biased statements regarding Sternberg appear here and at Richard Sternberg. So I am raising my concerns on the Wiki post that is devoted to Richard Sternberg. The interesting thing is that besides complaining about Sternberg's refusal to name the peer reviewers (which may or may not be abnormal) there is very little specific information that Sternberg did anything wrong. And for this he is assumed to be a liar by the editors of Wikipedia. Hmmm.

R. fiend, if I get a concession for the McDiarmid quote there, will that suffice to get the peer review section changed here? Mathezar (talk)

I'm not taking sides with anything or making any promises. It seems to me people on both sides of the argument are letting their personal opinions effect the article, which ain't good (I think the extended argument over the propaganda category was a prime example of that). Likewise I have some qualms about the overall tone of the article, but factual accuracy is a more important matter for the time being. We need to keep in mind that the Sternberg peer review issue is just a couple sentences out of a very long article (too long, in my opinion, but that's not the issue here), the details of which belong in the article on the controversy itself. This article should summarize that one very briefly and succinctly, which at the moment it seems like it does, though certainly there's always the possibility of further compromise on the phrasing.

Now, as for withholding the names of the other reviewers, I can't say with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure that is highly abnormal, and a very questionable action. Doing so in itself appears to "circumvent the journal's standard reviewing process" which is not the same thing as saying no peer review of any kind occurred. Honestly, I haven't examined this controversy in any great detail, and would like not to have to, but it seems that the most the McDiarmid quote would do is give support Sternberg's case. But there's a difference between giving support to a side and proving the other side wrong, which the quote in itself isn't going to do. I can't see it being a slam dunk. That being said, while it doesn't belong in this article, I don't know of any reason it should be excluded from Sternberg peer review controversy, though again, I haven't examined the issue in any detail. -R. fiend (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• In response to the above statement, "Now, as for withholding the names of the other reviewers, I can't say with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure that is highly abnormal, and a very questionable action." That would have to be verified.

I am unable to access this journal online, but found Google turns up "Results 1 - 10 of about 13,900 for anonymous referee Biological Society of Washington. Also, "1,772 articles found for: anonymous referee Biological Society of Washington" at This site says "Two anonymous referees improved the quality of the manuscript, for which we are grateful."

In addition, the Fish Physiology and Biochemistry journal lists referees with the disclaimer, "This list does not include the anonymous reviewers of papers submitted to the journal by the editors." Also, the official journal of the Society for Developmental Biology follows this rule:

Type of Peer Review

This journal employs blind review, whereby the referees remain anonymous throughout the process.

There are many other such references, so it's safe to say Sternberg followed standard procedure in permitting or choosing anonymous reviewers. You can bet he would have already been thoroughly roasted by his critics had that not been acceptable. I am unable to find more detailed rules regarding submissions to the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington beyond this that says "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees."

Much more importantly for the purposes of this discussion is the fact that Nature magazine reported:

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design

Jim Giles

Abstract

Critics of evolution score publishing success

A new front has opened up in the battle between scientists and advocates of intelligent design, a theory that rejects evolution and is regarded by its critics as another term for creationism. A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/431114a.html

The Scientist.com likewise reported,

It was the first pro-ID article to be published in a refereed publication, raising concern among some scientists that it might be used to enhance the academic argument for intelligent design.

Read more: Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/38440&id=38440#comments#ixzz0gE5W5Syx (Registration required.)

Yopienso (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Copyright controversies of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is just a clunky, useless mess that duplicates mostly sufficient material that is already on this article. The information that appears there but not here should be trimmed down and merged. Seregain (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

agreed. trim ... trim... trims are warranted here.Professor marginalia (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to make sense to me. Such controversies aren't staggeringly important anyway. -R. fiend (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Yopienso (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Concern regarding transfer of some material and references

Specifically, I have a two part concern over whether the material regarding Professor PZ Myers is worth saving.

First of all, Myers' expertise is in the field of biology. He's not an expert in the fields of law, film and computer animation, so I don't really see how or why his views about the issue of the cell animation sequence have any relevance. If the XVIVO people were alerted to the issue by him, then that would warrant a mention of his views in and only in that context, but I don't see any proof of that at this time.

Second, I know Myers has a rather fanatical group of followers online (many of whom probably edit here) who think he's the best thing since sliced cheese. I don't want to be the instigator of a bunch of strife due to the removal of material regarding Myers. Seregain (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

From a quick glance, I don't really even think a merge of any sort is required. The relevant information is already presented here. These aren't huge controversies; they're a few cease-and-desist letters and some minor litigation, the sort of which happens every day. I'd almost say it's given more space than it needs in this article, let alone its own article (whose reason for existence in the first place seems pointless). -R. fiend (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The copyright disputes made a big stir on skeptic blogs, and the coverage in them had a very different bent than that adopted in the mainstream media. You are quite right to point out PZ Myers has no background or expertise in copyright law, but his influence is so huge in the region of the skeptic blogosphere that he creates his own weather. Since blogs are self-published, the yardstick used on wikipedia should mirror how the dispute played in the mainstream. In the skeptic blogosphere, the emphasis was on Intelligent Design support vs evolution support (intelligent design and science have no bearing whatsoever in legal copyright disputes), while in the mainstream, Expelled's copyright controversies were viewed as fair use free speech rights vs copyright holder property claims, with free speech advocates battled against copyright holders. The disputes dissolved into non-events IRL very early on, [prior to the Expelled film (and/or) DVD even being released] and 90% of the dispute (from start to finish) went completely unnoticed outside of the do-it-yourself publishing sphere. I doubt anyone new to this story would come away with anything close to an accurate understanding of these dynamics from the articles at wp, and probably because the articles rely too heavily on blog junk that fueled the controversy rather than secondary sources reporting on the controversy.

Now that the film's furor has quieted some, I hope that editors have relaxed enough to take a more dispassionate look at the treatment this film is given on wp, including this dispute. Oftentimes at wp the disputes in articles covering controversial topics encourage parties to over-do things, but it's correctable. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I haven't carefully investigated the copyright disputes, so I, too, am in the "quick glance" category here. Idea: Why not basically scrap what's been written (with due apologies to the editors who spent time writing out those details) and quote from the Stanford Law School?

Lennon v. Premise Media--Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial documentary about a contentious issue: whether proponents of intelligent design are being unfairly silenced in academia and beyond. It has been shown on more than 1000 theater screens nationwide, and its producers have drawn praise from some circles and scorching criticism from others. Right or wrong, good or bad, it's a film that explores important issues of free speech, faith and science. In exploring theses issues, the Film uses a fifteen-second clip from the John Lennon song "Imagine" and critiques what it suggests is the overtly anti-religous message embodied in the song, both explicitly and implicitly, by suggesting the absence of religion from society can have terrible social consequences. Yoko Ono Lennon has now sued the film's producers in federal court. EMI, the record label that asserts ownership in the recording of song has also sued the producers in state court. Both seek an immediate injunction forcing the removal of "Imagine" from the film. We have agreed to defend the producers of the film in both actions. The reason is simple. The right to quote from copyrighted works in order to criticize them and discuss the views they represent lies at the heart of the fair use doctrine. The lawsuits filed by Ono and EMI threaten important free speech rights that need to be defended. Watch this page for more information as the case develops. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/lennon-v-premise-media

The more I think about it, the more I think this brief summary clearly describes the case and is worthy of inclusion. Yopienso (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There again, I advocate dispensing with self-accounts and looking to secondary sources as the guide. "The right to quote from copyrighted works in order to criticize them lies at the heart..." etc. is a sales pitch from an admitted defense advocate, and that's all. Yoko Ono tried to enforce John Lennon's property rights--but I don't know many would agree that John Lennon's views "lie at the heart" of the disputes raised in this film. We'd need other uninvolved sources to provide that kind of analysis. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon's views don't "lie at the heart" of the disputes raised in this film! The right to quote him does. If you scroll down on that Stanford page, there's a link to the official document from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, that, while hardly "uninvolved," may be assumed or at least hoped to be impartial. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/EMI+v.+Premise+PI+Order.pdf The Court denied both the Plaintiffs' motion seeking an injunction and the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A silly squabble, no? I was actually trying to find out who made the animation and got sidetracked into this case. Yopienso (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The point is that the issue was never decided - the quote above was not written by any judge, it was public relations written by an advocate. We can't scrap the text here and replace it with a quote from an advocate arguing on behalf of one party in the dispute. That won't do. So all that was decided in court was that there was not enough evidence on Ono's side to support the injunction, and there was not enough evidence on the Expelled side to dismiss the case either. Neither side won. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. If a lawsuit against you fails, then you won. That you didn't get the case dismissed earlier doesn't mean you didn't win. Seregain (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They didn't win in a courtroom, and they didn't score a "free speech" victory either. Ono eventually dropped the case, but by then it was late in the film's release cycle and the damage was already done. Stanford Fair Use Project claims it a "win" even while admitting to the chilling effect of the suit and TRO -- those were sufficiently effective to get the song clip removed in DVD production. The producers wouldn't or couldn't take the risk, caving while the case was still pending. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case, both of these issues ultimately went nowhere, so I don't think they need any more detail than what is already on the film's article. Seregain (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I reduced the sections here, keeping what's newsworthy and eliminating the tabloidy rumor chasing. I couldn't find anything else worth merging from the other article. It was a WP:POVFORK if ever there was one--largely blogorrhea with too much replay of the self-published commentary of strongly biased bystanders with no expertise or relevance to copyright disputes. It's not encyclopedic-it's eristic. The fact that Expelled prevailed in each case is well concealed from readers. Just get rid of the whole thing. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The 'ayes' have it. So let's just do it. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I've started a conversation over on the talkpage about merging it into this article. Would welcome opinions over there. WordyGirl90 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Length of article

This is fantastic. You could spend more time reading this article than actually watching the documentary. The movie grossed $7.7 million. This is barely 1/3 of "Supersize Me", which has an article of more reasonable lenghth. No matter what you feel about the debate, this article is not the place to air these feelings. There are other articles which talk about the ID/Evolution debate, so go there. This article shows Wikipedia's bias and why it shouldn't be taken seriously. Mr2b (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The information is well sourced, and is required by WP:WEIGHT policy; "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Other policy requirements including WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL, and the WP:FRINGE guideline, also apply. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember this from when I posted here. As I said then I'm sure you know films on minority or fringe views rarely if ever get articles this long or vehement. Loose Change, one of the longer of such articles, is less than half as long as this. America: Freedom to Fascism and What the Bleep Do We Know!? also do not garner this attention. This article's length/exuberance is large about the importance of "planting your flag" and making it clear where Wikipedia stands on an issue of critical importance to Wikipedians if maybe not readers or society. (In Wiki-world ID seems to be far more important than things like 9-11, quantum physics, tax policy, or what have you)--T. Anthony (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with "where Wikipedia stands" other than standing for complying with policies and guidelines. Those other films you mentioned didn't generate nearly the same level of response from critics. Therefore it's appropriate that a Wikipedia give proportional weight to a film that every critic seems to have an opinion on, regardless of its success at the box office. That said, I do agree this article could use a bit of careful trimming. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!? - Box Office $10,658,111; Reviews Counted:74. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) - Box Office $7,499,617; Reviews Counted:41. I think I'll let that speak for itself and grant the others I named are comparatively obscure.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely agree. When you talk about the level of response from critics, do you mean professional film critics, or people critical of the movie? The view of actual film critics is certainly very significant to any article on a film, but in this case did they do any more than just condemn it as a poor movie? We seem to be largely going on what people critical of the film say, even when they have an axe to grind (which is not necessarily a bad thing). A point I made before, and which I feel I should repeat, is that this film, rightly or wrongly, directly attacks several science organizations, and this article seems to take those organizations at their word because they are considered reliable sources. But in this case they are not impartial. It is unfair, in any situation, to say "Y accuses X of deception and malfeasance, but this accusation is unfounded because X says it is, and X is a WP:reliable source."

That being said, I don't think it's correct to compare the length of this film to some of the ones mentioned above (e.g. America: Freedom to Fascism and What the Bleep Do We Know!?) as Expelled is a much higher profile movie with a very widespread release. It is and should be longer, but could still, in my view, really use some trimming. -R. fiend (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know was a battleground much like this article. Articles that touch on issues deemed "pseudoscience" by skeptics are often mini-battlefields on WP. This article is not just about the film, though, but also encompasses the numerous controversies surrounding it. There were copyright controversies, the employment disputes, the accusations launched by participants in the film who claim they were "duped" into appearing. The way the promotion of the film invited its use in rallying support for "academic freedom" legislation was another controversy. Naturally these are factors in its length. However, I'd agree there are still npov problems here-especially in the area of the employment disputes where this article's tone definitely reflects the voice of "one side" of the argument. (Disputes like this should always attribute the claims rather than characterizing them as incontrovertible "facts". And when it comes to disputes between employer/employee or provider/client, frequently everyone involved is being carefully disingenuous to some degree.)Professor marginalia (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made some headway cutting back the fat. The article doesn't need to exhaustively detail every promotion and every media appearance, it doesn't need to footnote every adjective uttered to describe the film, or attach paragraph length quotes onto every claim or statement given. It shouldn't chase every baseless rumor that showed up on a blog somewhere and beat it into submission with multi-paragraph rebuttals. But there's a lot more to do here. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Middle Ages or Martin Luther

I reverted the beginning of Christian anti-semitism from Martin Luther to the Middle Ages, not because I object to naming Luther, but because it was virulent long before him. The blood libel is one example. I did not intend to exclude Luther from the article; his writings doubtlessly contributed in some measure to Hitler's twisted logic, perhaps as much or more than Hitler's extrapolations from Darwin. Yopienso (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue with this passage is weight given to "some guy's" opinion. (blog?!) In any event your reasoning is flawed...it's not about whether or not anti-semitism began with Luther, but about how to best reflect what those writing about this film said in their arguments. If the film was criticized by mainstream media for blaming the Holocaust on Darwin when it should be blamed on Oprah Winfrey, that's what the article should say. Editors can't replace it with their own logical conclusion that since Oprah wasn't born yet the film was criticized for "blaming the Holocaust on Darwin rather than Luther." That's why attribution is so important-if that's what the critics said, that's what they said, regardless whether their remarks hold up. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "the undue weight from some guy's blog" refers to. I linked to a Fordham U. page of Prof. Paul Halsall. The footnotes for mentioning Martin Luther link to two entries from the blog of some guy. The "some guy," however, like Halsell, happens to be quite distinguished, and, as I said, I have no objection to including Luther in the article. I don't like naming Arnhart in the article, but it said "historians," plural, and until we find another historian to join Arnhart, that would be inaccurate. I don't really like the way I put in dates for Darwin and Luther, either, but as the text stood, I believe it could have confused many WP users who are not well versed in their history. We have to remember that we aren't writing for ourselves but for the general public, who, believe it or not, can't reliably be expected to know Luther was three and a half centuries before Darwin. We should do our best to prevent confusion, not engender it. Stylistically, I don't like leaving "Christian" in that sentence, either, and I perhaps naively assume the general reader would know Luther was a Christian. I have left it so as to avoid any conflict with any zealous editor who wants to make sure the point is not missed. I am not questioning the certain fact that the film blamed the Holocaust on Darwin rather than Luther. More than 2 footnotes seemed pointy. What do you think about this alternate wording?

Criticism has been directed at Weikart's arguments and at the film's application of them for highlighting a weak putative connection between Darwin and Nazism while ignoring the important influence Martin Luther's Christian anti-Semitism had on Nazism.[38][39]

This part is true and certainly rounds out the picture, but I wonder if it's pertinent to the article: "...along with other more direct causes such as the economic ruin of Germany after World War I and the racism and antisemitism dating back over seven centuries before Charles Darwin." Arnhart doesn't say that, so it seems to be WP:OR.

Or just quote from Arnhart himself: "Weikart insists that the traditional 'Judeo-Christian ethic' was opposed to Hitler and Nazism, but he ignores the importance of Christian anti-Semitism in Germany (beginning with Martin Luther) in shaping the cultural roots of Nazism." Yopienso (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, we do need to specify "Christian anti-Semitism," oxymoron that it is. The point isn't that Luther the Christian was an anti-Semite, but that his anti-Semitism was a doctrine he presented as Christian. Yopienso (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the wrangling on the main page over whether "Luther" or the "Middle Ages" were examples used by the sources. Luther was mentioned on the Arnhart blog only-the NCSE referenced the Middle Ages. There are 4 references cited for the discussion--two of them to Arnhart blog entries. (One more example of the level of overkill here.) WP requires a solid justification before using any blog as a reference.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

David Berlinski

See our article on Berlinski. [[6]] He's not an ID proponent despite the fact he opposes evolution. My guess is the DI embraces him because they imagine his degrees add luster to their organization. Yopienso (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How is he described by those criticizing his remarks in this film? Without very solid references, what justification is there to attach to the film's participants labels they don't self-identify with? (aside-DI embraces anyone willing to align themselves with the org. Big Tent is part of their stratagem to dislodge the materialistic dominion within the sciences). Professor marginalia (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP comes into play here; we can't repeat what his critics say if it's not true. Apparently he believed in intelligent design back in 1996. http://www.arn.org/docs/berlinski/db_deniabledarwin0696.htm But he presently distances himself from it:

David Berlinski says: September 9, 2007 at 8:54 am I have never claimed to have a Ph.D in mathematics from Princeton University. My Ph.D. from Princeton is in philosophy. This is what my resume says; it is how I am described at the DI website; and it is how I am described on the dust jacket of my books. If there is a website that claims otherwise, I revile and denounce it. As long as I am correcting misapprehensions, I might add that I am a critic of intelligent design and not one of its supporters. In this regard, you might consider my essay “Has Darwin met his Match,” in the December 2002 issue of Commentary. It is devoted perceptively to attacking Johnson, Behe and Dembski. I cannot say that my friends at the DI were pleased to see what I wrote, but they were made wiser by reading it. My feelings toward intelligent design remain what they have always been: Warm but skeptical. Nonetheless, I regard the general hysteria about these issues as intellectually disgusting. As for the question why so many editors are interested in publishing what I write, I suspect that this is because so many readers are interested in reading it. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=596

And Mr Fletcher is correct in finding the hypothesis of intelligent design unacceptable. http://www.davidberlinski.org/news/

Having rejected Darwin's theory, I have also rejected intelligent design as an alternative — and in the pages of COMMENTARY, no less ("Has Darwin Met His Match?," December 2002). http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/32898317/DAVID-BERLINSKI-writes

I believe we need to remove the assertions in the article that Berlinski is an ID proponent. Yopienso (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He's associated with the Discovery Institute-no ambiguity there. I would identify him as such and move on. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Stein/Dawkins dialogue

So a new bit has been added excerpting the interview between Stein and Dawkins. I don't really see the point of it myself. For an article that is far too long already, it just adds more clutter (and it may be a copyright violation). It's been reverted twice but has been reinserted each time. Rather than edit war I thought I'd bring it here. Keep it or cut it? -R. fiend (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

One editor (contributions) has been re-inserting this dialog since February. Others revert this as irrelevant, unnecessary, and possible copyright violation. Consensus is clearly against including this dialog. Edit warring won't change the consensus, either. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I don't see any "critical commentary" that would justify the use of copyright material. And yeah, beyond that, I don't think it's an improvement to the article. Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For Consensus to occure all involved must agree.

And when I asked just what the limit was for quotes multiple editors suddenly found other things to do.

So I'll ask again just what is the limit for quotes?

--Dashbullder (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Consensus isn't a synonym for unanimity. It means general agreement. Look it up.

Your question about limits for quotations seems rhetorical. It's irrelevant. The consensus is that the quotation is inappropriate and unnecessary in this already-too-long article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

irrelevant? there is a limit on how long a quote can be before it's a copyvio right? --Dashbullder (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, irrelevant. You know quite well there is no official guideline on that point.

But that isn't the issue. The issue is relevancy. If I told you "no more than four lines" would be OK as copyright fair use, that wouldn't mean 4 lines of script are appropriate for inclusion in the article. Quoting any lines from the script are unnecessary and inappropriate, regardless of the copyright. It's far better to summarize the dialogue, if it's important enough to be mentioned at all, and reference a source where a reader can read the script. It is not appropriate to copy source material verbatim into this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

All quotes are copyvios. Fair use allows limited copyright infringement for the purpose of critical commentary. It's not the length of the quote so much as it is the lack of critical commentary. Guettarda (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Berlinski re. Nazism

I've changed Berlinski for Weikart in the overview regarding who links Nazism to Darwin. I think the passage would be better yet if no one were named; that information comes later in the article. Berlinski did make mention of it, but not as strongly as Prof. Weikart. Yopienso (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I see a lot of problems with this article beyond the "copyright" section. It's just waaaaaay too long and unwieldy. (I suspect a number of editors with a chip on their shoulder against this film have kept adding more and more negatively biased material over time.) I have already removed a little bit or non-notable cruft per WP:UNDUE, but there is a lot more material that needs to be severely trimmed down or just outright excised. Seregain (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject of the article, but my impression is that the article appears biased and filled with weasel words (both ways). That needs cleaning up. Wikipedia articles should be neutral on any controversial subject, and I don't believe that this article is "neutral". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.231.154.65 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Header

Might as well start at the top, right? <<smile>> The header should be trimmed down. In particular, the last two paragraphs should be merged into the body in appropriate areas that already exist. A lot of the material in those paragraphs is duplicated within the body anyway. There's no reason for it to be in the article twice. Seregain (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For the problems this article has, I think the introductory section is not bad. It's pretty NPOV, accurate, and it sums up the article decently (or so it seems to me). Such sections are supposed to summarize the article, and hence a bit of redundancy is expected. I do think this article has problems, and I would like to see an effort to improve it, hopefully largely through the work of editors without an axe to grind, which would be a change. So far it seems this article has been a tug-of-war between those people ardent ID supports and those who think that this film is tantamount to a Goebbels work. We need people here whose sole intent is to create an accurate NPOV article, not to try to promote ID or "set-the-record-straight on the film's 'lies'". -R. fiend (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I don't want to start a fight with anyone. (Had enough of that already elsewhere!) I'm completely fine with the first two paragraphs of the header. They match the style of the vast majority of other articles about films. The last two paragraphs are completely out of place and unnecessarily duplicate material in the body. It seems more like someone put them there in order to put undue emphasis on criticisms of the film in a manner that is definitely not NPOV. Seregain (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how giving a good bit of weight to criticism is undue, when the film was poorly received in general, and due weight means we have to reflect that. Auntie E. (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's reflected in the body. Why duplicate it in the header? It can be summarized in the header, which is what I typically see on articles about poorly received films. Seregain (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead section should not contain anything that is not covered in the body of the article, but it should give an brief overview of what is in the article. That is not unnecessary duplication. The current length and content of the lede looks OK to me.--Charles (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the headers of several other film articles in which the films received negative reviews and none of them go into such detail about the reviews as this one does. The article already has a section in the body that details the negative reviews. That should be sufficient. They do not need to be detailed in the header, only summarized as in other film articles. Is the information so hard to find in the article that it needs to be included in the header? Seregain (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Compare and contrast a few examples:

• Catwoman (film) - 10% on Rotten Tomatoes, summary of critics' response in header
• Cop Out (2010 film) - 19%, nothing in header
• Couples Retreat - 11%, nothing in header
• Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare - 12%, nothing in header
• Love Happens - 18%, nothing in header
• Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - 19%, nothing in header
• The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film) - 16%, summary in header
• Alexander (film) - 16%, summary in header
• Gothika - 15%, nothing in header
• Collateral Damage (film) - 18%, nothing in header
• The Beach (film) - 19%, nothing in header
• Hide and Seek (2005 film) - 13%, summary in header
• Bad Company (2002 film) - 10%, nothing in header
• Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 - 13%, nothing in header

So we see that typically nothing is mentioned in the header or it's a summary with little detail. So why is this film's article so different? And how much do you want to bet if I changed those films' article headers to match the style of this one (I won't because I know that's frowned upon) that it would be quickly and rightly reverted? Seregain (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the examples you give are too short per Wikipedia:Lead section#Length. Some are reasonable for the relative article length. For this longer article the four paragraph lede is correct. There is no reason why improvements to the other ledes would be reverted.--Charles (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is in a class apart because of its support of intelligent design, not because it was widely panned by critics. Let's be frank--it has been very difficult for some editors to step back a little bit, distance themselves, and realize how thick it's been piled on here, just way over-the-top. It's much improved from what it looked like one or two years ago, but nobody can take much pride in it yet imo. I think the fact that it was strongly criticized by scientific institutions, critics and half the interviewees featured in the film should be mentioned in the intro. But it's pretty transparent that some have gone cherry-picking to plump up the intro with a half dozen juicy and stinging quotations just to get their kicks in ;). The irony involved with applying propaganda techniques to attack a piece of propaganda has been lost on more than a few who've contributed over these couple of years. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Expelled's Website

Looks like what's presently footnote 2, as well as the external link to the movie's official site, is outdated. I can't find a home page for the movie. Yopienso (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Finishing Darwin's quote

OK, when I have the time we'll discuss this. Remember, you said I could give the entire quote if it was in a review about the movie. Please give your reason(s) for deleting it. Since Fitzhugh says it shows Stein was twisting Darwin's meaning, wouldn't you want to include it? Yopienso (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A few points. Firstly, the article's already big, and it's questionable if it's adding anything useful – SciAm didn't find the extra material worth including. Technically the material is in an addendum to a review, and the publication of review itself isn't clear – is this a teaching aid, a review for student use, or what? More importantly, you didn't add the entire quote, you missed out the first part of the first paragraph and you added your own misleading editorialising as original research. In my view the added bulk of providing the paragraphs in full reduces clarity, and the whole thing is readily accessible from the linked sources. However, if others want to include all of the two paragraphs, then reformatting it with italics on the lines of Fitzhugh's pdf would be easier to read than the current bolding. . . dave souza, talk 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article certainly is big! I've gone back from the beginning and found lots of copy-editing that needs doing, which may be a more productive use of my time. The article's not protected at present; should I just go ahead and make changes open to reversion, or lay out suggestions here first?

I'm guessing Fitzhugh's review was made-for-internet. (Scroll down here; part of his job is educating the public.)

Missing the first part of the quote was an oversight. Had I included it, I never would have done my "editorializing." To me, it says he doesn't really need to get into the subject since it's been so admirably handled by the other gentlemen. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R.Greg, and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. A resounding approval, no? I'm wondering if there's a way to append the entire two paragraphs in smaller print so it's right there on the page but not obtrusive or distracting. Yopienso (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The eugenics connection

Oh, I see you asked me not to reinsert this part without discussion, not the Darwin quote. (Please do consider restoring the second paragraph of the quote as per Fitzhugh.)

That was a flawed and hasty late-night edit for which I apologize. Still, our current article buys into the notion that there is no link whatsoever between Darwin and Hitler. Although by no means do I believe nor am I asserting that Darwin was responsible for Nazism or even eugenics, I cannot deny a link can be traced in just the same manner the Inquisition can be traced back to Paul of Tarsus and from there to Jesus of Nazareth. In tracing this link I malign neither Darwin nor Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Eugenics
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html

As time permits me, I hope to insert reliably sourced, pertinent information about this as it relates to the movie.

PS I had this almost finished but was called away. Will consider Dave Souza's intervening posts and respond as able. --Yopienso (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to focus on the film, what the film says, and what notable figures say about elements in the film. Any tendency for editors of this article to delve beyond claims made in the film itself or claims by notable figures speaking directly about the film goes beyond the scope here. This article cannot be a stage for debating the Darwin/Hitler issue. It is only for describing what the most notable commentary from those debating this film have said in relation to the Darwin/Hitler issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well put, and what I meant by "pertinent information about this as it relates to the movie."

Fitzhugh, a curator at the NHM in LA, in his hostile (negative, not rude) review, directly addresses that point, but does not deny the link. He says, "Such a charge, whether tangential or spurious, can in no way impugn the credibility of the scientific merits of evolutionary biology." I heartily agree.

Michael Shermer, the anti-Creationism/ID activist I personally find most reasonable, logical, compelling, and respectful, admits in his review, "It is true that the Nazis did occasionally adapt a warped version of social Darwinism proffered by the 19th-century German biologist Ernst Haeckel in a 'survival of the fittest races' mode." To deny that fact is dishonest, and our article must dig itself out of that trap. Yopienso (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"But this rationale was only in the service of justifying the anti-Semitism that had been inculcated into European culture centuries before. Because Stein is Jewish, he surely knows that the pogroms against his people began ages before Darwin and that the German people were, in Harvard University political scientist Daniel Goldhagen's apt phrase (and book title), "Hitler's willing executioners."" See also the rest of Shermer's comments on the preceding page and after that paragraph. To omit that context would be dishonest, and Shermer is talking about the general allegations in the film rather than the specific quote mining of Darwin, so the comment wouldn't belong in this specific section. As it happens, Shermer's brief statement can be contested, both because the term social Darwinism got its current meaning well after the rise of Hitler, in 1944 during the war, and because the concepts under that label predated or differed from Darwin's views. Not as simple as it looks. . . dave souza, talk 20:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm truly shocked you appeal to Goldhagen's fringe nuttiness.
  
• This is the popular understanding of Social Darwinism. You are correct that it is technically a misnomer, or as Stanford labels it, prolepsis. But I don't think we should fault Shermer on this technicality. You may wish to peruse Daniel Gasman's also controversial but much better supported and received views on Haeckel and Social Darwinism.
• I absolutely agree with Shermer's entire paragraph "From Haeckel to Hitler." IMO his review is far better than ours. Certainly I'm not contesting the fact that the secondary theme of the film is "...that Darwinism inexorably leads to atheism, communism, fascism, and could be blamed for the Holocaust. "! (The primary is the shunning of ID by the mainstream.) Our article already copiously covers the fact that Stein links Darwin to Hitler. What takes Expelled over the boundary between historical fact and shameless propaganda is that it "proves" Darwinism inexorably leads to all those social evils. What takes our article over the boundary between historical fact and shameless propaganda is that, unlike Shermer, it refuses to acknowledge the influence Darwinism and its extrapolations had on Hitler. Yopienso (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Eh? I was quoting Shermer, who you absolutely agree with – or do you?
• Offtopic, as not directly related to the film, but interesting that particular definition of Social Darwinism describes it as views propagated by Spencer long before Darwin published his theory, Stanford disputes how much Spencer really held these views. Gasman's thesis is from the early 1970s, not sure how much it's accepted nowadays.
• Darwinism meant many different things, and it's a matter of scholarly debate just how much Häckel's views differed from Darwin's. As a matter of interest, Häckel held the racist view that human races could be graded, with German Jews along with other Germans at the top. Don't think Hitler was much influenced by that idea. . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• My egregious bad on missing your quotation marks and reading Shermer too quickly. (At least you weren't calling the Germans Hitler's "willing executioners.") What I was agreeing with was that this was merely to justify what had been a centuries-long antagonism.
• Gasman is current. Here he argues that Stein, in Expelled, correctly links "the social Darwinists of the 19th century [sic] with the National Socialists of the 20th century." He and Robert J. Richards of the U of Chicago had a running feud a couple of years ago. Presently, Gasman is in the mainstream. (See bottom of p. 2 and footnote 4.) That could always change! [Another off-topic but interesting tidbit: Stephen J. Gould says in regard to Social Darwinism, "...the initial nineteenth–century meaning referred to a specific theory of class stratification with industrial societies,..."]
• I'm familiar with Haeckel's tree with the Jews right up at the top with the Germans and other whites. Nick Matzke says Haeckel was an anti-Semite. Of course, he may be sacrificing Haeckel to save Darwin. I just read and ponder...and when I find something reliable, add it to WP.  :) Yopienso (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please let's everyone leave the "off-topic" digressions off the page. Refocusing on this topic, (were claims about Haeckel featured in the film?) was Gasman published anywhere? If so, is his view of claims made in this film notable? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. :P No, to the best of my knowledge, Haeckel's not in the film. There's a link above to Gasman's review of a rival's paper; his introduction mentions the film and supports Stein's claim. I suggest his statement be given equal weight to that of Larry Arnhart's blog, along the lines of:

Daniel Gasman, though disdainful of Stein's attempt to condemn evolution on the basis of its link to Nazism, points out there is, in fact, "a historical connection between the social Darwinists of the 19th century with the National Socialists of the 20th century."[1] Yopienso (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Arnhart belongs either, and have said so before. Get rid of it. This article has been something of a hobbyhorse, but it's time for it to grow up and follow the same rules as other reputable articles at wikipedia. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)